Tips for dogfightiing in the FGR2?

[Chugster 7]

So I have noticed that whatever my throttle is set to I seem to lose huge amounts of speed when i turn in the RAF Phantom (and other phantoms). This makes it very difficult to dogfight and I am pretty sure its me doing something wrong.

Of course it could be the plane as the F15A doesnt seem to lose anywhere near as much speed in turns.

[MigBuster 2,861]

No point trying to compare an F-4 with an F-15/16 they are on a different planet when it comes to retaining energy in a turn.

Ensure your throttle is calibrated properly outside the game if possible...trying to remember if debug view shows Throttle state.

Usually keep speed up and use the Vertical where you can and don't get slow........a lot of aircraft will outturn it easily when slow like the MiG-17F for example.

 

 

 

[Wilches 1,156]

MigBuster is right. It´s not a dogfight plane. In an air dueling, attack without sharp turns so you´ll loose precious kinetic energy.

[+streakeagle 864]

The FGR2 lacks the AoA indicator that is so important to flying the F-4 to its limits, but Strike Fighters provides an audio indication of stall warning, so you can live without it. Get your Indicated Air Speed up to 450 knots, if you are down at sea level, this will also be your True Air Speed, which is also indicated in the FGR2. Roll to a 90 degree bank. Engage full afterburner power. Carefully pull back on the stick while watching your speed indication. About the time you start hearing a wind stall/buffeting sound, you will notice the speed really start unwinding. Repeat the same procedure, but hold your angle of attack/pitch to the highest angle you can while maintaining 450 knots, then take a glance at your g-load indicator.  Repeat this procedure at 350 knots, 400 knots, 500 knots, and 600 knots.

At 500 knots or greater, you should be able to pull 5g or more without bleeding speed, the faster you go the easier it is to pull a lot of g. Below 500 knots, you should find even pulling 5 or 6 g will start dropping your speed and if you exceed the stall angle of attack, it is like popping a drag chute: no additional g, but an extreme loss of speed.

I like to fly by the AoA indicator, but since for some reason the FGR2 lacks that indicator, learn to listen to the stall buffet warning. By watching the gauges as you approach that angle of attack, you should learn how much pitch you can pull before killing your speed. You may find you need to stay away from hearing that sound at all or that you don't mind just barely triggering that sound. Just a matter of learning the cost of stalling and learning to fly close to the limit or just past that limit as it suits your needs.

Unslatted Phantoms don't like high AoA, but if you try the F-4E and F-4F, you won't ever want to fly a "hard wing" Phantom. They don't solve the problem of bleeding speed in a turn, but they let you pull a decent amount of AoA with resulting increased g and turn rate before dropping the speed so badly. But I love the challenge of flying hard wing F-4B/C/D/J/K/M Phantoms against much more agile MiGs. If you keep your speed up and only bleed it at the "right" time, you can win in hard wing Phantoms just like real pilots did in Vietnam.

Edited September 18, 2020 by streakeagle

[+streakeagle 864]

The stock game has missions: F-4J vs MiG-xx 1v1. Play those missions over and over to learn how to dogfight with the F-4. Of course, you can edit and save them to use your preferred Phantom FGR2. The MiG-21 and the unslatted Phantoms are almost a dead even match. If you maintain your speed above 450 knots close to sea level, you can equal or even out turn the MiG-21. The sweet spot for turning well seems to be somewhere between 450 and 500 knots. It takes a light touch on the stick to hit maximum turn performance and/or control your speed. If you dump your speed below 400 knots, you will be in trouble. But as you get comfortable with avoiding the stalling point, you can fight all the way down to insanely low speeds, which may be necessary against the MiG-17 and MiG-19 to get a shot off. 1 vs 1 against agile MiGs like the 17 and the 19 is absolutely the hardest fight for the Phantom. Horizontal turning will not beat the MiG-17 and the MiG-19 has the power to fight in the vertical, so it is the toughest fight of all.

So:

1) Learn to fly at the edge of an accelerated stall.

2) Learn to control your speed while turning.

3) Learn to fight in the vertical to separate from and reverse on agile opponents who don't have as much power as the Phantom (MiG-17!).

4) Hope the MiG-19 is being flown by an inferior pilot because he can match or beat the Phantom in turn and climb performance, it takes real skill to beat a well flown MiG-19.

5) Try the F-4E and F-4F if you want an aircraft that looks like an F-4 but is much better at close-in stall fighting.

Edited September 18, 2020 by streakeagle

[amariani 4,648]

Remember these words: boom & zoom!

[+streakeagle 864]

I just played the F-4J vs MiG-17F 1vs1, which I haven't done for a long time. Unlike a hard fight against a MiG-21, you don't win by spiraling down to the deck in a turn fight. If you try that, the MiG-17 will match your speed, turn on to your tail, and gun you down. So, you have to climb way above him so that his speed stays below 150 knots, which keeps him from flying circles around you. Your speed needs to be high enough to keep turning with him while keeping 5,000 feet or more above him. As long has you have altitude separation, you can afford to drop down to 300-350 knots, but I would try to keep 400+ knots. If you maintain this vertical fight, you will end up at 25 to 30 thousand feet while he flops around at 15 to 20 thousand feet. If you are lucky, you can trade that altitude for a gun or missile pass on his tail, but if his speed comes up as you dive on him, he will out maneuver early AIM-9s. You may get off a snap shot with a gun pod. In 1 vs 1, it is a game of patience. At some point, he will turn tail and run. Then you can hit him with your choice of missile or dare to close for a gun shot. If you study the classic F-4J vs MiG-17 fight of Randy Cunningham in Vietnam, he could not get off a shot and took some gunfire until his opponent retreated. 1 vs 1 in close against a MiG-17 is otherwise close to impossible if the AI is engaging you in a turn fight. The best bet is to shoot the MiG-17 in the face with an AIM-7 or Skyflash before getting into gun range :) Otherwise you will be in a boring vertical fight trying to stall him out.

[+streakeagle 864]

Many vs Many tactics are different. An aircraft ultimately doesn't maneuver much harder than his target in gun combat. So, go for MiGs that are tailing friends. They can set up good gun shots. AIM-9 shots are dangerous because you may hit your friend, but if you know what your doing, that won't happen too often. AIM-7/Skyflash shots can be very difficult in short range turning environment. But you won't hit your friend very often lobbing radar homing missiles. If you learn their limitations, the AIM-7 family can work really well in Strike Fighters games.

[+streakeagle 864]

Having just played and replayed both the F-4J vs MiG-17 and MiG-19 1v1 missions repeatedly, I have rapidly regained hard wing Phantom proficiency.

The MiG-17's only advantage is turn rate, so he can be beat fairly easily by making him try to climb to you. If you are aggressive and good at lag rolling, you can make him overshoot and kill him with your weapon of choice.

The MiG-19 is by far the most difficult opponent. He will almost match your power in a climb and can turn better, too. If you try to fight in the horizontal, the MiG-19 will eventually gain on your tail. If you try to fight in the vertical, you will at best stay in a neutral position if you manage your energy well while trying to turn into him. So the MiG-19 requires flawless barrel/lag rolling skill while he is close on your tail to avoid getting shot and forcing him to overshoot. Once he overshoots, you can engage him at will like the MiG-17 with careful speed management. But until then, the MiG-19 will by spraying rounds all over you while you try to roll around his shots.

In the original SFP1 series, multiplayer was available and the MiG-17 and MiG-19 were the planes to beat. A player proficient with either of those aircraft was very hard to beat. When Wings Over Vietnam came out, the flight models had changed a bit. The MiG-19 lost unbeatable "UFO" status only to be replaced by the F-8 Crusader, whose original flight model made it a Phantom killer just as the MiG-19 had been. There is reality and there is the game.

When you fly in the game, you have to learn two aspects:

1) How the in-game flight models compare (which can be very different between complex/realistic flight model for the player and the simpler flight model used by the AI).

2) AI behavior under various circumstances. The AI in the Strike Fighters series is very different from the AI in DCS World. The AI in the Strike Fighters series varied greatly over the years from the original Walmart version of SFP1 all they way to the final patches releases for SF2 North Atlantic before SF2 development was abandoned. The AI has weaknesses. Learn them and exploit them or be punished for trying to use real world tactics in a game that cannot and does not totally reflect real world physics and pilot abilities.

[ragnarokryan 53]

You all might enjoy this document: https://www.dropbox.com/s/yfwr9x0146x4csf/F-4 USN Tactics Manual.pdf?dl=0

It's from 1972, not Royal Navy but US Navy, Chugster, though you no doubt will find relevant tactics to emulate in SF2.

I'll leave it up in Dropbox for a week or so, but I will need the space back at some point.

Also, possibly closer to your Royal Navy interests, I am attaching a document titled "Flying and Fighting the Phantom". Technically also a US Navy document from 1968 (52 years ago - holy crap) it was actually written by famous Royal Navy pilot Richard 'Dick' Lord while he was flying on exchange with VF-121. 

Flight sims like SF2 allow us all a unique window into the past... the ideas presented in both of these documents work quite well in the virtual skies. It's one thing to hear "don't turn with the MiG-17", but quite another to feel the terror as it closes in on you with your inability to continue fighting because you got slow.

Enjoy!

[3-A-305 178]

15 hours ago, streakeagle said:

When you fly in the game, you have to learn two aspects:

1) How the in-game flight models compare (which can be very different between complex/realistic flight model for the player and the simpler flight model used by the AI).

2) AI behavior under various circumstances.

...

Learn them and exploit them or be punished for trying to use real world tactics in a game that cannot and does not totally reflect real world physics and pilot abilities.

It would be extremly interesting to produce a tactical document/article using  "_data.ini" specs (and WeaponsDATA) with tips to A-A combat in different aircrafts, including red side. Not just evaluating real world tactics but suggesting game-specific new ones...

[ragnarokryan 53]

2 hours ago, 3-A-305 said:

It would be extremly interesting to produce a tactical document/article using  "_data.ini" specs (and WeaponsDATA) with tips to A-A combat in different aircrafts, including red side. Not just evaluating real world tactics but suggesting game-specific new ones...

That's a great idea. I know way back when someone produced a program for IL-2 which took in game data and generated E-M graphs. You could compare any aircraft to another and determine if you would fight best with energy or angles. I don't have the skills to do anything like that at all.

What might also be nice is a download area for files like the ones above. I have quite a few others and I can't be the only one interested in contemporary documents. It would be nice to have a place online to collect all of those documents - and not have them cost $10 each to download.

[3-A-305 178]

27 minutes ago, ragnarokryan said:

That's a great idea. I know way back when someone produced a program for IL-2 which took in game data and generated E-M graphs. You could compare any aircraft to another and determine if you would fight best with energy or angles. I don't have the skills to do anything like that at all.

I have in my HD a little app called "Aircraft Ini Data Editor" by @streakeaglefrom 2005 (no idea where I got from).

Very usefull for FM editng and also calculates performance charts. I'm not sure about compatibility with SF2 series data.ini. Perhaps we could use it...

Edited September 18, 2020 by 3-A-305

[+streakeagle 864]

Regarding my old Aircraft Ini Data Editor: TK kept issuing patches refining the flight model, so I had to keep editing my application to account for the new features. At some point, I introduced a bug that broke the functionality of saving/opening multiple documents (a memory leak? or a problem with the serialization routines for opening/closing documents?). I had already lost the previous working version of the source code and didn't have the time or energy to figure out what was broken. So, I abandoned further development quite some time ago.

SF2 data ini files have similar, but larger more detailed tables. If my program was set up correctly, it would automatically handle the larger tables. But TK may have added more features or changed how the data was being used by the game engine. As programmed, it would throw away any data it didn't recognize and only process the variables it was programmed to read. I would use debug mode to try to verify my lift and drag equations. But that was so many years ago.

What AIDE did was read in all of the pertinent flight model information and solve for specific aerodynamic values to produce tables similar to those found in flight manuals. So, you could tweak a flight model parameters in the data ini files and see how it affected performance. It could not take performance tables and turn them into ini data tables. So, you had to have some insight into how all of the variables interacted to make useful changes. With a re-iterative trial and error process, you could build a flight model that would reasonably replicate flight manual performance tables. In particular, you could strive to replicate specific excess power, instantaneous turn performance, and sustained turn performance. This also meant realistic stall speeds and climb rates. If you could get NASA data on some of the drag or lift parameters, you could build a flight model superior to what most sims offered at that time. Some people look down on using lookup tables for flight model data, but the fact is if the tables have high enough resolution and have accurate numbers, there is no more realistic or faster way to model flight.

I would love to make a new version of AIDE that leverage modern hardware for better performance and was 100% compatible with SF2 without any bugs/memory leaks. But it has been a long time since I programmed at that level and I don't have the time or energy it takes to get such a project done in any reasonable time. After all the work I did on it, the only thing I ever produced was an F-4B flight model tailored to the flight model engine as of SFP1 SP2a patch level, and that was partially broken after the release of Wings Over Vietnam. I have learned to accept that PC flight sims are never going to be as realistic as I would like them to be and I would rather spend my time flying in sims than reverse engineering and attempting to improve them.

SFP1/WoX/SF2 had one principal competitor, LOMAC. LOMAC had some awesome terrain graphics quality compared to SFP1/SF2, particularly the water. But its flight models were horrible. Its modern evolution, DCS World, now has flight models that are extremely complex and detailed as well as being among the most realistic/accurate you can get on a PC today. I no longer chart data from the game and perform calculations to compare the results with flight manual tables. As long as the aircraft flies reasonably close to the descriptions in the flight manuals, I am pretty happy. The problem with DCS World is that it takes a lot of time and money to produce accurate flight and systems models, so there will never be as many flyable aircraft types/variants compared to SFP1/SF2.

[+streakeagle 864]

One additional consideration about SF2 F-4 Phantom flight models: when I learned SF2 had new, higher resolution data tables, I got out my old F-4B data and compared it to TK's latest revision. What I found is that the main flaw in TK's SFP1 version was the CD0 (zero lift drag) was too low, so the F-4 had a little extra power. On Third Wire's forums, I had posted an image of the SF2 CD0 table data graphed on top of my FM and the data from a NASA document. The SF2 data didn't have as high a resolution as I preferred, but it was very close to my data and the NASA curve. TK's flight models were never meant to be 100% accurate. They had some "give" in them to make the aircraft a little easier/more fun to fly. But they were intended to show the relative differences: i.e. an early MiG-21 could turn a little better than an early F-4 and and an early F-4 could climb and accelerate a little better than an early MiG-21. In SFP1, the relative differences were mostly there, but the F-4 flew more like an F-16 compared to real data. SF2 brought the flight models of the core flyable aircraft into a reasonable line. The F-4 had more drag. It also couldn't pull 12g at speeds the real F-4 could only manage 7 or 8. SF2 was a huge improvement across the board. It was sad to see SF2 development crash to a halt after watching the original SFP1 Walmart edition go through so much growth and improvement.

Edited September 19, 2020 by streakeagle

[+Crusader 2,050]

On 9/18/2020 at 10:03 PM, ragnarokryan said:

---

What might also be nice is a download area for files like the ones above. I have quite a few others and I can't be the only one interested in contemporary documents. It would be nice to have a place online to collect all of those documents - and not have them cost $10 each to download.

Time to contact @Erik  

[Wrench 9,421]

For military docs, like FMs and TMs, there isn't a copyright issue (i think!). For other things, for example Osprey or Squadron/Signal, there definately would be.

[ragnarokryan 53]

49 minutes ago, Wrench said:

For military docs, like FMs and TMs, there isn't a copyright issue (i think!). For other things, for example Osprey or Squadron/Signal, there definately would be.

I was speaking only of military flight manuals and associated tactics. Historical, not current tactics for obvious reasons.

[+Erik 1,731]

I can make the space available but to create the framework I'd need to know more about the structure and use.

1. What file formats do you want to archive? (.txt  .pdf  .html  .jpg) I'd need a full list to construct compatibility.

2. What kind of filing system do you think it should have.

Quote

REFERENCE MATERIALS

> Flight Manuals

>> 1930 - 1949

>> 1900 - 1929

> Training Manuals

>> 1930 - 1949

>> 1900 - 1929

> Aircraft Publications

> Miscellaneous

 

You want to build in enough file system so it's easy to find things but not so much it's confusing. I'd need a complete structure of the file system to build it.

3. What types of documents should not be uploaded? IOW what warnings and disclosures do we need to have to store the documents and prevent someone from uploading content that shouldn't be there.

 

[ragnarokryan 53]

Hey Erik,

Most of manuals I have are pdfs.

The structure looks good, dividing it up in years is a good idea. Dividing it up further by country / service might be taking it too far. For example, regarding WWII - I have a bunch of USN doctrine/tactics manuals, and some from the USAAF, some British, and German stuff too. But lumping it all together by era might actually be easier.

Lastly, nobody should be posting F-35 manuals or current doctrine, techniques or procedures, but I imagine that the people who have that stuff already know that.

I'd be curious to know what everyone else thinks. 

 

[+Erik 1,731]

Using my example above can you give me some ideas on structure? Year ranges, headings to file under, etc.

 

[ragnarokryan 53]

4 hours ago, Erik said:

Using my example above can you give me some ideas on structure? Year ranges, headings to file under, etc.

 

These are my thoughts, maybe someone else can help. I'm thinking of contemporary documents only here. Publications produced at the time for aircraft in service and the tactical doctrine published by various air arms during these conflicts. 

 

Reference Materials

- Airplane Flying Manuals / Pilot Operating Handbooks

-- WWII and Prior

-- Jet Age through Vietnam

-- Post Vietnam

- Air Combat Tactics

-- WWII and Prior

-- Jet Age through Vietnam

-- Post Vietnam

- Miscellaneous (This would be the place for modern documents which analyze the past, or sim-specific tips and tricks)

[MigBuster 2,861]

Eagle Dynamics have a cut off date of 1980 for anything like that......so should expect the same here for this material.

 

 

 

[+Erik 1,731]

Done

[+daddyairplanes 8,629]

On 9/20/2020 at 11:54 AM, ragnarokryan said:

Lastly, nobody should be posting F-35 manuals or current doctrine, techniques or procedures, but I imagine that the people who have that stuff already know that.

not to mention the local Site Serf has done much to keep this website out of legal trouble, i doubt he'd blow that history on being the West Coast Julian Assage

On 9/19/2020 at 9:21 PM, Wrench said:

For military docs, like FMs and TMs, there isn't a copyright issue (i think!)

anything published by the USG is free use (pubs, pics, audio and video) cant say about other nations. of course all are subject to clearance, like the abouve mentioned F-35 manuals. but pre 1980 on any airframes/non nuclear weapons that have been retired are safe to assume  as usable

 

on my own thoughts, this is a good idea, does anyone have access to things like Bunyaps(?) tutorials for bombing. i remember seeing this years ago just cant rememberthe details (Oh Wrench!)but they would make for a good addition to this espescially being WOx/SF2 specific