You know you're having a bad day when...

[arthur666 65]

...you are running from an IL-28.

Trying out my new F-102 in my Europe 1963 campaign.

Of course, I overshoot the Beagle, and the next thing I know, there are green tracers flying past my window! I know!! I couldn't believe it either. It kinda warmed my heart to see the AI take advantage of that opportunity. I almost wanted him to shoot me down, but I just hit the 'burners and disappeared.

 

BTW, flying the F-102 against anything other than a heavy bomber is not for the faint of heart.

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Tell me about it, I was flying a Demon a week ago and being rather underpowered I was out maneuvered and gunned down by an IL-28 at 30,000'.

 

Craig

[+Stary 2,426]

when you see your wingman happily ramming into your plane after rejoin command:

 

 

 

Ensign Weber came unscratched, me not so much

[Lt. James Cater 62]

Success in A2A with the Deuce can be done but it's a bit tricky.

 

Basically the SARH missles are the way to go as the heatseekers can be rather problematical. Also try to engage at the highest possible altitude whenever possible. really, if you can drag opponents up to say, 35-40,000ft you the aircraft has a much better chance then down below. Also, if in a tight situation the 102 can outrun Mig 17s and 19s with relative ease at high altitudes.

[MigBuster 2,861]

Success in A2A with the Deuce can be done but it's a bit tricky.

 

Basically the SARH missles are the way to go as the heatseekers can be rather problematical. Also try to engage at the highest possible altitude whenever possible. really, if you can drag opponents up to say, 35-40,000ft you the aircraft has a much better chance then down below. Also, if in a tight situation the 102 can outrun Mig 17s and 19s with relative ease at high altitudes.

 

This may have been the case in SF1 - but in SF2 the revised super MiGs will probably outperform it at any altitude- The 102 is a pretty interesting challenge though.

 

comparing the real stats:

 

If taking the J57-P23A powered F-102A - that has a best TW ratio the same as the MiG-17F (about 0.63) - whereas the MiG-19S was a rocket ship (0.85) because its so light at combat weight. The F-102A top end is only about M1.2 - where as the 19 goes to M1.35 and probably gets there a lot quicker - so out powering either might not have been the best option.

 

Also at higher altitudes the MiG-17F/19S control stiffness that occurred (even with hydraulic boostered flight surfaces) doesn't exist because of the thinner air.

The 102 has a much larger wing area and lower wing loading than the MiG-17F even so you would have expected it to be better at turning at higher altitudes (although not for certain as the 102s delta has a 60 degree sweep compared to the 45 degree and 55 degree of the 17/19 which have different layouts ) - but then you have to keep tally on the bandit out of that nightmare of a cockpit - whereas the 17/19 have bubble canopy's and lots of guns. Also bear in the mind the MiG-17F has an 8G frame over the 7G frame of the F-102 (the 19 has a 6.5G one)

 

The 102 should have a bit more combat persistence - although maybe not if you are flying over North Vietnam - and you need to spend the fight in burner to try and get your Falcons in parameters (then remember to open the missile tray).

 

 

In SF2 you are also faced with MiGs that have a 360 degree EODAS system so its not always easy to catch one flying in a straight line.

Edited December 23, 2012 by MigBuster

[Lazarus1177 164]

When your wingman fires a modern IRM exactly behind you and it somehow tracks to your aircraft!

Edited December 23, 2012 by Lazarus1177

[Lt. James Cater 62]

This may have been the case in SF1 - but in SF2 the revised super MiGs will probably outperform it at any altitude- The 102 is a pretty interesting challenge though.

 

comparing the real stats:

 

If taking the J57-P23A powered F-102A - that has a best TW ratio the same as the MiG-17F (about 0.63) - whereas the MiG-19S was a rocket ship (0.85) because its so light at combat weight. The F-102A top end is only about M1.2 - where as the 19 goes to M1.35 and probably gets there a lot quicker - so out powering either might not have been the best option.

 

Also at higher altitudes the MiG-17F/19S control stiffness that occurred (even with hydraulic boostered flight surfaces) doesn't exist because of the thinner air.

The 102 has a much larger wing area and lower wing loading than the MiG-17F even so you would have expected it to be better at turning at higher altitudes (although not for certain as the 102s delta has a 60 degree sweep compared to the 45 degree and 55 degree of the 17/19 which have different layouts ) - but then you have to keep tally on the bandit out of that nightmare of a cockpit - whereas the 17/19 have bubble canopy's and lots of guns. Also bear in the mind the MiG-17F has an 8G frame over the 7G frame of the F-102 (the 19 has a 6.5G one)

 

The 102 should have a bit more combat persistence - although maybe not if you are flying over North Vietnam - and you need to spend the fight in burner to try and get your Falcons in parameters (then remember to open the missile tray).

 

 

In SF2 you are also faced with MiGs that have a 360 degree EODAS system so its not always easy to catch one flying in a straight line.

 

That the 102 is underpowered compared to any MIG is a given. The trick is to climb flying the best profile possible to get up to altitude while maintaining as much top end while heading towards the front lines.

 

Intercepts are the best thing going as one can actually use the Falcon in it's intended role as a bomber killer and not a dogfighter but AI aircraft should be able to score on distant beam shots if you can drag enemy fighters on a straight and level course. You also have to be very aware of what is going on and how the mission is proceeding. Sometimes it's best to run for it as soon as you've acheived the mission requirements.

[arthur666 65]

Flying this thing is a challenge, but I'm enjoying the change of pace. I find that I fly almost entirely by instruments and radar screen, thanks to the very poor visibility out of the cockpit. I actually added quite a few more heavy bomber squadrons and off-map airbases to the 1963 campaign to get the most out of this aircraft. Against anything smaller than a Tu-22, I'm lucky to get one kill before I'm running from an angry hive of MiG-17 like they're killer bees.

[Wrench 9,421]

simple fix...

remove all mission tasking statements but "INTERCEPT" .. cause that's all it was really designed to do!!!

that's what I did on mine!

[Lt. James Cater 62]

INTERCEPT and RECON should pretty much do it. The recce missions make for some nice high altitude patrols where you can hunt using your radar and then zoom down from the heights to catch an unaware foe.

[+Julhelm 266]

They did do ground attack as well using FFARs. However, the F-106 is a much more capable dogfighter especially with the latter-fit bubble canopy which is sadly lacking here. If you really want a challenge, try flying the F-101A or C against MiG-17/19 the way it was originally intended to do.