S77th-GOYA

The patch for 1.02 was Flaming Cliffs.

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/scan0184.JPG Thank SwingKid for the chart. This is for the F-15. Note the configuration of the test aircraft. The "PLACARD" line is what you want.

The SR-71 CAN attain that speed at lower altitudes, but it is beyond the structural safety limits of the aircraft. That is already modelled in LOMAC. See my first post. Instead of your canopy melting or parts ripping off, we just get an overspeed warning with no penalty for going beyond structural limits.

Vmax limit is already implemented in LOMAC. It's just that you only get a warning and no damage.

Reinstall XP. TA-DA! I'll PM you my mailing address. :thumbup:

Fudd, please post a time and TS IP that squadron leaders should be present to coordinate.

Those charts do not represent a guided missile. They chart flyout.

I'm not so sure about that. Is there any data that shows any aerodynamic or thrust improvements made to the Lima to result in the Mike? All I see are improvements like this: "It features a reduced-smoke rocket motor, an improved guidance section designated WGU-4/B, better countermeasures resistance (IRCCM - Infrared Counter-Countermeasures), and improved overall reliability."

Isn't that ATC software is dependent of LUA export being enabled?

Negative, not all of them. There are proposed physical changes to the airframe that are obviously not implemented. Those charts show an effective burn of about 5 sec (the period of acceleration) which indeed different from LOMAC. Although I did some testing and the LOMAC Winder does reach the reported Vmax of M2.5 @ 38,000ft, albeit very quickly and briefly.

I would LOVE to see the LOMAC Mike plotted on those charts. 40Gs on the deck? :shocking: Any clues as to which, if any of those proposed improvements were implemented on the Mike?

:doh:

:thumbup:

Regarding NATO v Warsaw pact, keep in mind that some squadrons do not fly one or the other but have a mixture of both. The real red flag uses US planes as OPFOR. We fly against all types of planes on HL so we should all be used to flying against whatever is against us. Also the ARM discrepancy with the T-Frog. I think it would be a mistake to decide on a scenario and then have to make compromises to make it work. First decide what will work best and provide the best competition and fun. Most importantly, learn from the mistakes made in CAW. And keep it as simple as possible. Don't let the process of putting it together outweigh the flying. Take all that for what value you see in it. If it all plays out well, count me in.

I would think its value would be detailed aeronautical data on the stock AIM-9 that is compared to the theoretical improvements. Something ED might want for WAFM.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/1979/PV1979_91.pdf anybody got this full pdf? It would appear to be a wealth of information on the AIM-9. http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=406&gTable=mtgpaper&gID=66202

AIM-9 - 9.4 kg (20.8 lb) WDU-17/B annular blast-fragmentation warhead - Speed: Mach 2.5+ http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-9.html R-73 - 7.4kg HE expanding rod warhead - Speed: Mach 2.5 http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/weapon/r73.asp

A seeker never brought down an a/c. He probably meant the difference in warheads.

Got a link to any? Showing altitude, velocity, closure, etc.?

Yep, Noti is damn dangerous in that Hog.

Thanks for the answer on what the HUD should display. The manual and Yo-Yo are saying it is KIAS, but Yo-Yo is using 350 knots on the HUD to do his climb profile. I still have no answer as to why Yo-Yo is using a 39,000lbs aircraft for comparison to a 40,000lbs Dash-1.

Yo-Yo, your track in post 275 doesn't appear to play back correctly in 1.12a. It spirals to the left and never even reaches 30,000ft.

More importantly, the undermodeling of power for any altitudes under 40,000ft has not been admitted.

Why 39,000lbs?

This one might be more helpful. :smilewink: