BlackLion213

Thanks guys, I appreciate the thought nonetheless. :) -Nick

Cobra changed his avatar again. His current one is a Tomcat helmet with VF-84 markings. Here is how it was first posted on the LNS facebook page: In short, it's another Tomcat reference. -Nick

Nice video. Though if I get any more fired up, I'll simply burn to the ground...(insert combusting emoji...but we don't have one). :) Though, this video reminded me of a few funny coincidences regarding the Tomcat's combat record. The Tomcat (in USN service) shot down 5 aircraft - 4 conventional and 1 Helo (Mi-8 ). The conventional aircraft were all Libyan, one encounter in 1981 and another in 1989. 1. Both types of aircraft shot down were also Variable Geometry fighters (Su-22 and MiG-23). 2. Also, the aircraft side numbers were weirdly similar between the 2 encounters: 102 and 107 in 1981 and 202 and 207 in 1989. 3. Also, in spite of the F-14s unprecedented BVR ability, 4 kills were made with the AIM-9 and 1 with the AIM-7 - showing the huge influence of ROE in how an encounter proceeds. Anyway, bit of Tomcat combat trivia. -Nick

This sounds awesome! You're not kidding about the Gazelle being a lightweight machine. It's empty weight is less than that of a Mazda Miata...but with 590 shp! Thank you for your impressions. :) -Nick

Yes, it is excellent for a FSX/P3D aircraft. The flight model approaches those in DCS (by feel that is), but doesn't quite match it. But for the serious Tomcat fan, it's as good as it gets until the LNS Tomcat is released. I fully expect the LNS Tomcat to be a major step forward over the Aerosoft versions (based on my experience with the MiG-21), but the Aerosoft version is well done for an FSX add-on. -Nick

I agree. The TF30s were really troublesome for me at first, I would have 3-4 compressor stalls/flame-outs per flight - and not when I was trying to provoke them. ;) After a few weeks of flying and learning things like how quickly to move the throttles and avoiding adverse yaw at high AOA - I stopped having them. It was a surprisingly big change after just a bit of practice. If you fly the F-14A as the manual recommends, keeping out of trouble isn't too hard, at least during normal operations. ACM could be a different story, that will also take practice. You just need to respect them and they will serve you well. Learning how to do that is a big part of the fun. :) In any case, the F-14B will have none of these issues. Those F110s are pretty indestructible. -Nick PS - I agree with the Captain, the LNS F-14A will probably be more nuanced with the engine modeling and stalls. The Aerosoft version is excellent, but FSX/P3D limits the accuracy of limiting stalls. Still, I really appreciate what they accomplished - it got be back into sim-ing.

I fly the MiG-21 a lot (like ~65-75% of my DCS time) and I didn't notice a change with DCS1.5. In fact, I had been spending sometime learning the BF109 and FW190 so I didn't land the MiG for about a week. My first landing I wasn't very diligent about watching my approach speed, got a bit slow at the threshold and bent the left mainmount on touch down...it's still pretty easy to do on my machine at least. ;) -Nick

+1 :thumbup: -Nick

So...I believe that is a circa 2009 FC user mod. Luckily, this is not a case of industrial espionage. :P http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=41294&page=4 -Nick

I don't think it was 35,000 - 30,900 is what I read and I think that comes from an article written by RADM Gilchrist in the early 2000s (discussion of Super Hornet vs Tomcat in an aviation magazine). It doesn't get quite the bump that the TF30 sees, but it definitely makes more power with speed. You're right - the TF30 performed well in the Tomcat at low altitude and speed. The Tomcat's long, straight intakes really help the TF30 to make thrust at high speeds, but they also cost both the TF30 and F110 thrust at very low speeds. My recollection of performance: Engine____Installed________Static______SL@M0.9 TF30_____17,077_________20,900______28,000 F110_____23,400_________27,600______30,900 Installed thrust takes a hit (thats installed at SL and airspeed of 0 kts), but the TF30 gains 33% from static at M0.9. The F110 gains less (11%), but that still is a ton of power. :D Flying fast and low-ish, the TF30 doesn't feel underpowered. Head up to 20,000' at mil power or less - different story. :( The F110 doesn't feel underpowered anywhere - all I have to say is double dirty immelmann... ;) -Nick

No need to antagonize.... Plus, a watched pot never boils. :) I think if we step back a bit and take a break from speculation, we will be pleasantly surprised. I'm instead focusing on really learning Nav/instrumented approach in the MiG-21 and actually learning how to fly the F-86F - it's look is much improved with the new bare-metal in DCS1.5. You'll go crazy if you are expecting the announcement every day for months - ask me how I know. ;) -Nick

That looks great! I'm not much of a helo guy, but I definitely plan to get the Gazelle - it's an intriguing design and the Polychop screen shots are impressive. It also sounds like it might be done soon. Reading some of the translations, I feel like there may be sort an agreement (informal or otherwise) among ED and the 3rd parties to not discuss release dates till they are ready for pre-sale or release. Thats just a guess, but I've gotten that impression else where as well. In any case, this looks excellent and I'm excited to try it out. :) -Nick

I think that will speed up once they announce their 2 other modules. But I know what you mean about impatience...I've never been this excited about software. :) Though I do have an F-14 questions for Cobra or Rudel: Are you planning to discuss the F-14 theater in the near future? Or will that happen shortly before the F-14 Beta release? -Nick

This is pretty recent if you haven't seen it - just 6-7 weeks ago, but part of their September update. Sounds like their plugging along and there will be a bunch of people working on it soon. -Nick

I've heard the same. Supposedly, the TF30 powered Tomcats could break Mach 2 easier. More thrust above Mach 1.7 and 30,000 feet is no surprise (though I haven't seen the charts). It was also a great engine at low altitude. Near mach 1 and sea level it makes 90% of the F110s thrust. One retired VF-14 pilot commented that the TF30 was a beast at low altitude, but he would have liked more thrust from 15,000 to 30,000 feet - thats were there was the biggest gap between the TF30 and USAF DACT opponents. Since ACM/DACT always have a hard-deck of 10,000' - most Tomcat crews didn't get to experience the impressive low altitude performance with any regularity. One advantage of being a TARPs pilot was the opportunity to fly the aircraft at low altitudes and better understand what the TF30 could do down there. Like you said, the combination of less than ideal thrust between 15,000-25,000' with reliability issues during throttle changes was complimentary - Zone 5 during maneuvers was never too much thrust, so no need to move the throttles. From what Dale Snodgrass has written, he has experienced lots of everything, compressor stalls and control departures. But he really knew how to make the Tomcat dance, opponents were often amazed with what he could do. Supposedly, he also experimented with asymmetric thrust as well - in the F-14A. Many F-14B and F-14D crews would use asymmetric thrust in DACT, but using it in the A was ballsy. I'm sure LNS has found some good SMEs, perhaps even a few famous ones. -Nick

I've heard the same, the TF30 was a bit more cruise efficient than the F110. It was a rather efficient engine in general, especially at low altitude - unless you are using the afterburners - then fuel consumption is quite huge. I also cracked open the F-14A flight manual and learned a bit more about the TF30s interesting, but bad habits. So the TF30 commonly exhibited 2 forms of compressor stalls: brief, self-recovering stalls - the "coughs" and hung-stalls - the ones that cause big troubles. The "coughs" are very brief stalls that make a loud noise (not always loud, loudness correlates with engine RPM and altitude), but does not damage the engine or cause an interruption in power. It's the TF30's "shot across the bow", since it occurs under the same conditions that will also lead to "hung stalls". Hung stalls are the trouble makers, the real compressor stalls. When these occur, engine RPM will decay, thrust drops off, and turbine inlet temperature will rise. The engine does not respond to throttle movements (except shutting the engine down, or sometimes retarding to idle if your lucky). Interestingly, the TF30 is less likely to flame-out under these conditions than most engine, which is part of the problem. If the pilot doesn't shut down the engine, the engine will continue to heat-up and will catch fire. If a hung-stall occurs at normal airspeeds, the engine generally needs to be shut down completely and briefly wind-milled to cool. If not, the engine can catch fire during an attempt to relight. These are the classic behaviors mentioned in the manual. There's also other things that can happen including catastrophic failure (though this is much less common with the 414A variant) and inlet buzz. Anyway, I found it interesting and I'm hopeful that these behaviors make it into the LNS F-14A. -Nick

Yes, it seems quite ambitious, but they keep saying that they have theaters for release with their 2 modules. Plus, all of their updates still say a release this year with the theaters shortly thereafter. I hear that LNS is now ~10-12 people, so they do seem to have a lot of manpower - 3x more than they had for the MiG-21. We'll see if they can pull it off. This part why I'm so anxious to see these theaters or at least know more about them. -Nick

So do you also sit down at a restaurant and inform the waiter or manager that the food isn't that great and it clearly has no future? Why bother to show up in the first place? If you think DCS is no good, why bother talking about it? Devote yourself to something that you like. Seriously, I'm asking.... -Nick PS - Because we're not lemmings. It turns out that I'm the leading World Expert on what I like. ;)

It would be less effort to do a JA-37 in the Black Sea Map, but it would also be much less interesting and still "mis-placed". I think that Leatherneck's primary goal with their pending releases (all 3 of them) is to create a total simulation, not just the aircraft. Having the right map, AI, etc is MUCH more compelling and really addresses the classic criticism of the current DCS environment. So which ever version they picked (if it's the Viggen), it will probably have the right Map in any case. I certainly think there is a larger market for a "complete sim" than simply adding another A2A aircraft of any sort. There are so many more potential and realistic scenarios for the complete sim. Plus, it might seem like the JA-37 has a bigger potential market, with the Mirage 2000C due out in a couple months (not to mention the F-14), it would have a lot more market competition and might not sell as well. -Nick

Well, the MiG-25 did shoot down an F/A-18C during the Gulf War (during a self-escort strike mission), so there is no doubt that a MiG-25 could shoot down an F-15 under the right circumstances. I think it's more a question of how often those ideal circumstances would occur. I find the MiG-25 to be very impressive since it offers near-SR-71 performance with the maintainability and operational demands that are similar to other 3rd generation Soviet fighters, unlike the SR-71 which is hugely demanding to get in the air. That said, it's telling that more than half of all MiG-25s were the recon variant. That is a mission that plays to the MiG-25s strengths, flying high and fast. But if I had to take a 3rd gen Soviet fighter into combat, I would take the MiG-23 over the MiG-25 since it has a wider set of strengths and I think the Soviets would agree - they built 10x as many MiG-23s than fighter versions of the MiG-25. At least, thats what I've gathered from my reading. -Nick

Nothing official, though it has been mentioned a few times in the past. Even if it is, who knows how many projects are in front of it. -Nick

Again with the F-16.... Believe it or not, some us are rather ambivalent towards it. Knowing that ED is developing a F/A-18C Hornet module (which I will definitely buy), I would buy the L-39 before the F-16. I like the variety of having several different airframes and ranges of performance. Flying a slow, relatively underpowered jet has it's own set of challenges and I have really enjoyed flying the L-39. It's fine if others don't. ;) I think it would be great if ED or a 3rd Party developed an F-16, partly so there are fewer of these posts (and because it's a well-rounded fighter, etc, etc). But I'm happy there are WWII fighters, early jets, trainers, and potent multi-role fighters (on the way at least). My 2 cents, Nick

Broke the forums? The forum seems fine. The hearts and will of the users...well that's a different story. :( -Nick ;)

FroogleSim interviewed Wags back in early 2015 and he specifically mentioned that an F-16 is now possible given the tech developed for the F/A-18C (specifically the RADAR technology). I imagine that ED recognizes the value of an F-16 module. ;) ED also has a lot of irons in the fire between DCSW2, new maps, L-39ZA, F/A-18C, Spitfire, P-47D, Me-262, testing for the 3rd party modules....probably need to give them some time. -Nick

This is excellent news and I'm glad to see the official announcement. Creating the F-5E is a really smart move, when there has been much discussion of "mis-placed" aircraft released for DCS - the F-5E is probably the best placed module anyone could create at the moment. It gives us a real opponent for the MiG-21 and it fits in perfectly to both NTTR and the Straight of Hormuz (the classic and still operational adversary aircraft for NTTR and simple strike-fighter for the IRIAF in the SoH). It will also be an awesome sparring partner for both the F-14 and F/A-18, not to mention a relatively simple, but fun aircraft to fly. Definitely a first day buy for me. -Nick