Spurts

That was you flying in the vid? Well done!

Neat vid with the Cat, but I noticed it was more like 1v1 because the first three he shot down never engaged and he got into position as they were flying away from him for seemingly no reason. Definitely used energy tactics for 90% of the video, keeping speed high whenever possible to ruin the shot, use vertical to build speed. Even the defensive level turn he did was turning just hard enough to stay out of lead and build energy to extend. Overall well done. Very different set of tactics than when I am fighting multiple 4th gens. *EDIT* Just did another bout trying to turn with him instead of just zooming. Got him. The cat is handling great today.

(in the middle of a dogfight as I dive on my prey) "We've gone to plaid!" "Weeeee my hair's on fire!"

Okay, turning fight against a MiG-15, not happening, sheesh. Play an energy fight and I burn him right quick.

My son has gotten this one a few times.

There is not at this time. you have to use a mouse or VR controller.

Watching the gauges swing as I go through the mach is always a treat.

When the A first came out I hit 3.0 at 70,000ft, then they fixed the runaway thrust.

I second that. I'm patient.

I guess they weren't ready with their SW build, either testing wasn't finished or they were just not happy with the performance.

Right, I thought I had heard that. So make a custom MP server, fly my yourself, use MP trackfile as that uses a vastly different logic than the SP track file

This is a persistent issue and I have experienced in occasionally in other aircraft as well.

the joy of an AI that never stalls

Fascinating. So improvements in on-board power could absolutely increase the maximum range even if nothing else changes, albeit at reduced kinematic capability. Thank you!

The EX is just the SA/QA with EPAAWS. The R&D for the FBW system on the EX was paid for either by Saudi or Qatar. That is also why it uses F110s instead of F100s. USAF/Pentagon/Congress didn't want to pay for any new certification testing to save costs so the EX is what Saudi/Qatar paid for other than EPAAWS (pretty sure SA and QA have DEWS, but I could be wrong). BTW, thank you for your first hand knowledge on this subject.

The E, even without CFTs, is a few thousand pounds heavier. WITH CFTs it is far, far, heavier. The E has the same wing as the C so that wing has to work harder for every G, adding drag and reducing available G. If he was flying an older E, it even had the same engines.

Where is this listed? Not saying it's wrong or right I just want to know where it came from.

very true, and 120s of power vs 180s is HUGE!

I did some experiments with this in the past with a missile-flight simulator I made. Say a C-5 has a default loft of 5 degrees and gets X range. If I take the same missile, give it a 10 degree loft, call it a C-7 (I know there are actual differences but I am talk kinematics), and it gets 1.5X range. I chuck it up to 15 degrees loft and it goes to 2X range and I call it a D. I don't actually have my data on hand, but I took a "short ranged" AMRAAM and drastically improved it's range by increasing loft. Side effect? I had to improve my midcourse guidance algorithm to prevent a particularly high/fast AIM-120D shot from simply sailing over the target as the fins couldn't get it down fast enough.

certainly, 1 radial G will give a turn rate whether it comes from a 1G (plane body reference) condition at 90 degrees of bank or from a level 1.41G turn.

Fair enough, it was just something I noticed. That's a good final version as it incorporates the 32.2ft/s^2 for the gravity, 180/Pi for radians per second to degrees per second, and the conversion from nm/h to ft/s. I was referencing the engineering version. the Sqrt(G^2-1) is how you get Gradial for a level turn.

So, everyone likes to reference that one F-16 manual to compare their own test data. Has no one noticed that in that manuals turn rate diagrams that even 1G is listed with a turn rate? as the turn rate equation is (G^2-1)^.5/V, and I am ignoring the g acceleration and radians to degrees on purpose, than 1G should have 0 turn rate. That is because that equation assumed you are not losing altitude. So why does the manual show a turn rate for 1G? I am left to think it assumed you are at 90 degree bank and ALL G is radial and you lose altitude no matter what. "But Spurt, you idiot, Sustained Turn /Ps=0 means you aren't losing speed or altitude!" Well, it doesn't say Sustained Turn, it says Ps=0. If Ps due to altitude loss is -100ft/s and Ps due to speed gain is 100ft/s then total Ps is indeed 0. I didn't write the charts, so I don't know, but that is the easiest answer I can see for having a 1G turn rate listed. Which means everyone complaining about the Ps under 0.5M... you know, there 1G starts to have a real impact, might want to see what happened if they subtract the 1G turn rate from the Ps=0 turn rate to see what actual Sustained Turn Rate should look like and see if that suddenly lines up.

This is how I fly the F-14 half the time. This is also my SEAD tactic against the SA-10.

Thanks @fat creason!

Follow up, after a few fights I can say that it turns so tightly and handles at such low speeds that trying to turn inside it requires a stalled rudder turn (which prevents accurate gun tracking) and a vertical extension needs to be carefully timed because if you wait too long it will pull the nose back up when you dive on it and shoot you in the face. That 37mm is no joke. I am having to relearn everything. What kills the MiG-29 will get you killed against the MiG-15, and I'm pretty sure what will kill the MiG-15 will get you killed against a MiG-29.