ArkRoyal

Do you even know what the corner for the flanker is for all weights? Because that would really be something. If would find that hard to believe. No, the performance over the envelope would not be the same, but if would only differ at the extremes, such as inside of, or over the trans sonic and super sonic regimes. But how about we just put this to the test then? Ill set up a server, ill fly the flanker, you can can fly the eagle and we see who out turns whom.

Were not testing a dogfight. Why would you fly at 100% fuel? Were testing relative performance. There is no correct speed for a dogfight. Sometimes you need to be at corner to maximize rate. Other times you need to max radius out by being below corner. Or maybe you want to be above corner for certain reasons. The speed or tactics are relative to the fight, and the bandit. So you cannot simply state: why would anyone fly at that speed, since that is relative. Both of my tests were conducted at SL max AoA sustainable to get best turn rate for that. It should be a good test of the relative turn performance of the planes. If you were at the corner speed for both, the flanker should still win. Does anyone know the corner for the flanker at a given weight? IIRC the corner for the Eagle is about 410knots, but I have no idea as to the weight. If anything Nikola, this should drive home my other point. That people in the 104th Sever claiming they got out-turned by a eagle is a highly relative question. Ive been doing sims for about 15 years, and it no uncommon even for people to claim they got out turned when they weren't even in a turning fight in the first place.

If you are doing it right, 100% fuel etc. You should be at about 190knots IAS. If that is not the case, you are not in a sustained turn at max AoA.

Didnt say you were. But if your getting 16 degrees per second, you are doing something wrong. How are you measuring this? Are you using tacview?

Then you are doing it wrong. You are either not measuring accurately, losing altitude in your turn, or not stabilizing the aircraft by measuring the turn rate before the plane as bled off excess E and is sustain level, turning flight. 14.5 degrees per second is accurate for 100% fuel.

Sure, but thats not the point. If you keep the fuel load proportional, the turn difference will be the same. Moving on, I also tested climbing ability. Note, the following numbers are not necessarily max climb rate per altitude, but are the climb rate achieved accelerating from 135 knots at 1000ft. This test was conducted by using the same fuel loads in the last test. I started each plane at 135knots, 1000ft, and then pitched up to 30 degrees and held it exactly there. I then recorded the ROC as the aircraft passed each altitude. Rounded to nearest 500. 10000ft F15: 20,000ft/min Su27: 18500ft/min 20,000ft 15: 25,000ft/min Su-27: 20,000ft/min 30,000ft 15: 25,000ft/min Su-27: 16,000ft/min 40,000ft 15: 20,000ft/min Su-27: Did not finish climb. Stopped at 38k.

So I went and tested the Flanker and the Eagle at equivalent fuel loads in terms of time, meaning that at Full AB, both planes would run out of fuel at about the same time. Eagle was a full fuel, Flanker at 15,700lbs. The Flanker had a turn rate at SL, of 15.5 degrees per second. The Eagle had a turn rate of 14.5 degrees per second. I got the same results every time, doing about 10 circles each, AFTER the aircraft had already stabilized at sustained speed etc. So if you got out turned by a Eagle in a Flanker, it was probably because: A: He was much lighter loaded, either from having less fuel, less missiles, or both. B: The fight was not purely the horizontal C: The Eagle had a E advantage, allowing for a higher initial turn rate D: You dont know what you are doing, and he just flew better than you. E: All of the above. In short, there are too many factors in a server battle to accurately guess whose plane out turned who. It is the same reason we dont go off encounter reports from wars to determine whose plane turned better, except in extreme cases.

Not having aircraft go against contemporary equivalents that either represent a peer in terms of time, or in terms of availability ruins the legacy of the aircraft in question. Part of the fun is getting to experience how good or how bad something was over its service run, or during some war it fought it. Nobody wants a game where a BF-109 G-6 fights a P-47M the majority of the time, or a P-47D-11 fighting a 109K-4. Neither is representative of how the aircraft matched up as a measure of what models made up the bulk of their forces for any given period. What does this have to do with Russian missiles? Simply put, people need to get used to the idea of some aircraft losing, and have fun anyhow. As has been stated by others here already, if you take up a Flanker against a properly flow Eagle---missiles fixed or not----he can force you into a no win situation. Get used to it. Its completely pointless to go to the trouble of making a ultra-"realistic" (at least ostensibly) and then discard all that to avoid the inevitable seal-club that is going to occur when two planes are modeled right. If you want balanced, play command and conquer.

Neither of those two things promises or even directly states that the two weapons in question would be in release. The first quote merely states that the version they are working on would be the same as a variant that COULD carry those missiles, and says nothing of whether or not they were going to do so. Second quote states that modeling the missiles is on their "to do" list, but that in no way shape or form obligates them to model that missile. Nor does it make them jerks because they changed their mind. You seriously think the Razbam is a bunch of A-holes because they decided not to model something they perhaps had the intention to at first? Whoop-de-doo. You are acting like it shipped to you with "Exocet in game" on the box only to find out its not in the game. This is not what has happened, and what did happen is not equivalent. They changed their mind for whatever reason. If you dont like what is ACTUALLY being sold, dont buy it. Criticize its omission even, but don't try to imply you were somehow swindled.

You would still be at a significant kinematic disadvantage. The R-77 is bested handily by the 120C. Flankers are inferior to Eagles in any comparable context. If you want the latest Su-27, then the Eagle drivers would be justified in wanting the best F-15 with the Best missiles. So AIM-120D and APG63 V3. Back to square one. Plus, even if we date DCS by missiles in game, the Americans should be sporting AIM-9X's and data links. So you'd lose your close in advantage, and still be out missiled in BVR. To me, it seems silly to balance a game by including aircraft that are not date/production #s comparable, since by doing so you erase the context of the aircraft.

Yukikaze Lonewolf American F-15C

Ok so I looking for some pointers on cranking maneuvers. Here is what I do currently(F-15): 1. Lock up the bandit in TWS. 2. Wait till I feel close enough to fire something with at least a modicum of hit chance 3. crank to gimbals after firing 4. Once enemy missile (if fired) is defeated, I turn back into the bandit and fire again if necessary. Rise repeat till bandit dead. Generally speaking I am finding this very effective. I come out on top about 90% of the time, but I feel like Im missing something. I know I should be flying with a wing man, and that any serious tactical discussion would involve that, but I dont always have a friend on to fly with so.....game etc. Given that, Id like to center this on the assumption that Im alone, at least at first. Not because I think I should fly alone, but because I have to most of the time. Anyhow, does anyone have any tips for this? I would prefer to only hear form people who well and truly know what they are doing, as I want to continue to step up my game. My main concern has been the realization that each time my missile misses and I have to turn back in to fire again, due to the engagement getting closer I have less time to turn in and re-defend before catching his next missile in the face. This has led me to sometime press the bandit whenever I notice that he either hasn't turned back in or for whatever reason I dont see the need to be unnecessarily defensive. Thoughts?

Your issue is that the missiles right now have some issues. This isnt the thread for it, but all Ill say with regards to not using your "BVR mode" these people are wrong. You should always be high, and you should have your radar on unless you have AWACS to guide you closer. Even then, you need to turn it on once in range. Turning off your radar reduces your SA. Due to a general lack of know how, most people slink around in the mountains with their radars off relying either on IRST or the RWR slot machine to give them kills by waiting till someone else turns on their radar and doesnt know how to use it, allowing them to close and shoot from somewhere hidden. Like GG said, if you know how to use your radar properly, all you have to do is point it at them to find them.

That missile sure turned alot harder to hit the target than the ones I fire in game

disregard

Personally the contents of this "report" seem extremely fishy to me. The lack of pitch rate etc seems explained due to this being a early F-35 with probably older control software, but I cant make sense of the energy deficit. It is extraordinary difficult to believe that the F-16 with two drop tanks had better EM than a clean F-35. Makes me wonder if the internal fuel loads were even remotely comparable, or if some engine limitation was present on the F-35.

Im sorry but the Idea that I have to prove its frequency is inane. All I have to do is prove that it was designed to be adjusted: which it was. All a pilot had to do it tell his crew chief that he wanted a different convergence said. There is nothing anywhere that says alternatives to the standard configuration were banned----And that is what matters here. It wasnt forbidden, and it was designed so that it could be done = therefore I should be able to do it. The idea that we shouldnt be able to adjust things simply because it is outside the standard configuration is utterly asinine. Aside from standard gun settings, there were standard bomb loadouts, fuel loadouts, mission profiles etc. You want to make it so I can only take certain combinations of bombs or fuel? I like to fly with a drop tank and 20% fuel....and I seriously doubt that would be allowed since I cant find 300 or so examples of pilots doing this....... Also your counter analogy is quite silly. Changing the barrel on a M4 is THE COMPLETE CHANGE OF A PART---A PART THAT IS NOT ISSUED. It is not akin what-so-ever to simply moving a gun fitting a few degrees to the left or right. Operator maintenance? No. But then again, neither is refueling your plane. :music_whistling:

Im sorry but your whole point here is ludicrous. Really? You think that they were never adjusted outside manual parameters? That makes absolutely no sense. Its like saying that because the standard battle sight range on a M4 is 300m, that no soldier has ever sighted his rifle so some other range...... We have given you evidence showing that people did adjust these guns to suit their needs. However it is just plane crazy that any sort of positive proof be required to demonstrate that. They were adjustable.....end of story. You cannot argue that it wasnt done just because its not in the manual as the recommended usage......the military doesn't work that way. How many pilot examples and technical demonstrations are needed in your estimation to prove this point? Do I need 500 pilot examples? Where is your information declaring that they were ABSOLUTELY NEVER ADJUSTED outside parameters?

Your are right that the sight itself has nothing to do with it, funny how your brought that up in your first post against solty.... Your point about veteran anecdotes is quite silly. It is one thing to mis-remember the exact caliber of a gun, and another thing entirely to mis-remember that your aircraft gun convergence was adjustable. People forget numbers and dates etc. It is extremely unlikely that he described IN DETAIL the procedure for doing the adjustments, and that he was able to have them done custom. Look at just before 25 seconds, you can see the adjustments in the mount.......

https://books.google.com/books?id=MEylhjM_3aUC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=adjusting+convergence+in+P-51&source=bl&ots=MFff_qsFSn&sig=hxCo9TZxBV_pitRVnzLoH06A7bU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=EzA0VdvvHrDPsQS7roD4DA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=adjusting%20convergence%20in%20P-51&f=false PAGE 358: "Armorers then put small periscopes in the breech of each gun to adjust the gun mounts until each gun was properly aligned with the target." The gun mounts were adjustable. Glad this issue is settled. :)

What on earth are you talking about.......no one is being emotional. The pilots I know who fly these planes say otherwise about the dangers of min radius turn tests.

No it is completely useless. You sit on here and whine to us about how every allied test is rubbish because of this and that conidtion----190 Jabo, Allies supposedly not using slats correctly, planes not being in optimal condtion etc etc. Yet you suddenly modern tests being done with incorrect fuel, power settings etc is supposed to mean something? What is more, test pilots during the war would have alot more motiviation to actually push these planes to the limits than civilian pilots would. The turn testing we have, regardless of what nation it comes from. already has many questions attached to it regarding the methods used and state of test machines. You really think that some civilian pilots are going to unnecessarily risk their necks to provide us all with perfect data even if they had the fuel and planes to do it? Much of the reason that pilots on both sides claimed turn superiority over enemy planes was due to the fact that in a low altitude dogfight most of the planes during the war were close enough to each other in performance that it didnt matter. The reason it didnt matter was because to actually get the mathematically limited performance of the plane you have to be dancing a very fine line between a sustained turn and crashing into the ground-----this all while changing maneuvers and doing other things in combat. In real combat you DIE if you screw up a turn 300 ft off the ground. There are VERY GOOD REASONS that Air-force tests pilots are considered to have a very dangerous job. No civilian pilot is going to do the repeated and precise testing needed for this because it could very well get him killed. Just look at mach number testing! The sort of things pilots did in those dive tests were very dangerous and many people got killed in flight testing in general, not just compression dives. People did those things then because they were fighting a WAR. Nonone is going to do them now with 3 million dollar machines with fuel they cannot obtain and lives they cannot get back...just so we can have a more accurate understanding of air combat 75 years ago.

Not only does not using full power useless for comparison-------you cannot even get 130 grade, much less 150 grade fuel for these tests. Even if you wanted to.

Reaching the correct speeds with the radiator closed doesnt do us much good however, even if there is an improvement. It should be going that fast or faster with with radiator in auto, as was already stated :)

So what? Are we just supposed to assume that they are with flaps then because it suits you? I Guess the longer takeoff distances are because gravity was higher on that day....