Hummingbird

According to what I've read Leonardo is behind the actual design. Hence why I consider it Italian.

Well, PIRATE is italian, so... I guess they'd need to call it F-2000

Great to hear we're getting close now! Lots of great things on that list, I'm esp. looking forward to correct STR, so that the F-14 becomes the beast it should be in this area again Having to relearn the buffet AoA range is not too big of a deal IMHO, comes after a few hours of intense BFM practice in my experience The stores drag adjustments also sound great. Will be interesting to see if weight & drag with phoenix pylons on/off is modelled.

The MiG-21Bis does appear to have an advantage over the F-5E at low speeds in DCS atm, that much I can confirm. This is in rather stark contrast to the available performance charts, which indicate that the F-5E should enjoy a noticable advantage in sustainable load factor up until around M 0.8. For comparison:

Same here, however I'm afraid it will be a long wait considering the small size of this team.

F-15D's are often used as aggressors, hence it would be nice to do DACT with, something I personally practice a lot.

Like I've said before, I am hoping they add it as a possibility later on. Hence it wouldn't influence the release date at all. In short I'm not asking RAZBAM to set everything aside to add this configuration straight away, I am merely suggesting they add it later, as it's a freedom we have and enjoy with the other modules in DCS. Most of them should be F-15E's. But you do realize you posted pictures of several versions of the F-16 as well, right? Or that the entire point was that whilst the F-15E doesn't fly operationally without the CFT's, neither do F-16's or F/A-18's fly operationally without wing pylons, yet we're able to configure them completely clean in DCS. In short the argument that because F-15E's don't fly without CFT's operationally, they shouldn't be allowed to do so at all in DCS, is the one that's invalid if you ask me.

Come on now.. Using your own logic: Does this mean the F-15E flies like this often, or operationally? Does a F-15C fly without wing pylons often? No, but it can if need be. Same as the other teen series fighters can fly in all sorts of configurations if need be. And like I said before, some us might want to simulate an F-15D (Like the Japanese one in the pic above). In short this is all about being able to do what can be done, and not being restricted to only what is usually done, which is a freedom we have with basically all modules so far; If a pylon can be taken off, the possibility is made available, end of. Why you guys want to continue to bark and be negative toward anyone expressing the wish for the CFT's to be removable, is beyond me.

The same is true for many pylon types on these aircraft, they are non-jettisonable and almost never taken off as well, yet we're are able to completely remove those. Take a moment to consider why the F-15E performance manual includes EM charts for performance without CFT's? Because the ability to operate without them is there should the need somehow arise, however unrealistic that may seem. Have you ever seen an F-16, F-15 or F/A-18 operated completely clean without pylons outside of an airshow display? No. Yet thankfully we're able to run every single one of them clean, and experience them this way. Yet wishing the same from another module (something which is std. for basically every module), is suddenly frowned upon because a few people love to sound clever... I don't get it.

There is no data presented beyond the projected limit of 7.5 G, which was extensively flight tested to (and also beyond, but that data isn't listed), as this was the projected operational limit of the aircraft had the number of airframes ordered not been cut short. Claiming "a lot was simply extrapolated" is very misleading, small gaps in between data points were filled in, sure, but that is the same for every EM chart for every aircraft. You simply can't do tests at every single knot, or even every 10 knots, but you don't need to either as you can precisely estimate the performance within much larger gaps between data points; and flight performance testing is naturally conducted within sufficiently close speed intervals that the estimated performance in between the data points can be kept accurate. In short the performance curves on these EM charts are to be considered highly accurate within the speed & G limits listed, that's the whole point of them. So again, I suggest we stick to what extensive flight testing, and professional estimates based there'on, tells us, rather than anything purely anecdotal.

These estimates are based on exhaustive flight testing, hence obviously very accurate. To argue against them would require you have a long list of extremely precise empirical data to contradict them, which you do not. So I suggest we stick to the charts, just like with every other module.

Well Clmax changes with the mach number, so I wouldn't say it's entirely that straight forward. As for the 1 G stall speed in the low 90's, that's in landing configuration if I'm not mistaken, so full flaps & slats, which is quite a bit different from the maneuver setting these will be in when in a turn at 0.48 TMN at 50,000 lbs. However at the 44,800 lbs Spurts later mentions, or about 11,000 lbs lighter than the lightest configuration on the available charts, I can see 9 G instantaneous being achieved at as low as 318 KTAS (0.48 TMN). Not at 50,000 lbs though, to hit 9 G at that weight the cat would have to go a bit faster. The baseline here is that at 55,620 lbs and 5 kft, 7.5 G instantaneous is first attainable at ~0.54 TMN (357 KTAS), which means that at SL this would be attainable at around 0.48 mach (318 KTAS). If we then scrape off 11,000 lbs of weight, so that we're at the 44,800 lbs Spurts mentions later, then 9 G at that same speeds appears entirely reasonable indeed. In short I don't have any reason to believe that HB got the ITR or Clmax vs mach wrong for the F-14. The only issue that I've identified with the FM is in the lack of sustainable rate/load factor (Ps=0), where thrust & drag suddenly become important. Wether it's incorrect thrust or drag that's the culprit however, only the devs know.

and then people will complain that they're saying nothing. Now I don't know about you, but personally I prefer a rough timeline over no word at all. At least we know it's close.

Was never talking about the A. Was saying that if what you said is true, i.e. that the empty weight of 43,735 lbs for the B/D listed in NAVAAIR is with Phoenix pylons on, then it should be a good deal lower without said pylons, as in clean empty weight. Meanwhile the DCS F-14B has a clean empty weight of 44,040 lbs, no pylons, no tanks.

Interesting, well that would put the empty weight quite a bit too high in DCS. Probably important getting this right before performance tweaking is finalized, unless there's something we're missing here? @IronMike @fat creason

Im sure they will let us know when it's close.

F-14B vs F-14B+ & D maybe? I just had a look at the B+ & D manual, which lists 43,735 lbs. Perhaps 135 lbs of extra avionics.

So I can confirm that there is no change in weight with or without pylons. Starting with a completely clean aircraft, and adding just one AIM54, and the weight increases from 60,759 lbs to 61,800 lbs, so a 1,041 lbs increase for a single Phoenix. Seeing as 1,041 lbs is the weight of the Phoenix missile itself according to all the sources I have, it would appear that the weight of the pylons isn't added. Clean empty weight of the F-14B in DCS is 44,040 lbs. Clean empty weight of the real F-14B/D is listed as 43,735 lbs in NAVAIR 01−F14AAD−1. @IronMike I think this is worth looking into.

I'll check later today Dalan.

Sounds about right for that weight, however the speed for it seems a bit low perhaps.

One big advantage the F-16 has in terms of drag during a turn is its negative stability in the pitch axis, basically eliminating trim drag and adding the horizontal tail plane as an additional lifting surface.

Best (or worst in western eyes) they can do with the aircraft as far as I can tell is sell them on. Maybe even to Russia and/or China if there are any novel avionics systems in the aircraft they might be interested in studying. Don't think we need to fear them using them, at least not very effectively.

Actually if you change nothing but the altitude the rate goes from 16.1 to 18 deg/sec for the F-14B. Accounting for the drag and weight reduction of losing all but 2 sidewinders, and you're looking at over 19 deg/sec at SL. In other words the F16C and F14B are about equal in STR if the load out is similar. And whilst the F14 has the advantage of achieving its max STR at a lower speed, the F16 has the advantage of extra available energy to be converted into the vertical at its max STR. As for the F/A-18C, I believe it should be lower than both the 14B & 16C in max STR with similar load outs, but not by much. Thing is without any official EM charts, its impossible to tell for sure. This all concerns the aircraft IRL ofcourse, not how they currently perform in DCS, where both the F16 and F14 are suffering. But it's being fixed, so that's good. I do hope they increase the F16 pilots G tolerance in DCS at some point too though, because that's one very real and noticable advantage the real F16 has over the others.

- The whole chart is for 5000 ft altitude - The max lift curve is the ITR (instantanous turn rate) curve - The Ps=0 curve is the STR (sustained turn rate) curve, with the "0" meaning zero altitude lost. Hence the Ps=-400 curve for example is sustained rate with an altitude loss of -400 ft/s, whilst if it was +400 it would be 400 ft/s gained etc.. Hope that makes sense For the same rate it almost always will be, as induced drag at max instantaneous rate usually is way over the thrust that is available. Thus the speed at which any load factor (G) or rate is first reached is always going to be lower for ITR, and higher for STR.

Good to hear! Ofcourse, I was just checking in You're misinterpreting the chart a bit Lurker, the maximum rate (ITR) shown is actually 22 deg/sec @ ~0.5 mach and 6.5 G's (peace time limit), and would be 23 deg/sec @ 7.5 G (projected war time limit) at 5 kft. (There's another chart showing this) The airframe of the cat could however easily take 9 G's and still be fine, featuring the same ultimate load limit as the F-15C. Infact the wings were statically tested to 13.3 G's at combat weight before exhibiting plastic deformation. According to those tests the first thing to fail were gonna be panels around the engine nacelles at around 11-12 G's (around the same G some electronics would fail too). In short the cat was built incredibly rugged, and had to be considering it had to endure high impact carrier landings every single day whilst subject to a very corrosive environment. That said, in the same configuration as on the chart the ITR of the F-14 could concievably hit ~28 deg/sec @ SL, but at 9 G, not 7.5 G. Ground crew probably wouldn't be happy with you if you did that a lot though...