Republic F-84 Thunderjet, Thunderstreak

[SKYFOXX]

Dear DCS Santa, I've been a very good bot this year and for Xmas I'd like to have a Republic F-84 Thunderjet, Thunderstreak, DCs Module. If you don't know what that airplane looks like check out the site.

http://www.strategic-air-command.com/aircraft/fighter/f84_thunderjet.htm

 

As you know Santa, I was born in 1948 just after WW2 and before the US Korean War. So when I started watching television or went to the movies the F-84 was the jet plane used in some war and Si-Fi films. I sorta remember Client Eastwood flew a F-84 in the the movie 'Tarantula'

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---

The F-84 thunderjet would be a very simple project for DCS to deploy, because:

1. Very simple to model because it small. ( Sorry I'm not a modeler or programmer)

2. I don't think it has many switches and buttons to creaate.

3. A person new to DCS aircraft would find this jet plane less intimidating to begin with. So it would be a nice basic training aircraft.

4. A F-84 DCS or Steam DCS- F-84 will fit in my stocking on the fireplace

5. I can't find a real F-84 for sale on e-bay or Amazon.

----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------

P.s, Last year my Mom made me leave the green salad out for you instead of the milk and cookies because she said you were too fat and a salad would be better for Your health. This year I will leave you some oatmeal cookies and ice cream.

SKY_FOXX

[kontiuka]

Dear DCS Santa, I've been a very good bot this year

In accordance with your programming?:lol:

[probad]

wouldnt say no to any airplane, but some of these reasons you made up are so bad they are begging to be debunked.

 

1) simplicity in concept rarely ever equates to simplicity in execution.

2) we have "simpler" aircraft already available. but again, simple is deceptive term. the mig-15 is simpler systemswise, but with its transonic quirks and fully manual control, you'd be hard-pressed to say it's simpler to fly than a m2k. the engine starting procedure for a p-51 is much more intimidating for the uninitiated than that for the more more complex mig-21.

3) we already have dedicated trainers aplenty, to the point people are sick of them.

in addition, the number of people who willingly forgo flying the aircraft of their choice to fly a trainer first is... virtually nonexistent.

anyone who wants to fly an f-15 is going to buy the f-15, not an f-84.

 

which pretty much only leaves us with the reason that you just personally like the f-84 a lot. nothing wrong with that, of course.

 

more relevant issues to consider next time:

does it mesh with current or future developments?

is there ready access to in-depth data? like access to an airframe, aerodynamic data, systems manuals, not wikipedia statistics and contentmill articles.

Edited September 21, 2016 by probad

[anlq]

wouldnt say no to any airplane, but some of these reasons you made up are so bad they are begging to be debunked.

 

1) simplicity in concept rarely ever equates to simplicity in execution.

2) we have "simpler" aircraft already available. but again, simple is deceptive term. the mig-15 is simpler systemswise, but with its transonic quirks and fully manual control, you'd be hard-pressed to say it's simpler to fly than a m2k. the engine starting procedure for a p-51 is much more intimidating for the uninitiated than that for the more more complex mig-21.

3) we already have dedicated trainers aplenty, to the point people are sick of them.

in addition, the number of people who willingly forgo flying the aircraft of their choice to fly a trainer first is... virtually nonexistent.

anyone who wants to fly an f-15 is going to buy the f-15, not an f-84.

 

which pretty much only leaves us with the reason that you just personally like the f-84 a lot. nothing wrong with that, of course.

 

more relevant issues to consider next time:

does it mesh with current or future developments?

is there ready access to in-depth data? like access to an airframe, aerodynamic data, systems manuals, not wikipedia statistics and contentmill articles.

 

yeah

yeah

yeah

yeah

yeah

yeah

[MethWolf]

 

First of all, the F-84 isn't a trainer; it was a fighter bomber that served with over 80,000 sorties in the korean war.

 

as for

does it mesh with current or future developments?

is there ready access to in-depth data? like access to an airframe, aerodynamic data, systems manuals, not wikipedia statistics and contentmill articles.

 

It's a historically significant aircraft that would mesh well with our two current korean war era fighters. It was produced in the thousands, is fully declassified. There are at least airworthy survivors of the thunderstreak available, if not the thunderjet. Plenty of non-airworthy examples available in museums.

 

Finally, simple in concept certainly does mean simpler in execution, at least for DCS modules- this is why we have so many simpler aircraft and so few fourth generation multirole fighters. It's a lot easier to program a trainer or a mustang than it is to program an F/A-18.

 

I'm not really clamoring for an F-84 (or more korean war aircraft until we get a stable of AI ground and air units, a map, and better smart scaling) but it's the wishlist forum, the least you guys could do is find some a legitimate reason to be a dick to this guy for wishlisting an aircraft.

Edited September 22, 2016 by MethWolf

[MikeMikeJuliet]

About the eternal point of "no more trainer..."

 

You guys realise that it is not required for you to own every model in DCS? If there is a trainer in a list and you don't like it, don't buy it. Or a simpler fighter. Or any aircraft. Nothing is taken away from you if an aircraft is added to DCS even if it was a basic trainer.

 

I don't get it. This is the wishlist thread and people may wish for whatever they want. They wishing it or you trying to debunk it probably won't make a big difference in the grand scheem of things. This whole section seems to be about "make a wish and get yelled at because it wasn't the exact same wish as someone elses".

[SKYFOXX]

!Thank's All, for all Your replies. The F-84 does not have all the advanced sophisticated weaponry as modern jet fighters. It's defense and radar systems are also deficient by todays standards. However, I just thought that after first flying a F-84 one could then understand and appreciate a little better the advances or evolution that the modern aircraft can deploy. Bear with me for a moment. The first helicopter I ever flew on a pc was on a Apple 2 (1982) called 'Choplifter'. It was a 2D and one had to rescue some people with the copter while being attacked by a jet plane and tank. Very simple game but in those days it was fantastic. today, we have computer games with helicopters that are 3D and let a player get in and out, shoot, control or even repair it i.e, DCS helicopter modules and Battlefield 4. I'm so glad I've been able to witness, appreciate and use these advances in computer gaming with respect to graphics programming.

 

P.s, If DCS Santa can't design me a F-84; how about designing me a Klingon Brel Bird of Prey with cloaking? -------------------->

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Klingon_Bird-of-Prey

Edited September 22, 2016 by SKYFOXX

[MegOhm_SD]

Nothing wrong with wishing as I still wish for the AC130 Spectre...multi-crew of course. But dang, I'm sure it's so classified it won't happen but my lifetime.

[Ktulu2]

Not a fan of 1st gen jets, but there's one version of the 84 that I'd like...You know, the one that makes the whole ground crew sick, the all mighty supersonic turboprop XF-84H!!!

[Kev2go]

Sure we ought to have more Korean War jets. Throw in the f9f panther and we have us air forces in Korea proper represented.

 

Jets were first straight winged.. so I agree it's nice to see the gap evolution. Tech didn't not jump straight from pistons to swept winged jets. ( well maybe for Germany with Thier me262, but you get my point)

[upyr1]

Anything Republic 

On 9/22/2016 at 4:28 PM, Kev2go said:

Sure we ought to have more Korean War jets. Throw in the f9f panther and we have us air forces in Korea proper represented.

 

Jets were first straight winged.. so I agree it's nice to see the gap evolution. Tech didn't not jump straight from pistons to swept winged jets. ( well maybe for Germany with Thier me262, but you get my point)

yes