Mikeck

Like all of these “this or that” questions; it depends on what you want. If you want a bit of everything and anything, definitely the F-18. If I’m in the mood for CAP, interception, Fleet defense or even just doing a low level dumb bomb drop, I really prefer the F-14. It’s more of a challenge to fly and fight it as well as being more complete. Plus....it’s a tomcat I play SP only and I think Jester is just fine. If there is something specific I want to do and he isn’t doing it, I’ll hop in the back. Other than that, he’s not bad

Ok....I didn’t say that a catastrophic failure in one would destroy the other. I said that the studies showed that class A catastrophic engine failures were more common that classB. Class A catastrophic failures were such that they were likely to destroy both. Meaning fan blades shred everything. The F-14a had TF-30s which failed often in COMPRESSOR stalls...not because the engine mechanically failed. Yeah, the F-18 and 18 are close together. I’m saying that the f-14s are apart to allow space for Phoenix missiles in the undercarriage and NOT because they don’t want one engine to blow the other. The catastrophic failure effecting both engines was a reason why the navy felt safe going to a single engine F-35....not why they spaced engines in the F-1 Either way, considering the annual flight hours of modern jets, the rate of engine failure is so low that I’m not sure it’s worth it to have a second engine unless you need the thrust.

Pretty subjective. Sounds good to me tho

Don’t you just hit “undesignate/nose wheel steering”?

Some truth. At this point, engines are so reliable that if one malfunctions, it’s usually a catastrophic malfunction which would also damage an adjacent engine. I’d read this years ago...I think it’s called a class A malfunction or something. So yeah, in a way, havihg 2 engines doubles your chance of a class A malfunction taking out both. But I’m not sure of all the percentages. Now, I don’t think that is WHY the F-15 and SU-27 have 2 engines spread. The F-14 did because they wanted the space in between to carry the large Phoenix missiles. The wider body also provides additional life at the expense of less drag. But it wasn’t to prevent one engine damaging the other....the rate at which that occurs (while maybe more than a class B effecting one engine) would be too low to design an aircraft around it. In the end, how many hornets have lost one engine and made it back? A few, sure. How many F-16Cs have lost their engine in flight? Not many. So at this point, engines are so reliable that a single engine aircraft isn’t really significantly less safe Than a dual engine. I don’t foresee F-35Cs augering into the ocean with engine failures

I wish they would go in the other direction: Panavia Tornado, F-4, etc

Yeah, just saw that! Funny thing is that we were told we weren’t getting a super hornet because it’s too modern. Then the the Jf-17 and now this. How do we get an accurate model of a plane which is still largely classified?

Going to be awile mate. And dont hold your breath for a Typhoon; far too modern

Jf-17 Radar can’t be notched? Interesting test on the JF-17. It’s radar cannot he notched. Now this is my own very biased opinion. There’s just not alot of UNBIASED test data available on the JF...as far as I know. There is performance and avionics capabilities of this aircraft from the manufacturer (Chinese government) or those who benefit from the use of the aircraft and possible exaggeration of claims (or maybe not) . So I don’t know where the devs got the data to create the flight model and avionics. BUT, I have to wonder how a nation that is still not capable of building a modern high-performance jet engine (so they use a reverse engineered version of an old SU-27 export engine) can put together an aircraft that can outperform an F-16 in ACM, has a radar more powerful than an F-18 and uses missiles that seem to outperform the AIM-120. An infrared launch-detecting MWR that can detect ANY missile within 5 miles (whether or not it’s burning...See Reapers test) So, we have a radar that can’t be notched (hoping it’s a bug)and an mWR that violates laws of physics and can detect missile burn after the missile stopped burning. Obviously a bug I’m not suggesting China can’t build a great plane...just that they rely a lot on reverse engineering and stolen data (like half the F-35). Since there is a lack of testing on performance and -unlike every other module- any error in capability falls to the side of better performance, it seems.....hmm. The tinfoil hat part of me sees this as a way to shoe-horn in a domestic Chinese aircraft that can compete....with a little wink*wink* nod*nod* to performance Again, my biased opinion taken as such. It just made me grouchy b/c of my biases and I admit that. Just curious if anyone knows where they got the performance data and if anyone else feels the same or I’m wrong

I’ve done that before. Couldn’t believe how messed up the aircraft was! Middle of a fight, Master arm off, AA not selected, bombs not armed, etc. I’m not sure if they can fly and fight like three because AI planes aren’t required to go through steps. But man, took me 1:30 just to get the aircraft into fighting mode

If your target is some type of vehicle or unit with multiple vehicles, then you can randomize where it pops up....kind of. So place the unit somewhere, cut and paste it in-say- 2 other locations. Give each a different name (armor1, armor2 and armor3). Set all for late activation. In the trigger screen in the editor set a “mission start” trigger (skip the middle “condition”) that sets flag#1 to a random number 1-3. Next trigger is that if flag1=1, then activate armor1. If flag1=2 then activate armor2, etc That way, at mission start, your target will appear in one of three locations...but you won’t know which one. Doesn’t work for buildings but you would know where those are anyway

The last sentence being the most important thing she says: “....unless they have superiority in distance and altitude”. Yeah, well why wouldn’t they unless they were told to get close and down low so we have a chance to kill you

Phew....good thing for me b/c I have no idea what half of this stuff means

Yellowgixxer, I apologize that I came off argumentative or like I was picking a fight. I’ve known only a few helo pilots (one AH-1T and the other a UH-60) and both were very professional. I have no idea how much skill it takes to keep a helo airborne, let alone make it do what you want. My comment was meant to rebut what I felt to be a feeling that fast mover aviators would take additional risk (of death and damage to aircraft) and make something harder than it has to be (by foregoing missles for Cannon) only for the purpose of proving something. If that was not your feeling, then I misunderstood

I try to cold start as often as I can but I have limited game time; usually 45 minutes or an hour here and there. So if I end up crashing or shot down, I’ll restart and take off from runway in the interest of time. But if time wasn’t a problem, I’d cold start every time. That’s where I get immersed

Booster, some people just want to be victims

They probably wouldn’t even bother to paint a helo under the canopy because shooting down a near stationary (relative) target is hardly something they would brag about....even if it was with guns. Not trying to be a jerk here....I just kind of resent the insinuation

You may feel disdain for them or find them arrogant (we all do and they all Are), there is a reason for that arrogance. They are almost all to a man, consumate professionals who take their profession serious. I’ve never met an aviator who would pass an easy missile kill so that he could kill with guns just because it’s cooler. Every aviator I’ve worked with knows he is better than you. He will show you by killing you as easily, quickly and efficiently as he can. They ARENT going to attack a helo with cannon instead of a missile out of arrogance. That something people want to believe....that their perceived arrogance is something other than a total and complete confidence that comes from years of professional training and study and the knowledge - not that I’m better than you- but “I can kill you before you kill me”. So respectfully, I disagree with your assessment of aviators and fast jet pilots as being so arrogant as to forego missles and try cannon merely to stroke their ego. They are every bit as good as they think they are and they KNOW they have nothing to prove to anyone....including mud movers and slow movers.

Not sure...but I recall releasing at 500 feet when set to nose/tail and it just hit dirt....not enough time to fuse and release. So, someone on the forum mentioned to set it for “nose” and it will open automatically on release. So that’s how I’ve always done it. Best I can tell, if you set it for “nose”, it opens automatically at release regardless of altitude. Drop at 10k and it won’t wait to 1500 to dispense. It will do it at 10k. Maybe it’s not like that anymore but I’ve stuck to it: nose/tail if I’m dropping over 1500’ and “nose” if under. I’ll have to see tonight

Confirmed. Just did it a few times tonight. I use CCRP. Move the waypoint (target point once you switch to CCRP over the MIDDLE of where you want the stick to fall. I dropped 4 cbu-97’s; single drop, 400ft increments, release 4 times. So 1600 feet of coverage. I put the target point In the middle of the line of targets (about 800 feet from the first target and 800 from the last...hence the spacing). Anyway, I set fuse to “nose”. Disregard the height setting. I came in level at about 800-1,000ft. When I got close, I held weapons release until all bombs were off (held for about 5-6 seconds since I started early). All bombs released and immediately dispensed. Not sure if it only works in CCRP and not CCIP

I believe that if you set the fuse to “nose”, the canisters deploy upon release. Allows 500 ft passes using CCRP.

I should clarify. I didn’t mean to suggest shooting at an enemy plane that was near a friendly. What I was describing was a situation where the fight includes friendlies. If you shoot an AMRAAM and miss, it will still be lookinG for a new target in its field of view. I’m suggesting that using the Aim-7 allows you to shoot and know that if you miss, you don’t have a missile flying around looking for a new target. Additionally, if you are concerned you might hit a friendly, just drop lock and the sparrow goes dumb. The AMRAAM will still happily seek out a shiny metal thing So it’s less about using it like a sniper rifle and more about knowing I can drop lock and the missles becomes a rocket if I miss the target or a friendly swoops in

Ok...I know where the switch is to set “NVA” and “grnd”(for alignment), but how do I switch between stored heading and normal? Edit: disregard. Same knob. I never paid attention. Just put it on Grnd, confirmed on the DED and then to Nav

Nice job man....

Yes. The Aim-7 is a semi-active missile. That means you have to maintain an STT lock on the target the whole time. It’s NOT like the Aim-120 which eventually goes “Pitbull” and uses it’s own seeker. The Aim-7 is a much older missile but is still quite useful in a furball. It will only hit the aircraft you target. The AMRAAM, once it activates its own radar, can lock onto any plane in its field of vision...even a friendly. I will say that if you are waiting 30 seconds for the Aim-7 to hit, you’re still launching too far away. You get a “shoot” cue when the target is in range....but that’s “in range against a non-maneuvering target”. You want to place the steering dot inside your range circle and wait until the “shoot” cue starts flashing. That means the target is within fatal range; meaning even if the target maneuvers or turns cold, a hit is still likely. I would never launch over 10 miles away unless the bad guy is headed right at you really fast