streakeagle

The unslatted F-4B can pull more g at a lower speed, which means its instantaneous performance is considerably better than the F-104A/C depicted above. At the same 7.33g load, the F-4 only needs to fly at 420 kts, about compared to the F-104G's 490+ kts. This results in 490/420 = 16% better turn rate. At corner speed, around 445 kts, the F-4 can pull about 8.5g, leading to 8.5/7.33*490/445 = 27% better turn rate. I don't know how accurate the information is, but this graph is way cool. Keep in mind that the slatted F-4E generally turns better than the F-4B by a good margin given how much better the F-4B turns compared to the F-104:

For perspective, consider a clean F-4B at 50% fuel. Since the altitude is at sea level, TAS = CAS = IAS is fairly true, so it is directly comparable to the sea level data above:

Be wary of the limits of the above graph: clean with flaps and gear up... and less than 1,000 lbs of fuel. If you take the total weight with 1,000 lbs of fuel, you can estimate performance with higher fuel loadings by using the weight ratio to reduce the load factor scale on the left. i.e. if the weight is increased by 25% (5/4), then the load factor g's should be 80% (4/5) lower. Note: this load factor reduction also applies to the 7.33g structural limit. In this example, it would now be 0.8 x 7.33g => 5.864g Flaps down should improve the lift curves a bit up to their rated speed, but at the cost of greatly increased drag. Keep in mind, this is not a sustained turn graph, this is the maximum load that can be pulled while the wing is at the max controllable angle of attack, which can be less than the theoretical Clmax angle since the F-104 had control issues at high AoA. The stick pusher system that tries to prevent unstable AoA is the source of the flat spots in the curves. Also keep in mind, the speed is IAS => indicated airspeed, not CAS/TAS, which is useful while flying but harder to read for performance evaluation/comparison. At sea level, IAS is theoretically equal to TAS, so that is a great altitude to derive Clmax information as a function of speed. According to this graph, at sea level, Vc is very close to 500 kts! This is the price of using thin stubby wings to maximize top speed.

This graph for the F-104A should give you an idea of F-104 corner speed (Vc):

I am far more interested in full-blown, well-known air superiority fighters, hence my general lack of interest in FSX and X-Plane. However, I love all airplanes and well-modeled virtual aircraft have a very strong appeal to me whether they are military or civil. Yet, I still don't own any A2A FSX releases despite their nearly insane detail and realism. I would really enjoy the T-38A modeled as realistically as possible, of course, I would like the F-5A and F-5E to go with it.

The F-14D would easily be the best option for matching the Flaming Cliffs era planeset, and I wouldn't fault Leatherneck for choosing to provide that model nor the fans who want it: easily the Navy equivalent to the F-15E Strike Eagle with more power-to-weight and low speed agility. The only limit being built-in DCS support for its avionics, which couldn't really be attempted until ED's F/A-18C is further along. For the same reason that I enjoy flying the MiG-21bis with all of its old tech, I personally prefer the earliest variants possible of the teen fighters. I want an early F-14A with TF30's. It was not the Tomcat the Navy wanted, but it was the Tomcat they got and were stuck with for quite some time. From 1971 until 1987 (almost the peak of the Cold War arms race), it was all they had. I would just as much like an early F-15A with its touchy F100's. These are the perfect historical matches to the MiG-21bis already available, the MiG-23M/MF/MS, the MiG-25P/PD/PDS, and Su-15TM of that same era. This is a plane set I would like to see much more than the Flanker/LOMAC/FC '90s era. Of course, the F-4D/E and F-4J/N/S need to be there in quantity for a truly accurate representation of US military air power during that time: "DCS:Strike Fighters"

But if they are interested in decent sales, it would be much better to offer an airplane with greater appeal. As others have stated, many other aircraft would have been no more difficult to model than these trainers but would have gotten a much better response in sales.

I ended up getting the C-101. After having flown so many similar aircraft in DCS with full ramp startups, I was able to get this baby out of the hangar and off the ground without even reading a quick start guide. I did use the English tool tips to verify my guesses at switch functionality, but the process was fairly straight forward: close the canopy, lock the canopy, turn on oxygen supply, turn on battery and generator, turn on fuel pumps, set throttle to idle, flip start switch. There were fault lights that helped me figure figure out anything that was missing. Simply closing the canopy gave me the most trouble. I couldn't figure out where the hotspot was for clicking on it with a mouse. The aircraft is overall very well done, but the SFM makes taxiing, taking off, and landing very boring. I hope the promised AFM is comparable to other DCS aircraft in detail and realism.

Despite all the trainers already planned and/or being released, I would like it if all the trainers used in a particular military's pilot training program were replicated to allow simulating a full course of instruction. A complete training package for USAF and/or USN pilots from the 1960's or 1970's would be cool. If I could only have one trainer, it would be the T-38A, especially if a minor variant were available: the USAF Thunderbirds. I bought the Hawk to support VEAO's long term plans and see what kind of quality they are capable of producing. I am not sure about the C-101, but if the flight model is good and they are going to ultimately make some airplanes I really want, I may buy it.

In all the years I flew SFP1/WoX series, many if not most of them hosting online, I never saw anyone figure out how to mod either dogfight or co-op.

The MiG-23MLD makes sense in the DCS/FC3 background, and I would gladly take it. But The early F-14A is historically the opponent of the MiG-23MF and MiG-23MS. It would be cool if a bunch of aircraft from the same decade were actually available (in this case, the 1970's). MiG-21bis, MiG-23MF, F-4E, F-14A, F-15A, F-16A. The F-18A was mostly just an artist's concept in magazines. These are the fighters I grew up with :)

I would want an F-14A with all of its older systems. A MiG-23MF is an interesting match against the F-14A. As long as they can keep up the quality of their releases, I will probably be happy with anything they choose to do.

In multiplayer, you have two options: Dogfight, which is strictly for arena style fighter vs fighter combat. Co-op, which allows one side of up to 8 aircraft to attack the other side of up to 8 aircraft. Co-op should have limited air defenses, but things were intentionally kept light to ensure good frame rates despite any lag called by the DirectPlay multiplayer interface. Co-op can be fun, but there is no respawning, so dogfight is better for long term gameplay. For instance, if you have 4 people flying together against AI in co-op, and one guy gets shot down right away, he can't do anything until that mission is complete. Dogfight is far more flexible with its unlimited spawning, but it turns the game into a "Quake Fest". Ultimately, the limitations of SFP1/WoX multiplayer ensured that there would never be a large group of people interested in playing it over the long term. I spent a few years supporting it, but never met more than a handful of people that actually tried SFP1/WoX multiplayer. Only a few of those played regularly for any length of time.

Whatever the bugs or inaccuracies, the MiG-21bis is a masterpiece. Equally fun to just fly around or engage in combat. MiG-21bis vs AI F-5E is a great guns only duel. I wish they would release many variants of MiG-21 as well as the MiG-23.

I have no trouble ignoring the extra buttons and flying as if an SF2 level on most of the current DCS aircraft. The A-10C and Ka-50 with all of their advanced systems are the only ones that require advanced proficiency to use their tactical systems effectively. Startup/shutdown procedures can be done with a key press. So, the complexity hasn't hurt me on those nights I just want to fly or dogfight. Then, when I have the time and energy, I can still do full ramp start, radio comms, etc. The big problem I had with FC3 aircraft was the flight modeling, and the A-10A, F-15C, Su-25, and Su-27 have fixed that part. So, I wouldn't mind more aircraft being introduced at the FC level as long as they have the PFM. But the flight model is the hardest, most time consuming part, so third parties are more likely to provide detailed system modeling with a simple flight model until they can finish a PFM->VEAO Hawk. But Belsimtek and Leatherneck give you the full deal from the start. I would kill for a full DCS F-4, but would settle for an F-5, F-8, F-104, or F-105. The F-5E would be a great match for the MiG-21bis. I might get Tac Pack and the new F-14... but not until the Steam version of FSX is supported. I don't want to mess with my disc version, not sure how many more times I can activate it.

There is a cash benefit for producing a crossover sim that can satisfy FSX/X-Plane fans AND combat sims. There is a customer benefit if the skills of the two communities can be pooled together to produce the best pay-for and free addons in the least time possible. Whether FSX or X-Plane ever adds combat/AI to the level of DCS or DCS adds a global environment supporting private/commercial aircraft like FSX/X-Plane, the end result could be very good. The volume and quality of material still being produced for FSX is absolutely amazing considering its age and abandonment by Microsoft. If DCS could build up that kind of support and loyalty, I would be very happy.

Very tempting. But I would be more interested if it supported the new Steam FSX. I could install my original disc based copy of FSX, but I can wait for the convenience of Steam compatibility.

I didn't back DCS until it promised to equal or surpass the SF2 series -> announcement of MiG-21bis and equally important, the upgrading of the FC3 FMs as LOMAC and FC1/2 FMs were still way inferior to TK's approach. If TacPack multiplayer equals DCS and gives me aircraft I want modeled to that level, it will get my support. Some basic dogfight AI for offline practice/training would sweeten the deal as well. From your description, TacPack isn't even at the original SFP1 Walmart release level yet, which is just too large a step backwards for me. I wish AccuSim and its BDG/BoB2 branch was involved in TacPack development/implementation. It would still take a while to reach my needs, but I know they are capable and willing to get that level of results. On a slight tangent, I haven't played X-Plane since they added the "combat" capability to it. As I understand it, it is a very limited capability that does no real damage/destruction. Just a "non-violent" fun type of combat. If implemented correctly, it could resemble Red Flag exercise simulated combat, which would be good enough for me to enjoy it if everything else was right. But every time I try X-Plane, I am disappointed with almost every aspect, but especially its supposed strong point, the flight modeling. I found TK's simplified linear equation tables far more realistic than anything I have flown in X-Plane. At low speeds where it should shine, it does work fairly well. But having flown Cessnas and Pipers in reality, it doesn't really seem to work any more realistically than FSX despite any advantages its flight model engine is supposed to provide. At transonic/supersonic speeds, X-Planes doesn't even come close to getting it right with its stock F-4 Phantom. If they got that one airplane mostly right, I would probably be their biggest fan, instead has been one of their worst compared to real-world behavior and performance. I always did enjoy flying the X-15 and shuttle orbiter. I doubt the realism of the flight modeling, but find it fun and challenging to play. To be fair, I haven't bought/played X-Plane since version 8. But other than graphics and "combat", I see no reason to believe version 10 would be worth buying/installing. With SF2 development halted and DCS surpassing SF2 by providing much greater versions of aircraft spanning WW2 to the present (even the best helicopters I have ever flown in a sim), DCS is probably going to be my main game for some time to come. I still wish the best to VRS and TacPack. The Aerosoft F-14 is especially tempting. But DCS development has been flying. I have been installing a new plane almost every month. If DCS 2 / Edge lives up to the hype and some sort of Korea and Vietnam maps get released sometime thereafter, I will be just kicking back and enjoying the aircraft I have while awaiting the next batch of releases: P-40F, P-47, Spitfire, Me 262, MiG-15bis, F/A-18C, Leatherneck F-14?, Mirage 2000C, and whatever else may pop up over the next 2 or 3 years. A dark horse is the DoveTail re-release of FSX. Are they just going to support more addons for the existing code, or will a newer, better sim based on FSX eventually be released? They need to improve the engine while maintaining compatibility with VRS and AccuSim projects to really be successful. If TrainSimulator is anything to go by, there will be no real improvements, just a lot more DLC and progressively less capability and more bugs as new patches are released annually. I hope I am wrong and FSX is dramatically improved with full support and co-operation of 3rd parties.

Regardless of its performance, the P-40B in Flying Tigers' markings is one of my favorite aircraft of all time. I know the shark mouth was used on British P-40 units first, but I love the AVG and their Chinese sunburst national markings. I hope VEAO or ED eventually releases a P-40B/C for DCS and I will enjoy the VEAO P-40F until such a thing happens. The Aces High P-40C in AVG colors is great, too. Just a great, agressive shape that carries the shark mouth as well or better than any aircraft before or since.

Nice Christmas! I hope your health is doing as well.

DCS is not for everyone, but if you liked flying F-15As and A-10As in the Strike Fighters series, then flying F-15Cs, A-10As, MiG-29s, Su-25s, and Su-27s in DCS:Flaming Cliffs 3 is somewhat similar, but with generally better graphics and slightly more detailed avionics, though not quite at the full-realism complexity level. The F-15, A-10, Su-25, and Su-27 have had detailed/accurate flight models recently added that are superior to Strike Fighters series. If you don't mind flying Falcon 4.0 at full difficulty/realism levels, then the DCS:A-10C is for you. The amazing range of aircraft available (or soon to be available) at full-realism levels is pretty cool: WW2 era, Korean War era, Vietnam era, and very recent/modern. But the cons are bad for some people: To this day, only one terrain, though that is supposed to be fixed slowly but surely starting sometime next year. No dynamic campaigns. AI for single player has limitations. The atmosphere is only as good as the mission, for many it is as sterile an environment as IL-2 is/was. A lot of the aircraft modules have bugs that are slow to be fixed, usually with new bugs replacing ones that do get fixed. Gameplay can either be dumbed down to an easy arcade level or ramped up to full-realism, but hard to get the right mix for people that want a "lite" sim. For me, DCS is the best thing going right now for an air combat sim. Unparalleled detail/realism, yet I can bypass a full-blown realistic rampstart and do some quick dogfight missions without using any more buttons than Strike Fighters. Each aircraft is very unique both in controls/systems modeling and handling/flight performance. Unlike Strike Fighters, this sim is built for a good multiplayer experience. You can try DCS:World for free with the Su-25T and the TF-51D. These sample aircraft give you a great glimpse of what DCS is all about. The Su-25T is similar in detail/complexity of the other Lockon/Flaming Cliffs aircraft. The TF-51D gives you a good taste of WW2 aircraft and systems modeling of full-blown DCS modules. If you catch modules on sale, they are very affordable. In its present format, DCS World does need a fairly strong PC to run it at high detail/visual quality with reasonable framerates. Hopefully, the imminent DCS:World 2.0 release will improve that situation with its updated rendering engine.

As a console game, it doesn't look too bad. A lot closer to a sim than Ace Combat. Possibly comparable to SF series in overall gameplay/realism. However, unless you are a Harrier fanatic, there are obviously much better choices on the PC side of the flight sim world.

I concur on the AI. But DCS AI still has its flaws as well and counts on player vs player to make up the difference. If FSX can handle enough players with Tac Pack, it could still be very useful. At the moment, I do not own Tac Pack or any other third party FSX addon. If A2A had followed through on their "in progress" F-4 and F-104, I would be far more interested in Tac Pack. As it stands, both of those are indefinitely on hold. Jumping from accurately simulating aerodynamics and propulsion of subsonic propeller aircraft to Mach 2 jets was just a bit outside of their comfort zone. Instead, they haven't released anything but Cessnas and a Piper :P Though, they are supposed to try to make a decent T-33 before going back to the F-104 -> F-4 development path. I will believe it when I see it.

While I don't fly FSX or X-Plane very often, I have a lot more hours on FSX. Out of the box, the only thing X-Plane ever did for me was the ability to fly the X-15 and land the Space Shuttle. I never liked the flight modeling or graphics enough to bother with anything other than a few free addons, and those didn't impress me either. FSX missions make it more of a game. It is not only a simulator but fun to achieve scripted objectives instead of just tooling around. Out of the box, it comes with a great selection of aircraft. There as also plenty of free addons that are excellent as well as the option for outstanding payware like A2A's Accu-sim products. As Tac Pack matures, FSX might even compete against DCS World as a hard core air combat sim with the advantage of already modeling the entire globe!

MS FSX Gold on Steam for $4.99 per front page post on CombatAce. I am getting a 2nd copy for that price :)