Frostiken Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 7.5G is cute, but what's the G-load for a Hornet with stuff on it? :) Once you start getting restricted lower, every little bit helps. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
FWind Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 The first statement is patently untrue. 7.5g is quite adequate for a lot of BFM. Dogfights can mature very quickly and get low and slow, or at least slow -and the hornet has plenty of advantage there. Sure, you're limited to gunning the bandit on the first turn if he puts on the gas, but that doesn't necessarily mean the fight's over. Throw in missiles too and the opposition starts having a harder time. This air to air combat stuff isn't so black and white. in TBS the AC -130 well play,i don`t like the DCS is AC-130
GGTharos Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Hornets can drop stuff, and most fighters would. :D I don't think you'd want to fight a hornet with 'stuff on' ... it would just be too heavy. I don't have the NATOPS for it handy though, so I don't know what its g-weight curve is. 7.5G is cute, but what's the G-load for a Hornet with stuff on it? :) Once you start getting restricted lower, every little bit helps. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Phantom88 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Since when does the Hornet have anti-submarine capabilities? Haha,Ok I took some" Liberties" with that One;)It could still provide Air Cover for the Units dropping sound buoys.Will you give me that?:) Patrick
Zakatak Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 Unfortunately it can't take that much advantage of that. Poor G-loading means you can't take advantage of high-AOA at any significant speed, and engines that are barely more powerful than the A-10s means that if your enemy counters your loss of speed by throwing on the gas and climbing, the F/A-18 can't really do much to stop them. TF34-GE-100 engines = ~9000lbs of thrust each F404-GE-402 engines = ~17500lbs of thrust each Barely? Nearly twice. I believe the 7.5g is the statistic for a Hornet WITH stuff on it. With just a pair of Sidewinders and a centerline, 9g (or just under) should be plenty achievable.
GGTharos Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 There is a paddle switch on the stick that overrides the 7.5g limit, and I have it on pretty good authority that operators use that switch plenty. The F-18C is somewhat underpowered though compared to say, an F-15C or F-16C in air to air configuration, that's for sure. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Impact Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 There is a paddle switch on the stick that overrides the 7.5g limit, and I have it on pretty good authority that operators use that switch plenty. The F-18C is somewhat underpowered though compared to say, an F-15C or F-16C in air to air configuration, that's for sure. And how does the Su33 compare to the F18C and E? ------=:: I FLY BLEIFREI ::=------
GGTharos Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) I would say it has greater range and at least greater TWR than either, at least until the Superbug gets the uprated engines. As far as avionics go, the bugs are probably on top (other than the radar dish :D ) ... though lately the Su-33 has received some undisclosed upgrades which should certainly make it more of a challenge - I expect an SM1 or SM3 type upgrade with R-77 and additional A2G (or more specifically even, anti-ship) capability. Or maybe they'll just replace it with MiG-29's. It's all just an educated guess though, and I'm not clear on what's really been done to the Su-33 recently. Edited February 22, 2012 by GGTharos [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Zakatak Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 If the module ended up being AV-8B Harrier II+, how would you guys react?
Jona33 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 If the module ended up being AV-8B Harrier II+, how would you guys react? I would be so f*cking happy. Only the FA2 or the Gr9 would be better. (Just cos their british, yes I know they're retired.) When are the US planning to retire the AV-8's actually. Always remember. I don't have a clue what I'm doing
213 Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 If the module ended up being AV-8B Harrier II+, how would you guys react? by placing credit card back into wallet just like a-10, dcs flying legends and nevada. still waiting for a worthy supplement to black shark 2
Booger Posted February 22, 2012 Posted February 22, 2012 I also read about that people want a multirole fighter and that someone said it is not proffitable enough for ED to do so. I agree with that someone. If you don't buil it up en you put a multirole fighter on the market, you lose a lot of customers. Let's be real. People want multirole fighters, because they want to be able to do everything at once and be able to switch role at any second, like for example in playing first person shooters online. No specialization. If they can do everything already, whats the use of buying the rest. No one has nor would they ever say a multi-role wouldn't be profitable. Quite the opposite. The biggest money ED would make from the commercial simming side would be multi-role. What was discussed was the priority in regards to longevity. @F-18 Watch the 5 part series...
Dudikoff Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 (edited) Or maybe they'll just replace it with MiG-29's. It's all just an educated guess though, and I'm not clear on what's really been done to the Su-33 recently. I guess they'll just replace them with the MiGs which might indicate that the recent refit of the Su-33s had no significant upgrades. http://www.defencetalk.com/russia-signs-contract-for-navy-mig-29k-fighter-40685/ On the other hand, with only 20 MiGs on order, they might try using the mixed complement (as was the original plan in the 80s, I guess)? I guess that would be the best of both worlds (the Su-33s would need to be upgraded, at least their A2A capabilities). Edited March 1, 2012 by Dudikoff i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
swepain Posted March 1, 2012 Posted March 1, 2012 whaat, , no vote for P51.. geez.. we got no clue what we want It takes a fool to remain sane :huh:
uksub Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 I dont really get the secrecy thats involved with the new aircraft. Its not as if a competitor would immedietly jump on the bandwagon and start making their own version to be realsed before the DCS one. They wouldnt have the development time to do it. ED dont owe us an answer, they dont owe us anything quite frankly, but it would be nice to know all the same. Dont flame me, its just a passing comment and not a whine or a rant, i'm just a little puzzled, thats all.
TheProphet Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 I think it is only to generate hype, and they succeed. 6700K | ASUS Z170 | 32GB RAM | GTX 680 | 850EVO
lighthaze Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 It's just that some kind of information would be pretty nice. And be it just a set of new screenshots. Even if they don't include the new aircraft.
ESA_MistrL Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Sooner or later they will let us know. Be water my friend an don´t do what salmons do. 1 Cruz de San Andres First learn to fly. Then learn to fight. [sIGPIC]www.cruzdesanandres.com[/sIGPIC]
Frostiken Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Don´t do what salmons do. I agree. If any of you do what salmons do, which is be delicious, I would be forced to consume you as well. Edited March 2, 2012 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Frostiken Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) If the module ended up being AV-8B Harrier II+, how would you guys react? Would be alright. The Harrier brings more interesting unique features *and* a rare find in simulations. I just really, really want something with explosive amounts of power under the throttle. The KA-50, A-10, and even the F/A-18 can't cut it. I want to be able to point at the blue and watch it fade into black. Did you know an F-15E with F100-PW-229s in slick configuration can supercruise? :D Edited March 2, 2012 by Frostiken [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
RIPTIDE Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 Frostiken, is there anything a F-15E can't do? :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
GGTharos Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 It can't turn like a flanker. It can't turn/AoA like a Hornet. It can't take off vertically. It can't trap on a carrier. It can't go mach 3 like a MiG-25. It can't be unseen like a Raptor. It can't launch harms like an F-16. :D [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
RIPTIDE Posted March 2, 2012 Posted March 2, 2012 It can't turn like a flanker. It can't turn/AoA like a Hornet. It can't take off vertically. It can't trap on a carrier. It can't go mach 3 like a MiG-25. It can't be unseen like a Raptor. It can't launch harms like an F-16. :D That's fighting talk that is. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Recommended Posts