Tenkom

If you are used the hornet or viper, like me, it may be habit to jerk the stick in such situation. If you do you will bend the wings before the alarms have a chance to kick in. Of course we simply have to learn not to do this in this plane. There are a few others gotcha's in this plane like diving in full AB can easily cause overspeed and rip a wing or two of the airplane. I like this kind of thing personally and it feels more realistic. Something bad should happen when doing stupid things in a jet.

When I fly the F15 I miss the avionics, open cockpit, acceleration, maneuverability of the viper. When I fly the viper I miss the power(especially when carrying a decent load), top speed and the fuel to hang around at top speed for a while, RADAR. I can't choose tbh.

No one has expressed any surprise that it is worse. Some seem surprised at HOW much worse it is. Which I can understand since the F15C is one of the best dogfighters in the game and the mudhen is one of the worst(among it's peers). But I am not saying that this is unrealistic or that it should be changed. I've heard pilots say it is not good at dogfighting and I have faith that Razbam know what they are about.

who are you talking about?

I have almost zero experience with fighting human opponents. But I've done a lot of dogfights against AI and the Viper is the best except maybe the F15C. Hornet is good also but it's easy to end up slow inside the enemy turn circle while in the viper I just do lag pursuit and it just reels them in.

The F15C is a dogfighting beast. I almost never play it but I tried against an AI recently and it dominates. It might be even better than the viper. I had just flown the viper against the same AI opponent.

Thanks for that. Very interesting. Although CAT3 doesn't limit the Gs.

Would empty wing tanks also be considered CAT 3? I would imagine they only weigh a fraction of a full tank so pulling g's shouldn't put significant strain on any part of the structure.

The F16, F18 and F15C all have the kind of "Put the thing on the thing and fire" sort of of gunsight unlike what's in the Mirage and JF-17 which is much more complicated(useless to me). How will the F15E eventually be? From the looks of the current implementation it is more like the latter with the line protruding from the gun cross and the range indicator dancing around indicating the only place you will be guaranteed to miss if you pull the trigger. I'm hoping once they've updated it properly it will be like in the F15C(why would it be worse unless what we have in the game is very unrealistic?)

I've had this issue. It only affects hot started planes. So one fix is to find a cold start spot. Another possible fix for this if you are in a hot spawn is to immediately turn on tacan when jumping in the plane. I say immediately because I tried it in flight and it didn't work.

I was feeling extra nerdy today so I did a little in-game experiment. Goal: Working out how much drag and thrust these 2 planes have(F15C and F15E). I had to limit myself here since this could get incredibly complex very quickly. So I decided to determine thrust and drag at approximately 830km/h across the ground at roughly 2900 meters. Method: Screen capture recording acceleration and deceleration between 814.88km/h to 851.92km/h ground speed. Both planes clean, fuel adjusted so both planes have the same mass at 18140kg and fuel usage turned off so the mass is constant. I made some assumptions. Drag is approx. constant across the speed range and thrust is approx. constant across the speed range. Apply Newton's law. F=ma Results: F15C: Drag: 39kN Thrust(full AB): 173kN F15E: Drag: 51kN Thrust(full AB): 203kN How accurate this is depends on how close to (virtual)reality my assumptions are of course. Conclusion: F15E has more thrust but also more drag. Basically what we already knew. Time well wasted

BDU-50LGB - 500lb Laser Guided Inert Practice Bomb LD It looks like a gbu-12 with no explosives inside. null

Is this realistic? Or just an oversight?

The ground effect is very strong compared to other jets so I often flare too much and end up landing much later than I intended. Never had a problem with stopping however. Good brakes. Except maybe the last 10-20 knots before stopping takes longer than I expect. Almost rear ended some guy during taxiing because it took longer to come to a stop than I thought.

Sounds strange to me. The bomb follows the laser. It doesn't care about the designation. If your tgp was following the target and lasing the bomb should hit the target unless the laser was outside the bomb's field of view.

Same problem. I've tried with both Easy Radio and not Easy radio.

What does CPU stand for?

Could it be a 0g issue? Like in the A-10C where the engines shut down after x amount of seconds flying upside down. Flying straight up for and extended amount of time might cut of supply of something for the engine.

You may want to be a little more specific. They are used for just about every operation.

Yes. Everything that can be removed is removed. Fuel was 100%, I disabled fuel consumption so that wouldn't be a factor.

I just did a quick test of my own. So at 10k feet everything identical: F16 Clean : 646kts TAS @ Mil power F16 with 6x120s(other pylons removed) : 628kts TAS @ Mil power

It does seem strange to me I agree. The 400kts test makes sense, sort of. At 400kts you spend 4,6% more fuel to haul along the missiles. But at 626/627 kts they are along for free. Nothing in this world is free.

This makes sense to me. The reason the f16 uses more fuel without missiles is because it's going a little faster. Fuel consumption at 100% throttle will increase with the speed. The f16 will be producing more power at 400kts with missiles simply because it needs to due to the increased drag. So you have to increase throttle and thus increase fuel consumption.

Does it sound reasonable that the hornet loses 20kts from carrying 2x amraams on its cheek stations and the Viper loses 1(!)kt from carrying 6x amraams? No, it doesn't. I am not saying that it's definitely wrong mind you. But it does warrant looking into. Edit: I propose a different test. Since drag is very non-linear when approaching mach 1 it might make more sense to test at speeds around 400 kts. So get both planes stable at, as close to possible, 400kts and note the fuel consumption with different loadouts. That will take the speed out of the equation. Of course it will introduce the unknown factor of thrust/consumption which is probably not entirely linear and also the AoA will change. But with only testing with a few amraams they should be minor factors.

That jettison system looked awesome. Although the way the missiles, especially the inner ones, parted from the wing pylons did not look very good. But I'm sure that is on their to do list. Setting up two layers of jettison like that will be very usefull.