r4y30n

Fair enough. Fingers crossed for a MiG-21 2.0 after the Corsair release.

Check my post above. The lower speed had nothing to do with the engines themselves.

Regarding stores drag, is that something ED seems interested in fixing long term? The Phantom is obviously in the same boat as the Tomcat in regards to recessed Sparrows but it’s also going to be a problem on the Typhoon, F-15E, and even the F/A-18’s intake hard points.

I’ll never understand the desire for heavily modernized old airframes in DCS. The Terminator is a poor man’s F-15E. Everything it can do the Eagle does better. So in that case, why not snag RAZBAM’s when it comes out? For oddball F-4 variants, I’d much rather see a Spey-engined UK Phantom.

How can it be notched? It’s a pulse radar…

Right. The stabs pivot on the center of pressure, not the center of mass, yes?

The lower top speed had less to do with the engines themselves and more to do with their larger diameter breaking the area ruling so wave drag was much higher at supersonic speeds. Burner thrust mostly comes from the combination of temperature and pressure in the can. With cooler air entering the can you need more fuel to hit the same temperature for the same thrust, all else being equal, meaning a loss in efficiency. Looking at the specific fuel consumption for both, the J79 is about 0.84 lb/hr/lb thrust in MIL vs 0.63 for the Spey, however, in max AB the J79 burns 1.13 lb/hr/lb thrust vs 1.95 for the Spey, nearly double the fuel for every pound of thrust!

On one hand, I sympathize with OP. The Jeff, M2k, Viper and ‘Cat are wildly different airframes and trying to stay current in all of them seems like a lot of work. On the flip side, if you can remember how to fight in each of them then remembering how to land them seems trivial in comparison. Just prepping heaters to fire is a totally different process in each case.

I would love to see Ferris liveries, they’re so cool.

Another tip, with emergency sweep at 68 the OVER flag will appear on the sweep indicator when it’s ready to go into oversweep.

The limiter is only on the B. It doesn’t prevent the burners from lighting, it just keeps the first lit burner in min until the second lights. Presumably you could run one engine in min burner regardless of what the other engine is doing. The A, on the other hand, has nothing to prevent full AB on one engine while the other is at idle.

I had no idea this was a thing until I stumbled on this thread a couple days ago. Then, lo and behold, I hear it in person as one lands at KBFI. They get Hornets and Super Hornets frequently and the Eagle is sooo much quieter on approach aside from the VREET VREET from the actuators.

Good find!

Wait, how much drag? Do two double racks have more drag than four individual pylons?

The Apollo boys had the Sony TC-50 playing cassettes in 1968 but I imagine they were out of the price range of your average fighter jock, about $150 at the time.

Like I said, in the screenshot you posted the F-14 is clearly too big to fit in the launch position. So yeah, the Tomcat tires are not compatible with the Kuz wheel stoppers. You can always skip all that and start your roll from the tail end of the boat if you really want to try. Others have done it on the Supercarrier with non-catapult aircraft.

Crazy how much further the nozzle is from the main gear vs the Sukhoi. The 14 doesn’t even fit between the chocks and the JBD.

To further elaborate, the reason for the holes and the reason the inlet is separated from the fuselage is to keep the air speed as even as possible across the face of the engine. Without those features the air would be slower on the inboard side and that asymmetry in flow would increase the risk of stalls. In this case, you’re trying to keep air speed high in the duct. The engines can’t handle supersonic flow, however, so the ramps change angle to create and maintain shockwaves across the inlets that slow supersonic air to subsonic speeds in the duct by compressing it. This process is much more efficient than compressing air in the engine itself and is pretty much mandatory on aircraft going Mach 2+. In this case you’re trying to keep air speed low (subsonic) in the duct. The reason you don’t see moving ramps on newer aircraft is because they’re either not designed to go that fast anymore (F/A-18) or they use brute force with very high static thrust engines (F16, F-22).

Getting way off topic here but aren’t we trending that direction already? https://stormbirds.blog/2022/08/07/dcs-worlds-new-cold-war-niche/

Axis commands would be nice in the future since that’s sort of how head tracking selection works.

Discord is a terrible place for developers to post announcements and I wish they would stop doing it.

The geometry changes are what cut speed, not so much the engine itself. The bigger fuselage ruined the area ruling so transonic and supersonic drag was higher.

The nozzle on the A was one of the first examples of a convergent-divergent nozzle, as opposed to the ejector nozzles on earlier turbojets up through the TF-30s on the F-111. Though it may not look it, the A’s nozzle is the intermediary step between something like the F-4’s J79 and modern nozzles like the B’s F110s. There’s a white paper titled “F-14A Installed Nozzle Performance” that goes into detail about the lower drag and higher thrust versus earlier designs. It also eliminated the need to tune the nozzle in full scale flight testing, as was common previously. At the end of the day, it functions the same as nozzles on newer fighters. The only difference is how the petals move, sliding forward and backward on tracks as opposed to pivoting on hinges.

Sorry Mike, what I meant was that it sounds more impressive the way you describe it today than I thought back then.

Here I was thinking Forge would just change the amount of weathering on the panels…