neofightr Posted February 3, 2018 Author Share Posted February 3, 2018 (edited) Hey Neo, I forget if I've already asked but did you ever perform DACT vs the Tomcat, Eagle & Viper? and if so what were your impressions from these? Yes I did (all 3) and I talked about it in another convoluted thread. Lots of stuff talked about in this thread some ugly and some good. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 Edited February 3, 2018 by neofightr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 Yes I did (all 3) and I talked about it in another convoluted thread. Lots of stuff talked about in this thread some ugly and some good. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=191547 I really can't locate anything in that mess, any chance you could give a short run down of your experiences training against these other aircraft? Like for example, how did you rate your chances against an F-15, and what were you tactics vs one etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neofightr Posted February 5, 2018 Author Share Posted February 5, 2018 I really can't locate anything in that mess, any chance you could give a short run down of your experiences training against these other aircraft? Like for example, how did you rate your chances against an F-15, and what were you tactics vs one etc.. My apologies looks like I sent you down a different rabbit hole. The discussion is in this thread starting around page 9 For your convenience I will paste the main posts: Quote: Originally Posted by RaceFuel85 View Post Question for you..if it's not already been addressed.. What was your take on the F-14A vs the B/D in relation to BFM/ACM against them in the Hornet? I believe the F-14A's optimum corner velocity was around 350 knots..which isn't that far off from the Hornet. Of course the Alpha cat couldn't regain energy as well since the TF30's were touchy to aggressive throttle movement and, as you said, slower to spool up. I won't discuss specific numbers just generalizations. I didn't have a lot of flying against the F14. Typically squadrons didn't do much cross bfm. So the few times I did I believe it was against the B. My understanding with the conversations I had with the crews was the A with the original engines were severely underpowered. This was rectified with the engine upgrades. Back in my day there were not many D squadrons around. I remember the F14 holding its own against me in the few engagements I had, we basically remained at a stalemate through most of the turning eventually someone flinched and the other got the upper hand. But basically that was attributed to pilot skill and not the aircraft. In basic terms to win a dogfight you need be able to maintain a threat with the nose at all times in other words denying your opponent any advantage in angles. If both players are consistently doing this then the turn circle turns into a scissor fight as the pilots jockey to get behind the other. When different aircraft have similar performance numbers then it will always boil down to which pilot is better at maintaining optimum speed and AOA numbers through the entire engagement because by doing so you are maximizing what the plane can do and eventually you will control the fight and get the edge. So my point is not to get hung up on the numbers between a/c but focus on the numbers of your aircraft as to always strive to maintain them. Because really it's a toss-up between all the last gen fighters when you factor in pilot skill and error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neofightr Posted February 6, 2018 Author Share Posted February 6, 2018 I really can't locate anything in that mess, any chance you could give a short run down of your experiences training against these other aircraft? Like for example, how did you rate your chances against an F-15, and what were you tactics vs one etc.. With regards to the F15, I won't talk about missile tactics because that is real sensitive. I know I posted this point earlier in this thread but what makes the F18 standout against it's peers is it's slow flight characteristics. In my opinion it has the best high alpha maneuverability making it the best dogfighter of all of them in the slow speed regime. In a slow speed dogfight with equal pilot skills the hornet will gain the advantage fairly quickly over the 15 or 16. Those planes were originally designed as interceptors so their strength is top speed and acceleration not turn-rates in a slow dog fight. The 18 is the opposite, suffers in top speed performance but excels in turn rate at slow speeds. Dogfight tactics is universal when it come to these types of jets and I mentioned it in the previous post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveRindner Posted February 7, 2018 Share Posted February 7, 2018 Mine is one man's opinion. However I have noticed, across years of DCS posts by former real pilots, that on high fidelity (PFM, ASM) modules, that the power availability was below real world, and energy loss a bit too abrupt . AI aggressors have power and energy advantage. Obviously this is when flying against AI. I kind of sort of wish that , at least AI fighters and fighter-bombers, nearest player would switch to AFM, PFM, from standard. While others can retain standard models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hummingbird Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Thanks for the info Neofightr, much appreciated :) Basically sums up what the EM charts are telling us too, i.e. the F-14 & F/A-18 are real good at the slow speed dogfighting whilst the F-15 & F-16 prefer the vertical when faced with either one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmanni Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 Mine is one man's opinion. However I have noticed, across years of DCS posts by former real pilots, that on high fidelity (PFM, ASM) modules, that the power availability was below real world, and energy loss a bit too abrupt . AI aggressors have power and energy advantage. Obviously this is when flying against AI. I kind of sort of wish that , at least AI fighters and fighter-bombers, nearest player would switch to AFM, PFM, from standard. While others can retain standard models. AI doesn't need the extra fidelity of how the aircraft feels to the pilot. AI SFM should simply be tuned correctly and maybe add some extra fidelity to excess power modeling if necessary. DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community -------------------------------------------------- SF Squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Team NineLine Posted February 9, 2018 ED Team Share Posted February 9, 2018 AI doesn't need the extra fidelity of how the aircraft feels to the pilot. AI SFM should simply be tuned correctly and maybe add some extra fidelity to excess power modeling if necessary. Ah, you make it sound so easy ;) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojo Posted February 9, 2018 Share Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) Hi neofighter Lately we see a lot this kind of load configuration on US Navy Hornet and Super Hornet: I assume this is to clear the targeting pod line of sight, especially doing the "wheel" around the target during CAS missions. Did you use this kind of configuration during your time ? How does the Hornet handle ? For instance the Mirage 2000 has yaw auto-trim but the pilot needs to manually trim in roll (or use the auto-pilot to trim) On the other hand, non carrier-based users seem to use the targeting pod on center line station (Marines, Australian...). Why the US Navy doesn't use this station to load the targeting pod or any weapon by the way? Thanks Edited February 9, 2018 by jojo Mirage fanatic ! I7-7700K/ MSI RTX3080/ RAM 64 Go/ SSD / TM Hornet stick-Virpil WarBRD + Virpil CM3 Throttle + MFG Crosswind + Reverb G2. Flickr gallery: https://www.flickr.com/gp/71068385@N02/728Hbi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushmanni Posted February 10, 2018 Share Posted February 10, 2018 Ah, you make it sound so easy ;) Didn't mean that it's easy, just that the AI doesn't need the extra fidelity that comes with PFM and players will see and feel it only as bad fps. I have the impression that SFM can simulate performance accurately enough? If not then maybe there's a case for improving the SFM a bit sometime in the future but to me it seems that SFM can do a pretty good job already. So if there's a problem with model accuracy the solution is not to use more complex flight model but to make the existing one more accurate. DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community -------------------------------------------------- SF Squadron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neofightr Posted February 11, 2018 Author Share Posted February 11, 2018 Hi neofighter Lately we see a lot this kind of load configuration on US Navy Hornet and Super Hornet: I assume this is to clear the targeting pod line of sight, especially doing the "wheel" around the target during CAS missions. Did you use this kind of configuration during your time ? How does the Hornet handle ? For instance the Mirage 2000 has yaw auto-trim but the pilot needs to manually trim in roll (or use the auto-pilot to trim) On the other hand, non carrier-based users seem to use the targeting pod on center line station (Marines, Australian...). Why the US Navy doesn't use this station to load the targeting pod or any weapon by the way? Thanks Those configurations were after my time. I never had to deal with that type of asymmetric load (assuming the weapons were launched). The FCS should have no problem adjusting for that aero load but I suspect landings were done at half-flaps to keep more airflow over the airframe for better controlability. Typically the models that go out to other non-navy entities have custom wiring done with agreements established before delivery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDsc0rch Posted February 12, 2018 Share Posted February 12, 2018 Hi neofighter ... Why the US Navy doesn't use this station to load the targeting pod or any weapon by the way? Thanks my understanding is the centerline station was never cleared for carrier landings with ordnance - just drop tanks i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Hey neofighter, many thanks for sharing your experiences with us. This thread is a great one to read! I've got a question about night operations on a carrier: Do landings at night always happen with lights on on the flight deck or are there situations where lights have to be completly turned off? And what about NVGs, are they ever used for landings? I guess the answer to both questions is no, but I want to make sure :) Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neofightr Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 Hey neofighter, many thanks for sharing your experiences with us. This thread is a great one to read! I've got a question about night operations on a carrier: Do landings at night always happen with lights on on the flight deck or are there situations where lights have to be completly turned off? And what about NVGs, are they ever used for landings? I guess the answer to both questions is no, but I want to make sure :) My knowledge is dated by 20 years but for safety reasons there are always lights on the flight deck but they are low intensity for many obvious reasons. NVGs don't work for landings because you lose your depth perception which is important for landing. Plus they would wash out with the deck lights. For those that wonder if a carrier would be more stealthy with lights out, not really because radar and sonar detection would expose a carrier long before flight deck lights would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted February 25, 2018 Share Posted February 25, 2018 My knowledge is dated by 20 years but for safety reasons there are always lights on the flight deck but they are low intensity for many obvious reasons. NVGs don't work for landings because you lose your depth perception which is important for landing. Plus they would wash out with the deck lights. That's what I thought, thanks! :thumbup: For those that wonder if a carrier would be more stealthy with lights out, not really because radar and sonar detection would expose a carrier long before flight deck lights would. Indeed, I can't think of a plausible scenario (including satellite based reconnaissance) where this wouldn't be the case nowadays. Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts