streakeagle

I have everything but the JF-17. Pre-ordering this was a no-brainer. But I am more interested in upcoming releases: Early F-14A, F-8J, and F4U-1D.

Take advantage of the 2-week free trials: try every module, one at a time, before you decide what to buy. I can't hurt. There are enough modules to keep you busy for quite some time before you would need to make a decision.

If your present PC can run DCS World (a 100% free download), you can get the free A-4E-C Skyhawk addon aircraft and fly it from carriers or ground bases on the online Vietnam server. Mastering the A-4E could keep you busy while you wait for a good sale to buy the F-16C.

In my opinion, the F-14A/B is the best modern jet because I prefer air-to-air and it dominates both the WVR and BVR arenas in the F-14B configuration. But two-seaters have limitations: you either have to deal with a less than capable AI RIO or fly multiplayer and hope to find a human RIO, preferably one more skilled than the AI. Presently, the F/A-18C is the best all around modern jet because it is very good at just about everything except for range and power-to-weight. The F-16C at its current patch level does not beat the F/A-18 in sustained turn rate the way it should, but is otherwise a good mashup of F-14 and F/A-18 performance being among the best in both air-to-air and air-to-ground. The F-16C is not a carrier based plane, that means a little less fun for me. I love carrier operations almost as much as combat, especially with the SuperCarrier addon module. Air-to-air refueling is very challenging and fun in DCS World. For me, the F-16 is the hardest to refuel with sensitive controls and a touchy throttle.

I had written a long comparison post, but I deleted it in favor of saying this: You can do a 2-week free trial and decide for yourself if it is worth the money. But I would never pay full price when you can always wait for a sale. The summer sale just ended, so the next one might be a fall sale? The Christmas sale used to really drop prices, but these days, most sales are the same: 50% off for older releases, 0-20% off for newer ones. I can't recall what the F-16C price is on sale.

Photo of a patch: http://usmilitarypatches.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10004/36tfw_f100_sb_2~0.jpg

Project Shoehorn was the US Navy program to retrofit its Vietnam aircraft with RWR/ECM including the ALE series chaff/flare dispensers. The F-8 received the ALE-29 series with a pair of 15-round boxes. It was designed for dropping chaff and you can see that in the control panel switch functions. But per the F-8 manual, it could carry flares, too. But there was no way to choose flare or chaff, just the ability to select one or both pods and determine how many and how fast to deploy countermeasures. So, if flares were available and loaded, it would have been possible to load one with flares and one with chaff, then use the selector to drop the one you wanted or both. The focus was on defeating SA-2s, but later in the war, shoulder fired SA-7s became a threat, so it is possible that flares may have been carried. AIM-4 limititations: You have to turn on cooling in anticipation of combat, which takes a while. Once you turn on cooling, it has a time limit and runs out of cooling. You have to hold the firing solution for several seconds before the missile launches. Small warhead with no proximity fuse: the missile must score a direct kinetic hit and even then may not do significant damage. It was not a dogfight weapon at all (like the early AIM-7 and AIM-9B). Against maneuvering MiGs, you could never meet all of the firing constraints, and even if you did, it probably missed. The USAF insisted on switching to the AIM-4 and consequently saw its ability to score kills against VPAF MiGs dramatically reduced until they switched back to AIM-9s. The AIM-9B was far easier to use and far more reliable even though it also had similar launch g and minimum range limits. The AIM-9D was available almost immediately at the start of the Vietnam War and was far superior to the AIM-9B and AIM-4D as reflected by all the kills the Navy scored with it. Robin Olds immediately recognized the mistake of switching to the AIM-4 and ordered his mechanics to create an adapter to permit using the AIM-9B. The USAF leadership (dominated by the Curtis LeMay nuclear war/strategic bomber crowd) was horrible for the duration of the war constantly making bad strategic and tactical decisions that cost many planes and pilots. It was only after the war that the USAF admitted its training and tactics were horrible and that the Navy's AIM-9 was the future instead of continuing development of its AIM-9E/J series. The AIM-4 went away with the Century series interceptors, with the AIM-54 being the only derivative to remain in service in any capacity with US forces. The Iranians praised the AIM-54 can claimed many kills. In US Navy service, it had a history of poor reliability during test and training shots and the few times it was fired in combat, it failed.

I may be able to dig up some F-8 operational info. I don't know if my sources go into that level of detail. But here is where I discussed Oyster flight's 1972 May loadouts with 2xAIM-4D and an ecm pod in the forward AIM-7 well. Note: there is also an ecm pod under one of the AIM-4Ds. Oyster Flight Loadout on May 10, 1972 - The Pub - CombatACE

Historically, USAF AIM-9Es and AIM-9Js performed the same or worse than AIM-9Bs, while the USN very hastily deployed AIM-9Ds with excellent results (around 40-60%) and the AIM-9G and AIM-9H had results comparable to the AIM-9L (around 80%). Late AIM-9Js as deployed on F-15s supposedly solved the early AIM-9J problems, but the AIM-9L, derived from the AIM-9G/H series was far superior, so the USAF finally gave up and switched to the USN derived variants that were comparable in range and speed, more maneuverable, all-aspect, and more reliable. The AIM-4D had dismal performance in Vietnam, worse than the AIM-9B. But the USAF really insisted on using them rather than the USN developed AIM-9. Politics and pride don't mix well with making good decisions that effect combat effectiveness.

MiG encounters were relatively rare. The Vietnamese didn't have many and on most days used them very sparingly. The Navy mainly faced MiG-17s which had no IRMs. SA-2s were fired on a daily basis. The Navy needed chaff far more than they needed flares. So, you shouldn't be looking for what the aircraft was capable of carrying, but instead looking for documentation of what they actually carried. For example, the F-4 could in theory carry 4 x AIM-9 and 4 x AIM-7. But the USAF and USN used different loadouts based on their own experience and judgement. The USAF had crappy AIM-9s and favored carrying AIM-7s, but the USAF also liked to put an ecm pod in one of the forward AIM-7 wells. The USAF also liked to carry the AIM-4D instead of the AIM-9. So even on May 10, 1972, during the biggest day of air-to-air combat during the entire war, Major Lodge's Oyster flight of F-4Ds was carrying 1 x AIM-4D on each wing pylon, either 2 or 3 AIM-7 + ECM pod. The USN had great AIM-9s and almost always carried 4xAIM-9. But since the F-4 couldn't fire the forward AIM-7s without dropping the centerline tank and the Navy had horrible results with the AIM-7, they usually only carried 2xAIM-7 in the rear wells. Unlike the USAF, Navy F-4s could carry 2xAIM-9 and bombs under each wing plyon, so it was quite common for USN CAP/Escort F-4s to carry some bombs as well as missiles to provide some SEAD for the attack aircraft. Whereas in the game, carrying 4xAIM-9 and 4xAIM-7 is typical and generally the most effective loadout.

I don't know about turn performance, but the afterburner makes a noticeable difference in max climb rate: F-86D: 12,150 ft/min F-86F-40: 9,000 ft/min (46 m/s) at sea level That difference in rate of climb is a direct measure of specific excess power, which should mean much better acceleration. The higher wing loading should decrease overall agility/max turn rate, but the extra power might actually provide comparable if not superior sustained turn rate, as SEP is much higher despite the weight gain.

Despite being free, the A-4E-C is more complete and far better than many of the payware modules. For zero cost you get a carrier capable clickable cockpit aircraft with only a handful of problems caused by not being a licensed third party project.

There is no difference between the download and the real thing. But DCS is a huge moving target. The graphics are constantly improving and the newer terrains leverage those improvements a lot better than the reworked old terrain. If it has been awhile since you tried it, install the open beta version, find and install the latest A-4E-C Skyhawk free mod, and join the others flying in the "Vietnam" server from carriers and/or land bases. But to really enjoy carrier ops, you need the Super Carrier payware DLC that is the best carrier operations you can experience in a PC sim. The problem I am having is that somewhere along the way in the last two patches since they added the new clouds, my VR performance has dropped off horribly using the HP Reverb G2. The G2 headset has the best clarity, which is a real plus in DCS for seeing the cockpit gauges, digital displays, and control labels. Originally, VR dogfighting was almost impossible because you couldn't see the enemy until they were very close. But even without any kind of icons turned on, you can see aircraft as dots at decent distances.

First, I can say the free Community A-4E-C Skyhawk mod brings in a lot of people into The Forgotten's online Vietnam server. But two things have greatly increased traffic on both the Korea and Vietnam server: 1) the new free trial program has people trying out the F-86 in Korea and the F-5 and UH-1 in Vietnam, and 2) for a very brief time, the open beta and stable release version were the same. Having the two versions lets you choose between cutting edge changes or long term stability, but it literally cuts the online community in half. I know the A-4 has gotten some people to buy the F-5 or UH-1 after seeing how fun the Vietnam PVE server is. It is hard to get people to try the F-86, but when they do, they love it.

It is like a 727 with a Tu-22 nose. It looks really sleek. I have never seen it before. I like it :)

In real life, Cunnningham could not get better than a neutral position against a MiG-17 in 1 vs 1. The MiG-17 climbed with him and easily turned inside him. The best he could do was extend and come back for another head on merge. It was only when the MiG lit his afterburner and tried to disengage that he got a shot. Cunningham knew how to fly an F-4. Clearly the other pilot, aka "Colonel Tomb", knew how to fly the MiG-17. It it had been a MiG-19, I am pretty sure Cunningham would have been shot down, as it has comparable power and retains superior agility. F-4s did as well as they did principally because of the skill and experience of the pilots favored the US, especially the USN, and because when you fight in numbers like 4 vs 4, agility is less important than mutual support and situational awareness. The Navy's AIM-9D, G, and H did a lot to improve their kill ratio, but first and foremost it was their training and tactics that won the day over the USAF and VPAF. The addition of slats and a gun made the F-4 a much better WVR fighter. I would love to have seen a match between the best USAF pilots in slatted F-4Es vs the best USN pilots in F-4Js. My money would be on the F-4E: the slats unleashed the F-4's high AoA capability going from a practical limit between 18 to 22 degrees depending on pilot skill and confidence to 25 to 30 degrees with no special skills required. More g, less drag, and better snapshot potential. The F-4J would have better acceleration and climb when unloaded, but ask Cunningham what happens when you climb better than an opponent with guns. For BVR with the AIM-7, the F-4J should have been superior in almost every way... but history shows the USN didn't do well with AIM-7 at all. The AIM-7 was too delicate for carrier ops. Captive flight hours killed the reliability. To be fair, the USAF did better for three reasons: 1) their AIM-9s sucked, so they had to try AIM-7s, 2) units like the 555th had special groom teams from the radar and missile manufacturers trying to keep the radars and missiles in pristine condition between flights, and finally, the big one that finally permitted BVR shots: Combat Tree (the system that exploited enemy IFF to reliably confirm bandits on radar). Despite its poor performance, I love the AIM-7. As it turns out, the F-4D's radar did better with the AIM-7 than the F-4E in Vietnam. So they tended to pair them up: an F-4Ds for BVR and F-4Es for WVR. The F-4E's radar had a smaller antenna that was also elliptical rather than round, so its vertical beam wasn't the best increasing ground clutter. F-4E's APQ-120 had something F-4Ds didn't: COORDS, an early form of doppler/lookdown, but it didn't work very well. The F-4D's radar proved to be more reliable and have better range. Like the F-4J's AWG-10, the APQ-120 would overcome its early teething troubles and get better over time. But not in time for Vietnam. Given AIM-9L/M and AIM-7M, the slatted F-4S was a great fighter for MiG-17/19/21/23 combat. If the F-4K/M Phantoms had gotten slats, they would have been monsters with AIM-9L/M in close and Skyflash being nearly as good as an AIM-7M (it only had the AIM-7E engine, so it didn't have the range and speed of the AIM-7M despite being the first with the inverse monopulse seeker). My dream version was the Israeli "Super Phantom" with PW turbofans. It would have been equal to the USAF's late F-4E, but with even more power than the RAF F-4s, and the installation didn't require the changes that RAF F-4s needed to accommodate the larger Spey turbofans... so more power and no drag increase. The airframe load limits still held back the instantaneous performance, but the sustained performance was substantially better. The MiG-23MLD was an F-4 killer with better power and comparable or superior agility, but the Super Phantom would have put the F-4 back on top.

Dogfight a MiG-17 or MiG-19 with an unslatted F-4J, then repeat the fight with a slatted F-4E. The hard wing has less drag, so it is better in level flight, climbs, dives... anytime you need acceleration/power, except in turns. But if you need to turn, the slatted F-4E flies rings around unslatted F-4's. If you are a patient boom and zoom energy fighter type, the hard wing F-4s are the way to go. But if you have to get in close, the slatted F-4s are the only way to go and the much lighter F-4F is the king. The key to the slats wasn't just to improve turn performance, but to completely eliminate the nasty adverse yaw induced flat spin that occurred at high AoA at any speed. The Navy believed the solution was better pilot training, but when the F-4S finally got slats, the Navy was admitting the safety and agility were worth the loss of specific excess power. I enjoy flying both. I like the challenge of fighting MiG up close with a hard wing. But one on one, it is almost impossible to beat a MiG-17 until he runs low on fuel and tries to run away. You can stay above him and go faster, but you can't get behind him. With a slatted F-4E, there is no AI flown plane in the game I can't beat, even the F-15A. If you don't need the gun, the slatted F-4S has agility/safety and the best original radar (not counting modern refits with Hornet and Falcon radars). If you don't need the slats or gun, the RAF F-4M with turbofans is the hotrod at subsonic speeds with more climb and acceleration. If I can only fly one, it would be a slatted USAF F-4E. In any given time frame, USAF F-4Es received continuous field mods that kept them competitive in both air and ground attack. The radar, navigation, and bombing systems were constantly improved/digitized. A handful of the last F-4Es even got a frameless front windshield. But the slatted F-4S is a close 2nd.

I can't wait for Sea Power. I loved Pacific Fleet, Atlantic Fleet, and Cold Waters.

Nice song, but I had seen the original video before:

I am not aware of a "demo" version.

Salt water does a number on electrical. But aside from submerging, it looks like he got away with a bent prop. I hope they can get it back to flying status. Flying the warbirds has steadily thinned out their numbers, but there are already plenty of museum pieces. I want to see warbirds thundering overhead until the last one crashes to let as many generations as possible know what these planes were really like beyond photos and static displays. There is nothing like hearing a warbird overhead, be it radial or inline. Modern aircraft don't have engines or performance anywhere close aside from military fighters and transports. How I wish I could have heard B-17s and B-24s formed up by the hundreds. I personally got to watch a flight of warbirds pass overhead with a B-17, B-24, B-25, P-40, P-51, and F-4F. The sound of all those engines in close proximity was amazing. The kids in the neighborhood couldn't understand why I was so excited. They could care less. That was around 1996 or 1997 near San Diego, CA. I was living in Santee and there was an airshow at Gillespie airfield. The warbirds were flying in together for the weekend. I went to the show. It was great. Mainly static displays, but every aircraft on display had flown in :)

My current setup doesn't look nearly as nice as what you have done. It looks great! I could only have dreamed of having something like that when I was his age. I am still amazed at how far the consumer grade tech has come. At that age, the best my father could do for me was get me into radio control airplanes and he worked quite a bit of overtime to provide that. My son has shown zero interest in my flight sims. I hope your son appreciates what he has, both an amazing home cockpit and a father that was able to make it happen.

How the F-4 performed versus the MiG-21 varied greatly with which variant of F-4 and MiG-21 you are discussing. The early F-4B/C vs MiG-21F-13 was a very different fight from later F-4E vs MiG-21MF. The performance of the F-4B/C vs the MiG-21F-13 is well documented by the declassified USAF evaluation of a captured MiG-21F-13. In the early fighting, the F-4 generally had a power advantage and down low, the F-4 held all the cards because the MiG-21F-13 wasn't optimized for low altitude performance. But up at 30,000 feet, the MiG-21F-13 was at advantage. In the middle, the performance was close enough, initial setup, tactics, and pilot skill were far more important than performance differences. As the MiG-21 evolved, it gained power and lost agility. By 1973, a MiG-21bis in the hands of a well trained pilot was a handful for an unslatted F-4. Power was comparable and the MiG-21 turned better. The slatted F-4E traded specific excess power (acceleration, climb, top speed) for much better agility. In a MiG-21bis vs a slatted F-4E, the MiG becomes the energy fighter by a small margin and no longer penalized at low altitude and the F-4 becomes the turn fighter by a small margin. But the higher the altitude, the more favorable the numbers get for the MiG-21. Again, setup, tactics, and pilot quality were far more important. Israel, always being greatly outnumbered found the F-4 lacking in dogfights in 1973. They very much wanted something that held all the aces. They got the F-15 and not too long after the F-16, which the combat record reveals were the aircraft they needed.

There are a lot more variants than the "SMT" missing if you want a "full" collection. List of Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 variants - Wikipedia The SMT is a minor footnote in all of that history. SF2's stock install has quite the collection and with free user addons, I doubt any other sim will ever cover so many MiG-21 variants so well, despite any errors and/or omissions.

When you see all the confusion about MiG-21 designations including Third Wire games, you have to remember, prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, MiGs were classified visually into their NATO designations: i.e. Fishbed C, D, E, J, L, N etc. Letters were assigned as new visual differences appeared. So a Russian variant and its export might get the same letter because they looked the same even though they may have significant internal differences. Likewise, two variants that were very similar but had some major visual change would have different letters. What little that was reported on actual Soviet designations was confusing in the West. After information became available, documents continue to mix up old NATO guesses for Soviet designations versus actual designations. Add to that the fact that the MiG factory had their own production series numbers for variants independent of the Soviet government's official MiG designation. As someone who grew up with the NATO designations, a MiG-21F and MiG-21F-13 were indistinguishable: both were publicly known as MiG-21F Fishbed C to me and in fact, I didn't know about the original production variant until maybe the late 80s/early 90s. Among the Third Wire designations, the one reflecting the most confusion from my perspective is the MiG-21PFV. There was no MiG-21PFV. The Vietnamese flew the same export variants of the PF series flown by other clients. Russian sources don't note any special version with a "V" for Vietnam or some customization used by Vietnam. The extra letters usually annotate some sort of weapon, sensor, or propulsion upgrade.