The F-5 needs an upgrade IMO

[zcrazyx]

Its real and you can get it here as well for free.

 

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/t-o-1f-5e-1-f-5e-flight-manual.html

 

Dont think it has any mention of Mid Air Refuling though

(since the variant in Question did not have the refuling probe and this is a US manual and dont think the US had any F-5Es with Refuling Probes)

 

And also if it was the case that it would be in the official manual since it was a common export option then would not the same be the case for the AGM-65? as the AGM-65 Capable display was also an

Official optional addon.

 

Edit: Dang Silver beat me to it ^^.

 

I've skimmed through it and it would make sense that the probe would not be included however if you look at page 231 there are no AGMs listed however that being said as you've said if we found the export manuals for say the Saudi one we probably would find the complete package, agms, ins, recon, aim 120 etc.

 

In the US manual it shows that it typically was outfitted with a recon or ins package but that is it however this could simply be because at the time of the manual being written they did not think to put agms or aim 120s on let alone a refuel probe for the US version.

 

So therefore assuming that BST used the US manuals they've opted to go for a bare bones airframe which is fair enough and still great and flys like a dream however it does make me wonder if they have been considering adding other packages as a side project while they work on more bigger things like new aircraft entirely.

[MAD-MM]

That's optional for Customer to buy this equipment, our F-5E3 is build after specific US agressor F-5 build and deliverd without INS and Recon Package.

For the Recon Package remove the Radar and 1 Gun. Dont know this is a more usefull Plane.

[zcrazyx]

That's optional for Customer to buy this equipment, our F-5E3 is build after specific US agressor F-5 build and deliverd without INS and Recon Package.

For the Recon Package remove the Radar and 1 Gun. Dont know this is a more usefull Plane.

 

Thinking about it i do wonder what it would be like the have the recon package, if implemented right i'm sure there could be a use but then again it's a combat sim not a recon sim ;)

 

Although it would be cool if ed somehow implemented the way to link the images taken to a kneeboard or mission brief but that would be a ridiculous amount of work and would only be used by us crazy people who like to go tease fighters while we have little or no cannons.

 

as for other upgrades i dunno, if done right it would mean the mission designers have to place different aircraft specific to the mission needs and even then there are so many configurations that would arise due to to 30 countries purchasing the fighter in different configurations I understand why you wouldn't want to pursue such a task.

 

I would ask if you need help with it but I have no coding more modelling experience and so have a huge respect for the companies that make such awesome aircraft for us to enjoy.

Edited July 28, 2016 by zcrazyx

[mattebubben]

I've skimmed through it and it would make sense that the probe would not be included however if you look at page 231 there are no AGMs listed however that being said as you've said if we found the export manuals for say the Saudi one we probably would find the complete package, agms, ins, recon, aim 120 etc.

 

In the US manual it shows that it typically was outfitted with a recon or ins package but that is it however this could simply be because at the time of the manual being written they did not think to put agms or aim 120s on let alone a refuel probe for the US version.

 

So therefore assuming that BST used the US manuals they've opted to go for a bare bones airframe which is fair enough and still great and flys like a dream however it does make me wonder if they have been considering adding other packages as a side project while they work on more bigger things like new aircraft entirely.

 

There is a very big step between the AGM-65 capability and being able to use radar guided missiles =P.

 

the AGM-65 capability was available as an option from the start

(atleast from the start of when the APQ-159 was available which was late 70s)

and only needed a very light modification (with using the standard Radar display with the TV mode instead of the Standard Radar Display without the TV mode) were as the ability to use Radar guided and BVR missiles was a late stage upgrade that required completely new radar and included new computer systems new cockpit systems new hud etc.

 

So there is a significant step between...

[Zimmerdylan]

I don't think anyone is saying the module is bad or that BST did a bad job, I love the module.

 

As for realism and standard aircraft i think you forget with the F5 there is not really a standard, an example being if you look at the US manual it even includes INS and reconnaissance package which is not in game, no one is crying and the F-5 does not have to be a limited aircraft and adding certain things does not make it in any way better than it's competitor the MIG-21 other than the addition of more missiles specifically aim 120s.

 

No one at least me is crying we're just saying it would be nice to have certain things.

 

If you look at page 231 of the US F-5E manual you'll see no AGM-65s but in the same manual of the same aircraft you'll see as stated before the INS and Recon package.

 

the reason the probe is not mentioned the the US manual is because the US did not see the need to have such a thing as it was to be used as an aggressor but if we were to look at export manuals of say the Saudi airforce it would be likely that it would be in the manual as would the AGMs and possibly aim 120s.

 

Regardless of what could be added it would still require hard work and effort weather it be agms, aim 120s, ins or recon packages the difference is simply to do with the country that used them and also the fact its either internal or external to the model.

 

What he is getting at (because you must have missed it) was that people cannot just be happy with what these guys worked so hard to put out. They'd prefer that BST put out a fantasy version of their AC or maybe an X wing fighter or something. All the while, forgetting that this isn't Battlefield, or COD. It is designed as a sim. And in fact, I came to DCS because I was pretty tired of the 12 year olds who dominate those other games. And I wanted a little reality in my gaming.

As I read through the thread I was reminded of my 6 year old boy. When I go out and buy him a cool Lego set, he's immediately asking me for a better Lego set. He isn't happy that someone took the time and money to give him something to make him happy. But.....He's 6 and he'll grow out of that and stop looking a gift horse in the mouth.

So this thread isn't sad really.....It's just childish. Kind of like those guys who spend their whole time in the servers flying F15's because they're fast and easy to fly. You know the one's who are always buzzing the airfields, crashing into people who really want to fly because they're acting "childish". And cluttering up the runways, crashing because they never learned to land correctly.

Not that I am saying you are one of those people. That's just what this thread brings to my mind.

Edited July 28, 2016 by Zimmerdylan

[Exorcet]

The F-5 is fine as is. While the plane was added to provide a balanced opponent with the MiG-21, it's still a simulation based balanced. Having less missiles is part of that.

 

That said having additional F-5 variants or field modifications or whatever would be great. The same goes for any module, but obviously this will take work.

 

If there is one thing I want to comment on though, it's posts like this:

 

 

This thread is a sad read and maybe a bit disgraceful? Belsimtek did a stellar job. Complete manual, excellent FM, some bugs but not game-breaking... And here we are, people crying for stuff that is clearly not standard on the airframe modeled... you knew that F-5E was going to be a limited aircraft, so deal with it like a grown up. Change your flying and tactics to match instead of trying to change a realistic module around your own style of playing.

 

Why look down on people with different opinions (Not focusing specifically on you Schmidtfire, and not meaning to be confrontational)? I don't see anything grown up about preferring the current model over some version with more weapons. It's just a preference and it speaks nothing about how good or bad the person holding that preference is at flying.

 

In my opinion, the only reasonable argument against having additional missile pylons in game is that it's additional work on Belsimtek. Nothing else really matters. It won't impact realism because you can just use the realistic configuration. The same goes for balance, if it's too strong the mission maker can just not use added pylons.

[WinterH]

I am also of the aircraft is fine as it is camp. Refuel probe as an enable/disable option would be nice to add, and Maverick if it can be added later. But that's about it.

 

...aim 120 etc.

 

... at the time of the manual being written they did not think to put agms or aim 120s on let alone a refuel probe for the US version.

 

 

Why do people keep saying AIM-120 I wonder...

 

F-5E have never been able to use AIM-120, nor any other radar guided AAM.

 

It is like saying "why MiG-21Bis doesn't have R-77, Indian ones are using it" or "why no litening TGP on MiG? Romanian ones have it".

 

Those F-5s which have missiles like Derby, AIM-120, Python etc, aren't F-5E anymore... just like MiG-21 Bison aren't MiG-21Bis, or LanceRs aren't MiG-21MF anymore.

 

AGM-65 is another story. Some of the F-5Es had a different radar screen, and necessary wiring, for using early Mavericks with radar screen. It would be cool to have them. Belsimtek said if reliable fist hand declassified documentation for AGM-65 usage on F-5 could be found, they may consider adding it later. I applaud them for this stance.

[zcrazyx]

I am also of the aircraft is fine as it is camp. Refuel probe as an enable/disable option would be nice to add, and Maverick if it can be added later. But that's about it.

 

 

 

Why do people keep saying AIM-120 I wonder...

 

F-5E have never been able to use AIM-120, nor any other radar guided AAM.

 

It is like saying "why MiG-21Bis doesn't have R-77, Indian ones are using it" or "why no litening TGP on MiG? Romanian ones have it".

 

Those F-5s which have missiles like Derby, AIM-120, Python etc, aren't F-5E anymore... just like MiG-21 Bison aren't MiG-21Bis, or LanceRs aren't MiG-21MF anymore.

 

AGM-65 is another story. Some of the F-5Es had a different radar screen, and necessary wiring, for using early Mavericks with radar screen. It would be cool to have them. Belsimtek said if reliable fist hand declassified documentation for AGM-65 usage on F-5 could be found, they may consider adding it later. I applaud them for this stance.

 

You are mistaken, The Saudi Air Force modified theirs to use Aim 120s although it is still designated as an E/F although I'm not sure if they were E-3s that they bought there was also a country that modified theirs to carry the AA-10 Alamo although i'm not sure if they renamed it. It's still hit and miss though. From what I gather, INS and Recon were available from the start with the Refuelling probes and AGM-65 being added later however that is only based on the US manual and not much else which is still not a great source considering the fact that the US would not have such a need for a AGM capable light fighter with a refuel probe. If we are to find information on the AGM and Refuel probes I would say we are going to have to look at other countries documents who purchased the jets with those options.

 

http://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info/AirForces/SaudiArabiaAF.html

 

Look down to the "Peace Hawk II" it's still classed as an F5E, think of WW2 when The US sent tanks to the UK, we renamed them for use in service.

Edited July 28, 2016 by zcrazyx

[mattebubben]

You are mistaken, The Saudi Air Force modified theirs to use Aim 120s although it is still designated as an E/F although I'm not sure if they were E-3s that they bought there was also a country that modified theirs to carry the AA-10 Alamo although i'm not sure if they renamed it. It's still hit and miss though. From what I gather, INS and Recon were available from the start with the Refuelling probes and AGM-65 being added later however that is only based on the US manual and not much else which is still not a great source considering the fact that the US would not have such a need for a AGM capable light fighter with a refuel probe. If we are to find information on the AGM and Refuel probes I would say we are going to have to look at other countries documents who purchased the jets with those options.

 

could you linnk me the source that claims the Saudi F-5Es had Aim-120s?

 

And also ive already responded to this...

 

the Saudi had no variant called F-5E/F.

 

They Had F-5Es and F-5Fs and thats often written as F-5E/F as in they operate both types.

 

Just like the US airforce Operates F-16C/D and F-15C/D.

 

Does not mean there is a C/D variant only that they operate both C and D aircraft.

 

Recon aircraft were available from the start but by having a different nose section (containing a set of Cameras instead of radar etc).

 

Both AGM-65 Capability and Refuling probes were available for new built aircraft it was not something that had to be modified afterwards.

 

Me and others have explained this time and time again please read through our responses on past pages in this thread.

Edited July 28, 2016 by mattebubben

[zcrazyx]

could you linnk me the source that claims the Saudi F-5Es had Aim-120s?

Because i highly doubt that as i dont think they were ever heavily upgraded and also since they were mostly intended for air-ground / fighter bomber duties they would have no need for advanced air-air weapons.

 

And also ive already responded to this...

 

the Saudi had no variant called F-5E/F.

 

They Had F-5Es and F-5Fs and thats often written as F-5E/F as in they operate both types.

 

Just like the US airforce Operates F-16C/D and F-15C/D.

 

Does not mean there is a C/D variant only that they operate both C and D aircraft.

 

Recon aircraft were available from the start but by having a different nose section (containing a set of Cameras instead of radar etc).

 

Both AGM-65 Capability and Refuling probes were available for new built aircraft it was not something that had to be modified afterwards.

 

Me and others have explained this time and time again please read through our responses on past pages in this thread.

 

and if you had looked at my previous posts you would of seen that i acknowledged the fact that the only country that officially had an E/F designation was the swiss airforce who had a single E with F wings. As for the AGMs and Refuel probes i would like to see documentation on that as well and how you know about that they were available from the start. At least someone acknowledges the Es could have both. As for the 120s it was something i found a couple of years ago now and I will have to do some digging, it may not be the Saudi Air Force that had them so I could be wrong about that.

 

I'm just curious to see what images and documents are floating around but that will also take a lot of digging.

[tom1502]

You are mistaken, The Saudi Air Force modified theirs to use Aim 120s although it is still designated as an E/F although I'm not sure if they were E-3s that they bought there was also a country that modified theirs to carry the AA-10 Alamo although i'm not sure if they renamed it. It's still hit and miss though. From what I gather, INS and Recon were available from the start with the Refuelling probes and AGM-65 being added later however that is only based on the US manual and not much else which is still not a great source considering the fact that the US would not have such a need for a AGM capable light fighter with a refuel probe. If we are to find information on the AGM and Refuel probes I would say we are going to have to look at other countries documents who purchased the jets with those options.

 

http://www.the-northrop-f-5-enthusiast-page.info/AirForces/SaudiArabiaAF.html

 

Look down to the "Peace Hawk II" it's still classed as an F5E, think of WW2 when The US sent tanks to the UK, we renamed them for use in service.

 

I think it's really time to leave this now. It doesn't need an upgrade, certainly not from the developers. You're asking for a mod, that's fine, but the developers make the aircraft as they were/are not how we wish they were/are. That's a job for modders to do in their spare time.

 

The F-5E that we have carried 2 Sidewinders, no more. It's all that the aircraft is configured to carry. Live with it, learn to use it, and make the most of it.

[WinterH]

You are mistaken, The Saudi Air Force modified theirs to use Aim 120s although it is still designated as an E/F although I'm not sure if they were E-3s that they bought there was also a country that modified theirs to carry the AA-10 Alamo although i'm not sure if they renamed it. It's still hit and miss though. From what I gather, INS and Recon were available from the start with the Refuelling probes and AGM-65 being added later however that is only based on the US manual and not much else which is still not a great source considering the fact that the US would not have such a need for a AGM capable light fighter with a refuel probe. If we are to find information on the AGM and Refuel probes I would say we are going to have to look at other countries documents who purchased the jets with those options.

 

Am I now? I would love to see some source about upgraded Saudi F-5Es. Though, adding AIM-120 means it could have happened only towards mid 90s and meaning an upgrade, and certainly not the version we have, if it ever happened. As far as I can find, Saudis have already retired F-5E nowadays, apart from recon specialized RF-5E and some F-5B trainers. Also, it would be stange if they indeed did only integrated AIM-120 without changing aircraft, especially the radar, since maximum detection of APQ-159 radar is shorter than maximum range of AIM-120 against a head on approaching aircraft, and even then, said approaching aircraft needs to be bomber size. Also, locking range of same radar is barely longer than maximum head on range of newer Sidewinder types as well, which would be... interesting for AIM-120. Really curious about these Sauid F-5s.

 

Only AIM-120 capable F-5E upgrade I can think of was either Singaporean or may be Taiwanese ones.

[ST0RM]

Having read your previous replies, you state the RSAF did mod their jets for AMRAAM. Now you're back pedaling.

 

This is a F-5E-3 chosen to replicate an Aggressor aircraft. It's not a current front line fighter with PGM, BVR or AAR. Nor does it sound like it's going to be. I'm enjoying it, AS IS. In fact just logged a few hours in it last night. Fun jet.

[zcrazyx]

Like i said i could very well be wrong and will accept that however i'm still confused as to why BST said they would be willing to model the AGM 65 if someone had first hand documentation of it if the one they have modelled is the aggressor versions.

 

I love the F5 as is and am not too bothered with what they do with it in terms of modifications, i just like discussing the possibilities of 'optional' extras as the agm and probe were.

 

Anyway now i really am beating a dead horse, maybe a Question and Answer needs to be done to clarify things.

 

With that I will leave this thread unless I find relevant documentation on anything.

Edited July 28, 2016 by zcrazyx

[mattebubben]

and if you had looked at my previous posts you would of seen that i acknowledged the fact that the only country that officially had an E/F designation was the swiss airforce who had a single E with F wings. As for the AGMs and Refuel probes i would like to see documentation on that as well and how you know about that they were available from the start. At least someone acknowledges the Es could have both. As for the 120s it was something i found a couple of years ago now and I will have to do some digging, it may not be the Saudi Air Force that had them so I could be wrong about that.

 

I'm just curious to see what images and documents are floating around but that will also take a lot of digging.

 

The AGM-65 Capability became an option when the APQ-159 became an option for the F-5E (mid 1970s) from then on all New built aircraft (or older coult be retrofitted) had the option to mount the New APQ-159 radar and after that option you had the option between to different types of radar displays one of them being Capable Of operating the AGM-65 and the other not being able to do so.

 

And also about the Peace Hawk II thing...

 

Its still classed as an F-5E because it is still a F-5E.

 

US sales of military aircraft (to an export customer) Tended to have a two part Code word.

 

So for the Saudi F-5 Deal the First batch of aircraft was the Peace Hawk I Sales program and then when they acquired a second batch of aircraft that second batch got the Code Name Peace Hawk II third batch/acquisition of F-5s the name Peace Hawk III and so on.

 

It was the same with other Export programs of other aircraft types

For example the Israeli Military Sales program for their purchase of the F-16 was names Peace Marble with Peace Marble I being the first batch and Peace Marble II being the second and so on.

 

And the First name of the Code was Always Peace.

[WinterH]

Like i said i could very well be wrong and will accept that however i'm still confused as to why BST said they would be willing to model the AGM 65 if someone had first hand documentation of it if the one they have modelled is the aggressor versions.

 

Because that would still be an F-5E of same vintage, as opposed to any AIM-120 slinging one.

[Skjold]

Plane is fine the way it is, as the real F-5E-3 was IRL. Only capability that could improve it is the AGM-65 integration.

 

"If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

[mattebubben]

Like i said i could very well be wrong and will accept that however i'm still confused as to why BST said they would be willing to model the AGM 65 if someone had first hand documentation of it if the one they have modelled is the aggressor versions.

 

I love the F5 as is and am not too bothered with what they do with it in terms of modifications, i just like discussing the possibilities of 'optional' extras as the agm and probe were.

 

The Aircraft they had modeled so far is based on Documentation of US aggressor aircraft.

 

But Its also the same config as the F-5Es of many other users.

(when it comes to the APQ-159 radar its RWR system and no Refuling probe etc)

 

And adding AGM-65 capability while it would no longer make it 100% US aggressor it would add a significant capability and its a modification that could have been easily done to any F-5E especially if they already had the APQ-159 radar (as it would only really require replacing the Radar Display with a different display that would fit right in with all systems / wirings inplace already as well as rewire the 2 pylons to accept AGM-65 Seeker Data)

and it would still be a realistic setup for other users.

And when you come down to it having a F-5E in US colors doing combat could be unrealistic.

And if you simply decided not to carry the AGM-65 (even with the capability) it would be identical to a F-5E without that capability (as it is now).

 

And as such it would only be a matter of changing some code and a likely slight modification to the cockpit texture (depending on if the Radar Display looked any different)

 

While other changes like The Refuling probe for example would require a great deal more (it would require larger cockpit changes as well as a visual model change a flight model change and some coding work)

where as it would have less impact on the capabilities of the aircraft (especially game wise).

Edited July 28, 2016 by mattebubben

[zcrazyx]

And when you come down to it having a F-5E in US colors doing combat could be unrealistic.

And if you simply decided not to carry the AGM-65 (even with the capability) it would be identical to a F-5E without that capability (as it is now).

 

And as such it would only be a matter of changing some code and a likely slight modification to the cockpit texture (depending on if the Radar Display looked any different)

 

While other changes like The Refuling probe for example would require a great deal more (it would require larger cockpit changes as well as a visual model change a flight model change and some coding work)

where as it would have less impact on the capabilities of the aircraft (especially game wise).

 

Found the picture of the change radar display but that's it, anyway as said i'm now going to not post on this thread unless i find documentation which is unlikely.

 

 

this image might not be an E or had other upgrades though, note the moved countermeasure controls.

Edited July 28, 2016 by zcrazyx

[mattebubben]

Nice =).

 

And also i probably like the Countermeasure placement better

(since its easier to both see and reach)

Might be a change from early / later F-5 production since the F-5E-3 aggressors were a part of the earlier production.

 

But yea Changes in placements of such systems were not that uncommon between different batches of aircraft etc.

 

I kinda like the look of that Display =) and that is probably the Variant with the TV mode (AGM-65 Capability)

 

And sorry if you felt like we bullied you off this thread that was never the intent =P.

[zcrazyx]

Nice =).

 

And also i probably like the Countermeasure placement better

(since its easier to both see and reach)

Might be a change from early / later F-5 production since the F-5E-3 aggressors were a part of the earlier production.

 

But yea Changes in placements of such systems were not that uncommon between different batches of aircraft etc.

 

I kinda like the look of that Display =) and that is probably the Variant with the TV mode (AGM-65 Capability)

 

And sorry if you felt like we bullied you off this thread that was never the intent =P.

 

I prefer it like that as well, I remember seeing a video somewhere of an aggressor squadron messing around at their airbase doing a routine, will try and find the video.

 

That's what i was thinking when i saw the A-10 style screen and don't worry it's cool I know how it feels when people don't shut up :P sorry :/.

 

Will edit this post when i find the video.

Found it, not a great cockpit view though :/, [ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNIwSmMUtk8[/ame]

Edited July 28, 2016 by zcrazyx

[Kev2go]

I prefer it like that as well, I remember seeing a video somewhere of an aggressor squadron messing around at their airbase doing a routine, will try and find the video.

 

That's what i was thinking when i saw the A-10 style screen and don't worry it's cool I know how it feels when people don't shut up :P sorry :/.

 

Will edit this post when i find the video.

Found it, not a great cockpit view though :/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNIwSmMUtk8

 

so from the video, it seems the F5 agressors do have the modified display of some sort? agm capability or just plain modernized radar display?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Kev2go

[Thisdale]

I prefer it like that as well, I remember seeing a video somewhere of an aggressor squadron messing around at their airbase doing a routine, will try and find the video.

 

That's what i was thinking when i saw the A-10 style screen and don't worry it's cool I know how it feels when people don't shut up :P sorry :/.

 

Will edit this post when i find the video.

Found it, not a great cockpit view though :/, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNIwSmMUtk8

 

I am completely mesmerized at the level of control the pilots have during formation flying (5:54). Incredible. I'm going back to the drawing board....

[SkateZilla]

DCS Series Aircraft Are Authentic to their Modeled Variant/Block.

 

They are not "Expand Capabilities to make it more balanced online/offline/vs other aircraft".

 

And Users need to Understand the Difference Between an F-5E-3, and Export Versions.

 

All the 4x AIM-9s, 4x AIM-120s, AGM-65s, Magic IRM, Python Missile, Refueling Probe Attachment/Modification, etc etc were all Part of the Export/Upgrade programs.

 

The F-5E Represented in the Module is an F-5E-3, it's not "based off a special aggressor version", It's Based of the F-5E-3 Build.

 

Remaining F-5 Aggressors are F-5Ns Purchased from Swiss Air Force and Run Upgraded AN/APG-69 Radars.

 

 

The Majority of the Additional Capabilities are from Export Models, or Upgraded / Modernized Models.

Edited July 28, 2016 by SkateZilla

[Capn kamikaze]

DCS Series Aircraft Are Authentic to their Modeled Variant/Block.

 

They are not "Expand Capabilities to make it more balanced online/offline/vs other aircraft".

 

And Users need to Understand the Difference Between an F-5E-3, and Export Versions.

 

All the 4x AIM-9s, 4x AIM-120s, AGM-65s, Magic IRM, Python Missile, Refueling Probe Attachment/Modification, etc etc were all Part of the Export/Upgrade programs.

 

The F-5E Represented in the Module is an F-5E-3, it's not "based off a special aggressor version", It's Based of the F-5E-3 Build.

 

Remaining F-5 Aggressors are F-5Ns Purchased from Swiss Air Force and Run Upgraded AN/APG-69 Radars.

 

 

The Majority of the Additional Capabilities are from Export Models, or Upgraded / Modernized Models.

 

I'm not asking for the F-5E-3 to be made into something it is not, only asking if a version that does have a couple more missiles and perhaps the probe could be added, and I think that would be a good idea.

 

As I said on the first page, even if you score two kills with the two missiles we have, and perhaps another with the guns, it still means a lot of time RTBing, I'd rather have the chance to score 5 kills than 3.... as I said, its combat persistence is rather low, IMO it would make it a far more useful aircraft if that was not the case.