Caesar

Those planes look flat out sexy in WOE; can't wait for its release!

Personally, I think it depends on which engine effect you're talking about. The afterburner effect Xle2 bugs the heck outta me, which is why I usually replace it with JetBurner or something else; too loud and too high-pitched for my taste, but to each their own.

Ah, all right, thanks for the information, Crusader. Unfortunately I can't find a Hawk ini file (unless it has to be extracted?) so I guess all Hawks are gonna have to stay the same color, SAM or AAM. Looks like the ones on the 'Cat are staying green. If anyone wants the Iranian Hawk for their 'Cat, I'll have to get permission to release, or just give the ini. It may be better to make into an AHM, because of the resulting foul-up of the AIM-54 pylon holding two of any other type of SAHMs. Vale, -"Caesar"

Okay, I modified the missile. Basically it equates to being a highly limited, heavier but more powerful Phoenix. Its easier to fool, and less accurate. That said, as with the -54 it'll bring down any target in one hit (I've had bombers take 2+ AIM-9's and keep going before!) I still have the problem with the pylon supporting too many AIM-7's, unfortunately, but the Hawks certainly work on the F-14.

Hey Pablo, Nope, I'm not an Israeli, just a curious modder. Thanks for the information, this oughta help. Currently here's how the missile handles: Almost no Rmin for some reason or another (probably because it's a SAM?) Takes two full seconds to seperate, then fire (as per ini) CM resistance is fair at best, but it always hangs in there until the last second before it's fooled. Also, I can't find the file for its color scheme, so it's green rather than white and orange. I got an unexpected drawback from making the pylon support SAHMs also: it now can hold 2 AIM-7's per pylon along with the AIM-9 totalling 3 missiles per pylon: a bit many, but unless I turn the Hawk into an AHM, that's just something that's gonna have to stay. Thanks again for the data, I'll modify it and test it out! Vale, -"Caesar"

Hey guys, I just made an Iranian Hawk missile for use with the Tomcat. It requires a small mod to the 'Cat's data.ini (I keep two models of 'Cat on my comp, a USN one which has strike capability and an Iranian one with its own weapon set.) You have to add SAHM to the wing Phoenix rails. I haven't hit anything with it yet; but it does launch and track (the ones I tested got fooled by CM's at the last second.) Not too tough, just used the basic Hawk data, and designated it for Iran. It only works on the wing rails, which we know is actually accurate, but I still have more testing to do (to find max/min range, how well it preforms, etc.) I'll update anything else I find about it.

They've had pictures of Tomcats with Hawk missiles on them for a while now...it's just the question of if they're actually active or just shells mounted on the 'Cat to look scary.

Be sure to read the Read Me, or use the search function here; you should be able to figure it out: there's more than one tutorial on these forums, all the way down to making nuclear AAM's. -"Caesar"

Understood. I wanted to be sure, which is why I waited to take any action. Thanks for the response. -"Caesar"

Hey all, I've been working on a Tomcat skin and was wondering if I needed permission to release it. It's the 1975 hi-viz VF-211 paint scheme (if I do get to release, it won't be out until probably next monday; Easter break starts today and the comp isn't returning home with me.) Thanks in advance for any replies from anyone in the know, -"Caesar"

There are installation instructions that come with the weapons pack, they should be able to guide you well enough. If all else fails, use the search function; there's probably quite a few subjects on the weapons pack(s) you can find here.

I may be wrong, but that looks like FS2004's F-14B with add on cockpit (the original which came with the "Flight Deck" expansion pack was horrendously inaccurate). If it is LOMAC, that'd be pretty amazing, and I'd like to find a Tomcat add on myself!

Ah, thanks fireengineer, I'll give those values a shot. Lexx: there are retarded bombs in SF, my mod nukes were based on bombs retarded by parachute (I can't remember which bombs they were though); I should probably remodel my nukes to be retarded for slower planes like the A-6. As for the reason as to why the bombs work the way they do, your guess is as good as mine, better, actually...seeing as I have none...at all. Vale, -"Caesar"

Sweet shots, man. What'd you end up setting the explosive mass to?

Hey again, Well, if you want the weapon data for the "Hey Paul!" bomb, here it is. [WeaponData851] TypeName=Mk84MOD2 FullName=Hey Paul! ModelName=Mk84LD Mass=983.580017 Diameter=0.456000 Length=3.754000 AttachmentType=NATO,USAF,USN NationName=USN StartYear=1964 EndYear=2040 Availability=3 BaseQuantity=200 Exported=FALSE ExportStartYear=0 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=0 RailLaunched=FALSE Retarded=FALSE Streamlined=TRUE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=FALSE EffectClassName=NukeExplosionEffect DragAreaMultiplier=1.000000 WarheadType=15 Explosives=20000000000.000000 FusingDistance=0.000000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=0 Accuracy=0.000000 MaxTurnRate=0.000000 MaxLaunchG=0.000000 LaunchReliability=0.000000 ArmingTime=0.000000 SeekerFOV=0.000000 SeekerTrackRate=0.000000 SeekerRange=0.000000 ReleaseAnimationID=-1 I flew some more tests with it and have found the following to be true: 1.) Yes, it will level an entire base if it is even near being "on-target" *see 5 2.) The minimum safe altitude is above 10,000 feet; at least 15K, I'd say 3.) It helps to have it on a fighter or fighter attack plane, because of the afterburners. You can drop it, go full burner, and get the hell outta the area. Exact radius is unknown, but in the A-6, if I wasn't high enough, it'd just blow me out of the sky being right over the area. 4.) The name is entirely esoteric, it's just funny to see "Hey Paul! selected" or "The Mother____er selected" 5.) For some reason or another it does not like to blow up runways, only standing structures and weapons and low-flying planes/anything below about 15,000 feet...maybe higher... If anyone wants to try The MF, just change the above power to 2e+024, though a more practical number would be 1e+015 (in the ini would be 999999986991104.000000), and of course, the name, signifying that you don't care that you're going to level a country and kill yourself, your wingmen, and all friendly and enemy planes in the process...still haven't found the safe height for that one. Also, if you wanted to make it more realistic, you should probably model it on the B-58's pod or something, rather than a 2000-pound Mk-84. Hope this helps with the nuke situation! Vale, -"Caesar"

Hey guys, Just to throw in my 2 cents on nukes: I have made 2 nuclear bombs that are quite dangerous, but they get the job done pretty darn well; usually leveling an entire base if you drop them on the center; the caveat is that one of them I'm yet to find a safe altitude to drop from, and it kills everything in the map, the other has to be dropped from at least ~8000 feet to be safe. The first, so far survivable one, based on the MK84 2000lb bomb (named "Hey Paul!" after a classic moment of the movie American Psycho) has an explosive mass of 2e+010, exploding with nuclear fusion. The Hey Paul! works pretty well, but for some reason or another has a hard time taking out runways. The second one, known simply as The Mother____er (guess the missing word) is named such because I'm still trying to find its safe drop, and its power is entirely unneccissary: at first rating at 2e+024, I've since moved it down to 1e+015. It was really made just to see how much I could destroy with one bomb, and one of these two models I calculated to have 11023000mT of explosive power. Of course, these map-stoppers kind of take the fun out of it in the first place, it's more the tension of can I escape the blast myself!? "fun". But they, or at least Hey Paul! gets the job done well with near-misses, or relatively far misses for that matter. That's some of my findings. Vale, -"Caesar"

Ah yes, the 1970's original B :) If my memory serves me correctly (and if someone catches a mistake, feel free to correct it), zones are basically the fuel consumption and thrust in afterburner. "Select Zone 5 and get the hell outta dodge" means go full burner and extend an escape. Zone 1 is ab, but not full, and with not as much fuel consumption. The TF-30's Zones 3-4 consumed 64,000lbs of fuel per hour, with more thrust than Z1 or 2, while Z5 is absolute maximum thrust, burning 72,000lbs/hr. The TF-30 series engines all had 5 stages of ab. I know the F-110's had 3, and knowing that the F110 was a development of the F101, with 400lbs less thrust but better response, I assumed that the F101 also had only 3 stages; again this was just an assumption. But more Zones does not equate to more thrust: the Z3 (maximum) burner of an F110 provides 7200lbs more thrust than Z5 (maximum) of a TF-30, so zones are just the different selectable amouts of extra fuel consumption allowed by the engine, and the thrust produced I guess. As for the F401, I have no idea the number of Zones. Good luck w/ clearance to release, Blackbird! Vale, -"Caesar"

Which "B" is it? F401, F101DFE or F110? I actually created a test F101DFE powered "Super Tomcat" (the cancelled 1981 model) myself seperate from the "A", but it's really just a modification to engine thrust and reducing the zones of afterburner from 5 to 3. Just wondering which engines you selected?

There actually is a Strike Eagle here already: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?download=1565 Check it out. :) This is great news. I can't wait for this next iteration to release!

Hi again, Just to share some of my experiences with the AI: I actually find my AI pilots to handle their a/c pretty well; not too many AI losses on my machine due to stalls or awkward maneuvers (this could be because I usually fly the more modern a/c like the F-14, -15, -16, and -18 moreso than planes like the A-4, F-4 or -106.) Now if there was something I wish the wingmen wouldn't do is close in when they have 6 remaining AAM's to try to gun a bomber with its own gun in the tail that usually accounts for more losses than their handling the plane too roughly. That said, I have had several occasions with the older planes where they loose it, and after following the last 3 posts or so, I guess I now know why...of course, considering that I, the human pilot have done the same thing on more than one occasion (including that backflip incident) with cold-war era planes allows me to forgive them. Vale -"Caesar"

Ah, I see; my mistake. As for the flight models, I'm completely satasfied with the Tomcat and every other 3rd party plane I've flown; they're real kickass designs. The given data up there's just some of the test limits and earlier limits of the plane to compare it before the Navy had to put restrictions on it due to airframe age and those damn TF-30's. God I'm gonna miss that bird. Thanks for bringing more to light, Fubar. Vale, -"Caesar"

For performance data, it's usually best to try to find aircraft manuals, like (for Navy A/C) NAVAIR NATOPS operations ones if you can. It is true what you say, finding that data online is not easy. Also, in terms of books you can find some real gems too; but specific data for stall speed, max AoA and whatnot is real tough. Even the official data is not 100% accurate; or is modified for certain circumstances. The Tomcat (A-model) for example, is given a +6.5/-2.4G envelope in the latest public release of the NAVAIR 01-F14AAA-1 manual (1998). This is a precaution to preserve the old airframes, as through the 1970's and 1980's, the Tomcat was a 9G-rated plane. During its initial flight testing against an F-4, the Tomcat started with a +7.4G, forcing the F-4 outside the Tomcat's turn, reversed, and ended up on the Phantom's tail. The Tomcat pulled +8G with 6 AIM-54A Phoenix missiles, 2 267 gallon drop tanks and 2 AIM-9G sidewinders onboard at Mach .9, 20,000 feet altitude. (that little bit o' info from a 1975 release of Grumman F-14 by J.P. Stevenson, pg. 68) At M1.2, 20,000 feet the plane pulled 9G. With the glove veins extended the 'Cat pulls over 7G at M2.04 at 50,000feet. Below 275 knots, probably clean or with 4 AIM-7's, the 'Cat can pull over 6.5G. Under controlled circumstances, the plane can hit -5.5G on the opposite end. On AoA, the 'Cat in the NAVAIR manuals is not supposed to exceed 30 degrees AoA; but the Tomcat has hit nearly 90-deg. AoA. It can roll 360 degrees at 50 knots, 25 degrees AoA (again, J.P. Stevenson's book, pp.68) something that the NAVAIR manual would normally prohibit. So, to get an idea of the a/c true operational envelope, you have to look to more than one source, and finding test data, where they push the aircraft to find those limits is the best you can come by, but also extrememly rare. For now, I'm trying to find the limits of the a/c within the SF game; or, the limits that SF puts on the a/c. Vale, -"Caesar"

Ah, interesting stuff. I didn't know the latest patches had affected a/c departure. I'm still off finding the full envelopes of different 3rd party a/c...idk why really, maybe I just like seeing how far I can push it? I've inadvertantly lost an AV-8 in a hard turn, like fireengineer but in an older variation (the AV-8C). Of course, this may have to do with the fact that I fly all things on Hard, so that probably affects it also, as USAFMTL pointed out. As for the F-16's flat spin and if it can be done, I have no idea as to whether or not the computers would let the F-16 enter into a departure envelope, but my flat spin wasn't really much of a departure; really a highly controlled spin that was quickly recoverable. I still haven't lost a Tomcat to a spin due to excessive yaw-rates, but the velocity at which I've been trying may still be too high; roughly 300KIAS, sometimes 280-250. Maybe I'll make graphs of the data I find when I'm done... Well, back to work! Vale, -"Caesar"