Bushmanni

I just tried the new Beta with media synchronization and it was mind blowing. I'm not familiar with all the features yet but debriefing with synced comms is must have for every team. You just can't imagine living without this feature anymore. Fantastic! :thumbup:

When you are facing away from the threat you are also moving away from it at almost equal speed so range between you and the possible bandit stays about the same. It could be that there's a high speed bogey coming at you but as it takes relatively long time and distance and high altitude to accelerate to a significantly higher speed for it to really matter you or GCI/AWACS will notice this from far away. But as has been stated already, having single plane flying CAP means even in the best case scenario you will be fighting a 50/50 fight (1vs1) which automatically means that you failed in tactics. You would need a very good reason to engage in that kind of situation like having superior technology or being well trained yourself while facing noobs. Engaging in a fight with 50% chance of winning is irresponsible use of forces. It will mostly create losses for both sides without results. In order to avoid this kind of situation you would rather leave yourself open somewhere (space or time) and possibly take some damage in order to deal even more damage to the enemy somewhere else. This is where strategy and creativity comes in to play in order to create/find an opportunity for favorable asymmetric results.

DCS used to do this good enough that you wouldn't see much difference MP vs SP with good connection over Internet and small enough fight.

Ever since the new netcode was introduced to prevent major warping, missile position and plane nose positions have been out of sync even with low ping high quality connections. This is a major problem as the defending pilot can't accurately judge if he has to make defensive maneuvers or not. I don't know if the new netcode fixed major warping on 50+ player servers but it definitely ruined defensive maneuvering on all of them. You can just look the steam of the recent SATAC match SF vs TAW where a missile kills a player who is already behind a hill. Even on our internal training sessions with sub 30ms ping for everyone and about 4 players you can get killed by missiles that seem to be missing you more than 100m but then suddenly it blows you up regardless. Or bandit has his nose well in lag and his cannon burst misses well behing you and then your plane blows up. In both cases when you think you are safe you do not make any defensive maneuvers as it would be a waste of energy and decoys.

I just looked at the bracket and it seems like Team China has been allocated twice into it? Team China Lone Wolves = Team China, if I understand correctly?

I think the point is to try to understand aerodynamics a little better. Overblown unrealistic scenarios for thought experiments tend to be very effective at exploring ideas as the conclusions tend to be quite clear if there is any.

Instead of talking about hypothetical scenarios, I'd like someone to actually calculate or better yet simulate the scenario as then we will get a much more accurate result. Space Shuttle experiences only about 4 G deceleration upon re-entry so I don't think it's unthinkable to consider a possibility that P-38 shaped space vehicle can't do the same. Once again, we need calculations to know.

You can actually test this using X-Plane. Get a P-38 or similar plane, disable damage model if necessary and put it in orbit and fly it to the gound while recording accelerations of the plane. Contollability won't be realistic as I doubt X-Plane can simulate shock waves properly in this scenario but drag and lift should be in the ballpark.

If you are diving fast towards the ground and too low to pull up you most likely won't have enough altitude to safely eject either. So the third option is that the pilot made a mistake and upon realizing it considered that his only option is to try to pull up rather than eject. In finland there was a Hawk accident where the rear seat guy ejected and pummeled to the ground and died while the front seater survived the crash as the plane managed to straighten just enough to not kill the pilot when crashing.

With luck almost anything is possible but it would indeed need tremendous amount of luck for the Dr.1 to beat a F-22. I did try to think a way for the Dr.1 to win but it all boils down to the F-22 being piloted by an amateur.

You could station the F-22 about 300 NM away from the Fokker base (beyond range of the Dr.1) and then just make multiple sorties to kill them all, in the air or on the ground.

F-22 gun has an effective range of 1-1.5km so while there's zero chance of F-22 being able to maneuver behind the Dr.1 it doesn't really need to. He can shoot down the triplane from standoff range from head on. The triplane also probably doesn't have enough speed to move out of the way of the incoming explosive shell cloud. While the Dr.1 in itself is slow and hence harder to detect using doppler shift, the engine spins with the prop propably giving off enough doppler shift to make detection easy.

I was thinking LotATC.

Can we bring our own air battle manager as AWACS without one doesn't make sense?

ACMI tracks from Top Gun 3 BFM tournament: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2757002&postcount=159 There should be also ACMIs from Top Gun 2 but I lost patience looking for them. If you are particularly interested in Su-27 then look for fights with pilots from 51st squadron in them.

Dumping in DCS used to stop at least in the past when fuel went below bingo.

EM theory isn't praised for uncovering unknown thruts but for giving pilots and engineers a common language to be used when talking about aircraft performance. And you can see in DCS that it's good predictor of combat success only in those fights where pilots fly two dimensionally and basically just fly steady nice turns which is usually not what happens when a pilot who knows what he's doing is flying. Roll rate, aoa rate, max aoa, nose stability etc. are factors that can be exploited for example to deny firing solution or force an overshoot but EM theory tells you nothing about it but then again they are relatively easy to measure and their implications are intuitive to understand. As long as you remenber that the EM theory is a great way to decipher sone of the less intuitive aspects of aircraft performance. Science is about discoveries rather than inventions in the sense that you rarely create anything but just uncover something or reformulate it in a more usable form. In a sense you just take the old stuff that is already there and wrap it up in new package. Like Newton didn't invent gravity or even discover it but "only" figured out a formula that can be used to predict gravitational force between two bodies. if I remember correctly one of the Boyd books mentioned that Boyd used EM theory to devise some moves for F-4 that were used succesfully to defeat Vietnamese fighters. Any comment on that?

Having the aimpoint move in a arc is actually good as you only need a small move with ailerons to move the pipper sideways. Planes are also usually very stable in roll axis but much less stable in yaw axis so you get more precise and quicker aim with less oscillations by having the guns elevated.

F-15 has it's gun slightly elevated, about 2-3 degrees and yes, it's great for dogfighting but sucks for ground attacks. You should be able to get enough lead on the target without losing sight of the target within the guns effective range. Forcing the pilot to fly closer is just stupid as it puts you in danger of overshooting and prevent's you from killing the bandit faster. Modern US fighters all seem to have their nose profile designed so that at the maximum effective range on a 0.9M target it's still barely visible from 90 degree aspect.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2858129&postcount=16

Good find, it has really good quality.

Just use the fixed sight like they did in ww2.

There are methods to make sure the person you are talking to is actually who he claims to be, even if you are not using encrypted radios.

SF_Bushmanni SF Squadron Finland F-15C

Russians also have ground-to-air jammers that have lot more power than airborne jammers.