DCS: F-16CM Block 50 by EDSA Discussion Thread

But then the actual micro sized maps should grow very fast... For good sorties with air refuel and so on there should be 1.000 x 1.000 miles size minimum..

But then the actual micro sized maps should grow very fast... For good sorties with air refuel and so on there should be 1.000 x 1.000 miles size minimum..

Absolutely, I love air to air refueling, but with the map sizes we have, it's never absolutely needed or the tanker has to be places very close to the action area

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G965F mit Tapatalk

It would actually make sense to have a Block 30/32 for agressor F-16 to go along with the Nevada Map.

 

We would at best have a skin for that.

Block 30/32 is a very different aircraft from Block 50/52.

What's wrong with monochrome displays? :huh:

 

They work quite well in the Hornet.

You're right, they are functional, but I think it's the green. I was so used to the MFDs in the A-10, and not realizing there are different types of MFDs. Then the Harrier came out with the green MFDs for the mavs, I didn't like them. Now the Hornet has them. I'm just hoping the Viper gets color displays.

A vote for color display for MFD here for the F-16CJ.

The Hornet cockpit is too greenish. I am hoping the SA page will bring some contrasting colors like yellow and red on enemy contacts when it is implemented to give a more colorful look.

 

Just me though. Different strokes for different folks.

i think that color MFD´s become necessary when you interate the notion of Link 16 and advanced data link system between airplanes. Different colors for different things.

 

For example when firing an AIM-120 .. with an F-16 having monochrome MFD´s you will rely more on symbology to know at which stage your missile is at.

 

When you have color MFD´s you can by the color back up the symbology information ( designated target turns purple and flashes and has a tail on it when the missile goes active).

 

At the end of the day, job gets done, but colors are becoming necessary.

We would at best have a skin for that.

Block 30/32 is a very different aircraft from Block 50/52.

 

It sure is.

"when you interate the notion of Link 16 and advanced data link system between airplanes"

"when you interate the notion of Link 16 and advanced data link system between airplanes"

 

what is wrong with what i wrote ?:cry:

 

F-16 has IDM (Improved Data Modem) which is part of the datalink system.

 

Then on top of that you also have Link 16.

 

Maybe is should have written IDM instead of advaced datalink system.

Edited January 10, 2019 by greenmamba

F18, F16, F14, ... It all comes together. I will never fly red probably :D

Maybe a study sim level f-15C ..

Maybe a study sim level f-15C ..

F-15C? Yesn't.

 

F-16 is the king :D

Always !!! F-16 rules !!! Oh my .... I love this plane !!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-15C? Yesn't.

 

F-16 is the king :D

 

But why have one F100-PW-220, when you can have two...

Edited January 11, 2019 by Wizard_03

Maybe a study sim level f-15C ..

 

^^^^^ Yes! Nobody (other than the F-22) does strictly Air to air better.

But why have one F100-PW-220, when you can have two...

 

Why have two lawnmower engines when you can have 1 real one like a F110-GE-129

Can the F16CJ Block 50 mount Conformal Fuel Tanks?

 

That way we could simulate other aircraft, like the Israeli F16's and the Polish ones.

Why ? I mean it is your right but Poland and Isreal have no Block 50.

 

Block 50 USAF and Polish Block 52+ are different birds ... avionics etc etc

 

And Israelis F-16I which is a two seater is a highly modified F-16 .... even the avionics ... some of it is in Hebrew.

 

The Block 50 isn’t out yet and already people want more ? I don’t get this ? ....

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, I see, its all on different aircraft.

 

 

I think it is possible to mount them. they did test the F16 CJ, I believe. Is this correct?

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

I guess because of doctrine and also because in the USAF they have multiple assets. It makes sense for Air Forces relying solely on the F-16 for a fighting force to extend its range.

 

I am also not sure if a CFT F-16 would maybe get in the way of a F-15E in the USAF.

 

Poland, Israel (although they have F-15I) , Greece, Singapour, Turkey, Morocco, UAE, Oman .... those countries rely on the Viper as a long range strike fighter and some of those countries have no tanker asset in their own Air Force ... that would be the case of Greece and Morocco.

 

My opinion is that it is more a question of doctrine and how different air forces fight and handle battle.

 

Few air forces in the world are Strategic Air Forces .... you see more tactical Air Forces. And in the case of the USAF ... I don’t know what the addition of CFT’s would cost them and what kind of work they would have to do on the F-16 fleet ... maybe that money is used for more important projects ... F-35 etc etc

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, I see, its all on different aircraft.

 

 

I think it is possible to mount them. they did test the F16 CJ, I believe. Is this correct?

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-dont-new-u-s-air-force-f-16s-use-these-futuristic-1712746714

 

The CFT where tested to F-16C block 50/52. But those aircraft are modified and the article is wrong when stating that USAF block 50/52 are delivered with the modifications. There are structural modifications to attached the CFT and there are fuel system and ECS system modifications to accommodate CFT. Panther would know better than me but is not as simple as the article makes it seem.

 

The F-16 actually have a better fuel efficiency than an F-15 and F/A-18. A clean F-16 can travel farther than both on internal fuel alone. One of the reasons they always carry wing tanks is because the missions they do and the fact that aircraft have to land with certain amount of fuel. This a safety thing, not related to aircraft limitations. Many USAF squadrons require their F-16 to land with about 3000lbs of fuel, giving a safety margin if they have to divert from home base. IIRC, in 15 years, I saw and F-16 come back with less than 1000 lbs once and the pilot was in a hurry to shut down.

IIRC, in 15 years, I saw and F-16 come back with less than 1000 lbs once and the pilot was in a hurry to shut down.

 

I've seen 634 on the totalizer after shutdown, without it being an emergency :P

Shadow,

Our fuel system has + or - 100 lbs, are guys the same on the A/B models?

Shadow,

Our fuel system has + or - 100 lbs, are guys the same on the A/B models?

 

From what I remember, no. The totalizer went down to single digits, but I have no idea on just how accurate it actually is.

 

I do remember that the crewchief told me to go up into the 'pit and verify his reading before writing it into the AFTO, however. Usually the birds came down with 1000-1100lbs, but the bird in question did a Scramble-launch, shortfield and hilariously low lowpass due to Code One Magazine visiting Bodø MAS back in 2000. Was a lot of fun to launch it with only three out of six green, and to recover it with what's basically vapor in the tanks.

Was a lot of fun to launch it with only three out of six green

:smartass: You don't need those. It's good. :D