F-20 Tigershark Please

[Exorcet]

38 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

We talk about aircrafts, no hypotetics wars, missions, etc, with the comunity and ED and 3rd parties build. What next? Build a Narnia or Lord of Rings map?. 

That's a rather pointless question. Narnia and Lord of the Rings don't obey the laws of physics, don't have flight manuals, and don't have major engineering firms that you can contact for information. How are you going to model them to the accuracy of the F-20 which actually exists?

I get that you prefer historical aircraft and that's completely fine. A plane having seen service is not required for simulation though.

[F-2]

The first tigershark prototype used a more or less stock F404 with installation changes. The next two had a 17000lbf class engine (higher mass flow). An 18000lbf engine was planned for the fourth aircraft and later production aircraft. I’m unclear if this engine is related at all to the Gripen or F404-402 (which differ from each other) aircraft but since the fourth plane was never finished it’s immaterial. There are fact sheets in existence on the second engine which make simulation possible, but perhaps the manual has information that it’s performance can be derived. The stock 404 would be easiest but probably underpowered.

[F-2]

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19790001876/downloads/19790001876.pdf
 

nasa paper on the shark nose. Apparently the Tigershark is a good high AoA performer, does 35 degrees alpha.

[Vampyre]

It looks like the failed prototype arguments are out the window with the recent announcement of the J-8II PP and Ka-50 BSIII release. At least the F-20 actually flew and fired weapons.  

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

"Prototype" has some pretty wide goalposts. It would be prudent to differentiate between something that was new from the ground up such as the TSR-2 and something that is an adaptation of an existing aircraft like the J-8PP.

The F-20 would fall into the latter category.

[Vampyre]

40 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

"Prototype" has some pretty wide goalposts. It would be prudent to differentiate between something that was new from the ground up such as the TSR-2 and something that is an adaptation of an existing aircraft like the J-8PP.

The F-20 would fall into the latter category.

The J8II PP and BSIII are fictional drawing board aircraft that didn't even make it to the prototype stage as they never actually flew with the upgrades planned for them. The F-20 was an actual functioning aircraft with real capabilities which would put it into a category all its own. 

[cfrag]

On 10/25/2022 at 8:09 AM, Silver_Dragon said:

Intent revive a extinct program with 3 prototipes olny to a "what if" has similar to a RAH-66, canceled programs of a doom prototipes, nothing more.

You mean like the Ka-50?

 

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Vampyre said:

The J8II PP and BSIII are fictional drawing board aircraft that didn't even make it to the prototype stage as they never actually flew with the upgrades planned for them. The F-20 was an actual functioning aircraft with real capabilities which would put it into a category all its own. 

J8II PP is being done by Deka third party it is not an ED project. The BS3 was based on a prototype. 

Getting back on topic the Tigershark would be nice, but we have no plans currently 

thanks

[Silver_Dragon]

29 minutes ago, cfrag said:

You mean like the Ka-50?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamov_Ka-50
 

Quote

Number built    Ka-50: 18-19

Quote

 

Second Chechen War[edit]

The Ka-50 took part in the Russian Army's operations against separatists in the Chechen Republic during the Second Chechen War. In December 2000, a pair of production Ka-50s arrived to the area. With the Ka-50s was a Ka-29 to provide reconnaissance and target designation. On 6 January 2001, the Ka-50 used live weapons against a real enemy for the first time. On 9 January, at the entry into a mountain gorge in the area of a settlement named Komsomolskoye, a single Ka-50 accompanied by an Mi-24 used S-8 unguided rockets to destroy a warehouse full of ammunition belonging to Chechen insurgents. On 6 February, in the forest-covered mountain area to the south of the village of Tsentoroj, the strike group composed of two Ka-50s and the sole Ka-29 discovered and, from a range of 3 km, destroyed a fortified camp of insurgents using two "9K121 Vikhr" guided missiles. 14 February, saw a similar strike group carrying out a "hunting" mission in the area of Oak-Yurt and Hatun. In difficult conditions, pilots found and destroyed eight targets. These missions tested the type's airframe, as well as its on-board systems and armament. Its successful performance in difficult, mountainous terrain once again confirmed the usefulness of the many advanced features of the Ka-50's design, including its power and maneuverability.[17]

 

 

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Number built    Ka-50: 18-19

That's my point. Neither has a meaningful number of units built. 3 vs 19. 

[Silver_Dragon]

2 minutes ago, cfrag said:

That's my point. Neither has a meaningful number of units built. 3 vs 19. 

Ka-50 has no a prototype, has a production aircrafts...

Quote

In November 1993, four production helicopters were flown to the Army Aviation Combat Training Centre at Torzhok to begin field trials. The president of the Russian Federation authorized the fielding of the Ka-50 with the Russian Army on 28 August 1995. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a severe drop in defense procurement. This resulted in only a dozen Ka-50s delivered, instead of the planned several hundred to replace the Mil Mi-24.[17]
...
The Ka-50 and its modifications have been chosen as the special forces' support helicopter, while the Mil Mi-28 has become the main army's gunship. The production of Ka-50 was recommenced in 2006. In 2009, the Russian Air Force received three units built from incomplete airframes dating from the mid-1990s.[21]

 

Edited April 17, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[cfrag]

3 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Ka-50 has no a prototype, has a production aircrafts...

You are trying to parse the meaning of "production". Both types where "produced", they did not miraculously poof into existence. Neither was mass-produced. The differentiation you seem to seek appears arbitrary, chosen to fit your desired outcome. 

30 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Getting back on topic the Tigershark would be nice, but we have no plans currently 

Thanks for giving us clarity on that. Sorry to hear, as I really like the F5, and here's to hoping that some day a Tigershark makes it to DCS just like the BS3 did

 

[Silver_Dragon]

11 minutes ago, cfrag said:

You are trying to parse the meaning of "production". Both types where "produced", they did not miraculously poof into existence. Neither was mass-produced. The differentiation you seem to seek appears arbitrary, chosen to fit your desired outcome. 

"mass producted"... has only a topic, but has been a combat helo on service on Soviet / Russian armed forces. 

If you like see them into DCS, recomend form a 3rd party, ED has own plans.

[cfrag]

Personally, I have no quarrel with any plane that comes to DCS, be they prototype only or otherwise. Like for example the BS3 that was based on a prototype.

Let's be honest: the only criteria that count when it comes to creating new modules are if they are a) likely to sell enough to recoup development and b) fit with the game balance. There are no official rules that dictate if a type may or may not be developed. ED and their partners choose how they see fit. So far (seeing that I own all of them, including the Hawk) their choices were great. 

[BIGNEWY]

14 minutes ago, cfrag said:

Personally, I have no quarrel with any plane that comes to DCS, be they prototype only or otherwise. Like for example the BS3 that was based on a prototype.

Let's be honest: the only criteria that count when it comes to creating new modules are if they are a) likely to sell enough to recoup development and b) fit with the game balance. There are no official rules that dictate if a type may or may not be developed. ED and their partners choose how they see fit. So far (seeing that I own all of them, including the Hawk) their choices were great. 

you are incorrect. It is not about balance. 

I dont want to derail this thread with the BS3 topic. We had the data we needed to develop the module, and that is what we did. The Blackshark has been with us for over a decade and being able to improve and update it even now was something we wanted to do. 

Please stick to the tigershark topic. 

thank you

[Stratos]

A TigerShark would be amazing! 

[cfrag]

26 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

We had the data we needed to develop the module, and that is what we did.

It was a *great* improvement. I believe that much of the Tigershark's data is also accessible, and I'm hopeful that some day we'll see a Tigershark in DCS. And yes, I'll be one of the first to line up for purchase. And I don't care if I'll have to pay full price, ED's quality has always been stellar (let's not be petty and ignore CA ).

Edited April 17, 2023 by cfrag

[F-2]

56 minutes ago, cfrag said:

It was a *great* improvement. I believe that much of the Tigershark's data is also accessible, and I'm hopeful that some day we'll see a Tigershark in DCS. And yes, I'll be one of the first to line up for purchase. And I don't care if I'll have to pay full price, ED's quality has always been stellar (let's not be petty and ignore CA ).

 

There is quite a lot online, manual, Radar, some aero stuff. The first prototype used a stock F404 the other two used an uprated one similar in power to the -402 but they achieved it differently, the partially completed fourth used an 18000lbf one, possibly the same as the Gripen. F-20 is funny. I would say I would want someone to drop everything and develop it but I’d try it immediately if it did come to dcs.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

18 hours ago, Vampyre said:

The J8II PP and BSIII are fictional drawing board aircraft that didn't even make it to the prototype stage as they never actually flew with the upgrades planned for them. The F-20 was an actual functioning aircraft with real capabilities which would put it into a category all its own. 

Cool.

[FlankerKiller]

We have the knock off let's get the original. I see alot of "It's a prototype" on here. You have to understand it was a fully developed pre production prototype. It was well tested, and live fired all the weapons. You could basically sim the third jet a d have the jet that would have been delivered to customers. Honestly it would be a great addition to DCS. It was a real jet with real data. It only failed because the Air Force made sure it failed. Personally I thing Gumman made it too good and the AF didn't want it out there potentially in the wrong hands. With its thrust to weight ratio, and the AMRAAMs it would be damn scary to come up against.