Caesar

If it were a missile, I'm pretty sure we'd know - that thing would have punched right through the UEWR's coverage at Beale AFB (UEWR = AN/FPS-132 Upgraded Early Warning Radar; the same system we operate at Thule AB, ours is just a little newer ).

Best of luck, from the Top of the World! And congrats to Storm as well.

I know I don't always agree with his conclusions, but I'd like to hear what Streak Eagle has to say about the Phantom's envelope - from what I understand, he's researched the hell out of it. For that matter, on the deck, you're going to have more "g" available with denser air moving over your control surfaces at any given speed. Your "g" authority, both sustained and instantaneous gets lower, or requires higher speed to reach, at higher altitudes. It follows that if an F-4 can perform a 7g+ turn at, say, 450KIAS at 20,000 feet, it can most definitely yank that same "g" at low altitude. As can a MiG-29 match an F-15C's 9g turn at low or high altitude. Also, how are your aircraft loaded? "g" limits change for any number of reasons, not the least of which is loadout and weight. If your jet is flying with external tanks, or high internal fuel quantities, its placard limit is not going to be the same as the actual limit at that weight. To make it easier, say we have aircraft X. Aircraft X's placard limit is 7.3g - say this is at a weight of 45,000 pounds. If aircraft X is loaded to 50,000 pounds, its "g" limit is 6.5g. At 55,000 pounds, its "g" limit is 5g. As weight burns off (either as fuel, or weaponry) the limit increases back to the structural placard limit at 7g. Every airframe, for the purposes of making it last for a long time, has this same "changing" g-limit due to weight/loadout. Also, if tanks are loaded, the limit can drop enormously. I recall reading an unclassified report from an exchange pilot on the MiG-29, indicating it only has a 4g limit while the centerline tank is installed and still carrying fuel. Good luck fighting an F-15A, C, E, or otherwise anywhere with a 4g limit, and an alpha limit as well in that configuration! (EDIT): That limit is also a symmetric "g" limit. Rolling limits are slightly or sometimes significantly lower than the symmetric limit, because the aircraft has differential "g" being loaded on the airframe during rolling and pulling maneuvers. Of course, in air combat, I can't think of any pilot who would follow "g" limits religiously if his/her own life, or that of the crew, were in peril. If you need to put on a 10g or 12g+ instantaneous turn to get out of the way of that missile, or to exchange energy for turn performance to kill that enemy who has been trying to kill you, you do it. Better to bring back an airframe with less available hours of flight remaining than to sacrifice the life of the aircrew because of some line on a chart, and I think every pilot I've spoken to who has been fired at has told me just that. We must also remember that "g" and "g" limits aren't everything. I've been fortunate enough to talk to a good number of F-14 drivers and RIO's who were, or rode with, excellent sticks that mastered slow speed BFM/ACM. Constantly loaded up on alpha, and rarely getting up to or higher than 3g once the fight slowed down, they'd mercilessly beat smaller, more nimble aircraft that didn't handle as well at such slow speeds, due to their higher wing loading, or where their pilots were uncomfortable flying right at the edge of stalling. One of those pilots I had the pleasure of speaking with would do the same thing in the F-4D as a AF Reservist against F-15 drivers (A or C), and come out on top at high or low altitude. But more than the plane, alpha or "g" limits is the pilot. The better pilot, who knows his/her own plane AND the enemy's, who understands the advantages and disadvantages of each airframe, is going to have the advantage in a dogfight. This was said earlier in the thread, I've said it before myself, and I will never be of an opinion otherwise. Pure fighter performance? I'd give it to the MiG-21 across the majority of low to mid-speeds in a turning fight, with the F-4 just catching up at higher subsonic speeds, but never really exceeding the MiG-21's turn performance. In the vertical, the F-4 seems to me the better candidate.

Happy Birthday!

I was in 10th grade biology class when we first heard of it. Initially thought to be an accident, but watching that second plane it, dear Lord! When I heard the Pentagon was hit as well I didn't believe it. "Don't we have some sort of defense around such a key military building?" Then I saw the pictures - guess not. Still can't believe it's been 9 years.

Certainly seems like Groundhog Day to me. Pratt and Whitney gets the initial contract, then GE develops a more powerful/reliable engine, then that engine gets threatened to be cut, but winds up being selected in the end. Kind of like the F-101/-110 and its derivatives that wound up in the F-14, F-15, and F-16.

For $8, you probably won't have any regrets buying it like I did for about $30 at the time. They went for a realistic game on a console and wound up making some of the most sluggish, undermodeled FM's I've ever seen. Now, if these planes were at max loadout, I could see (and expect) such a performance issue, but I'd be flying at about 50% fuel, guns only, no missiles on any rails and still have a terrible pitch and roll rate, and piss-poor G authority/build at all but high-subsonic/supersonic speeds (by this, I mean you'll have difficulty maintaining, say, a 4G turn in an F-14 at 350kts, full burner, at 50% fuel with no missiles remaining). With the missions having you fight multiple aircraft and expending your missiles early on, then having you engage a second set after a short FMV sequence with maybe 1 or 2 heaters and your guns left, it got frustrating quick going up against a fully loaded MiG-29, or Su-27 in a plane that still handles like a pig. You might like it, and for only $8, it's probably worth checking out, but I am definitely not a fan.

.

I'm not certain, but I was able to get the June 10 patch over a span of time and it seems like the enemy AI planes have less physics working against them. In the MF F-14A at about 40% fuel and out of missiles (I'm at about 1:1 thrust to weight here) I'm still being out-accelerated by the MiG-21 for a good chunk of the persuit. Also, the Mirage 5 is able to sustain its turn as well as I can, even though I have superior wing loading at around half fuel quantity/guns only (where I try to jump into the dogfight). For obvious reasons, I have an easier time with the F-14B. Now, I'm flying with the AI set to HARD, so I'll recheck on NORMAL and see if there's any change, but having read this thread, it has made me curious. It's also not just the Turkey, but also the Eagle and Phabulous Phantom, I've noticed similar issues (also noting the Phantom isn't a turning fighter).

All of the AFN commercials up here. Every...damn...one...I don't know how many times I've seen Fraud, Waste and Abuse/Know the local customs of your country/sexual harassment/human trafficking/proper diet, exercise/that damn girl with the cell phone while driving/drunk driving can ruin your career/That one that turned into "LT Bockus, goin' for a riiiiiiide"...actually, that one's all right. Anyone who has ever been on a US military base outside CONUS should know what I'm talking about. EDIT: Oh, yeah, and Major Savings gets irritating after a while. Good bits here and there, but I'm sick of "What would you do for a million bucks?" with that stupid beat in the background.

Happy Birthday, gents!

Think that's Bobrock's Tornado. It might already be compatible with SF2, I can't remember if I modified it to make it work, but suffice to say if not already, you can make it.

<S>

Oooookay, looks like I'm gonna have to try for another day in the community center to get the latest patch (still running Dec 09 up here). That is friggin' sweet! I can't think of how many times I've hit that command only to hear "Negative, we have no extra fighters available at this time."

To be honest, I like the teen-series in general; each one had its own unique advantages and each one was a hell of a fighter in its own right. Favorite? Tomcat. Any Time, Baby! (as if it weren't plainly obvious...)

<S> My condolensces to you X RAY; I'm sorry for your loss.

I used to use Hard, but as it has been mentioned, because areal refuelling isn't modeled, and because the AI never runs out of fuel, I've started to use Normal. It would get very frustrating to me when I see the AI using burner liberally, while if they tried to bug out, and I tried to chase them down, I wouldn't be able to catch them before running out of fuel, even if they were in a smaller jet using burner through out the fight, and for their bug out. Using Normal also has its drawbacks - aside from a slightly less realistic feel, it makes a heavier fighter in a dogfight. It's less noticeable in a smaller fighter, but I really notice it in the F-14, F-15E; fighters that carry a lot of gas. I'd prefer to be around 50%-60% when I get into the dogfight, burn gas in the fight and max loiter my way back to base afterwards. Trying to turn or zoom even in the more powerful F-14B or the Eagle with near full fuel makes it a royal pain to keep energy up to effectively fight, or to fight slow in a high alpha vertical fight/scissors. Earlier, real life fuel burn rates were discussed; over at the Tomcat Sunset website the same subject was discussed and the sim is quite accurate in Hard settings based on what was discussed there, and as FC mentioned here: your fuel consumption rate in burner is exponentially higher than in military power. We're talking about depleting fuel in minutes here, which is why mid-air refueling is such a necessary tool for long missions.

Congratulations and good luck!

To add on to what USAFMTL's explanation (ILS/TCS); Another function of the VDI is that it displays targeting data to the pilot when the RIO has a target locked up in Single Target Track mode, displaying the radar range selected, weapon selected, the target's orientation vertically to the F-14, an ASE circle, and the target's range on a solid scale as well as a Break-X when the target falls inside minimum range of the selected weapon; but if you're that close, you'd best not be looking down at the VDI for target info!. Pics/functionality is found in the 01-F14AAA-1 (F-14A) or AAP-1 (F-14B) manual. In the new release, all 3 of these modes are at least partially modeled (TCS, as has been stated, is a forward camera, but both ILS and most of the targeting nomenclature is there). I friggin' love this mod.

Fleet Defender for me; loved the control over the AWG-9.

Just flew the A and B in a couple of missions. Out-friggin'-standing, first of all. The models for the plane are top-notch and the cockpit is awesome. Got into a guns dispute with some Su-27's and MiG-29's in the Bravo. The dispute ended with the Tomcat still flying. Awesome stuff, gents, and thanks again for all your hard work!

OMG, my connection held for the whole 40 minutes required to get this beast! With only myself in the community center, I had enough bandwidth to finish the download in record time (normally would take about 6 hours, if I didn't time out) AND didn't time out...the second time. Either way, bringing zee files to the dorms to install onto my desktop. Thanks again to TMF; can't friggin' wait.

Okay, I haven't studied the F-18 nor the F/A-18 nearly as well as I have the F-14, but I can provide at least a little insight: The F-16 was initially designed as an inexpensive, highly maneuverable fighter, whose sole purpose was to dogfight. Initially, the F-16 wasn't even wired for the AIM-9L all-aspect IR missile! The only reason I know this is from reading one of Bob Wilcox's books that covered the "teen-series" and the section on the Viper covered its development. Eventually, "gold plating" was added that wound up turning the plane into a nasty air to air, OR air to ground platform, including the ability to carry all-aspect IR missiles, AIM-7's and percesion guided air to surface munitions. I think Block 15 was the first to carry the AIM-7, but can't say definitively, so that's as far as I'll go. Hope this helps, and I'm not totally off base! Don't got the book with me at the moment, so that's from memory recall.