streakeagle

My SF2V take on that mission is available here: http://combatace.com/files/file/12285-650404-f-100d-probable-mig-kill/ The interesting fact is that the VPAF claimed that it lost not just one, but three MiG-17s to aerial dogfights that day. It is possible that the one Kilgus claimed did not actually go down due to his attacks, but even if he didn't shoot it down, that aircraft didn't make it home. The other two, if not all three, were most likely shot down by their own air defenses. Despite the surviving MiG-17 pilot's claim of losing his other three wingmen to US aircraft, the USAF only had one claim. If any F-100 or F-105 pilot had been in a position to even have a chance of claiming a kill, they would have tried to claim it. I would give Kilgus the credit: he repeatedly fired on and hit the target, and the target didn't make it home.

Welcome to Combat Ace. This is a great place to come if you are a Strike Fighters fan (or any other flight sim for that matter). How long have you been playing Strike Fighters?

From the depth/width of the spine, I am going to say BIS.

Pilot quality is everything. F-8 pilots had extensive dogfight/gunfight training. F-4 pilots had none, and in fact didn't even have good live fire training for the missiles they carried. Once Navy F-4 pilots got that training, their kill ratio reflected it. USAF F-15s not only lost to F-4s, but also F-104s. A good pilot will recognize a bad pilot's weakness and exploit it with tactics when aircraft performance can't get the job done. On energy-maneuverability, if you search the internet, you can find quotes from F-8 pilots that converted to the F-4. One of my favorites basically stated that he couldn't understand how an F-4 could lose to an F-8 in a dogfight with all of the extra power available. The F-4 wasn't the cleanest aircraft in terms of zero-lift drag. It also had a fairly high level of induced drag due to its nearly pure delta Mach 2 wing. Yet it was both faster in level flight and had higher sustained climb rates than any F-8 (the F-4 set climb records only broken by the MiG-25 and F-15). That many pilots tasked with flying the F-4 weren't trained to fly it to its limits does not make the F-4 inferior to the F-8.

I think you will find that TK eliminated the ability to run an engine with negative fuel consumption, which allowed "refueling". YAP's 05 was absolutely livid about SFP1/WoX's final patches with the release of WoI that "broke" bugs that YAP was exploiting to enhance its missions. From TK's perspective, the ability to have a negative fuel consumption was an oversight that was finally corrected. From 05's point of view, TK was intentionally breaking his 3rd party addons. It is simple to test, use a negative fuel rate on a stock aircraft and see what happens to the fuel weight.

Some information on Balter flight, the top cover for Oyster flight: - Oyster Flight, 4 F-4D (with Combat Tree) from 555th TFS/432nd TRW, lead by Maj. Robert Locher - Balter Flight, 4 F-4D (with Combat Tree) from 13th TFS/432nd TRW, lead by ? A crew member photo and name is in the book, "One Day in a Long War": Capt Bill Ridge, presumably one of the two pilots that didn't turn back. I can't find any more information on Balter flight of May 10. The name doesn't get any hits on the internet, no matter what qualifiers I use to filter the search.

The key involves reverting back to DX9, but TK may have deleted code/hooks that render that path impossible without carefully merging some code from SFP1/WoX games. It would be a daunting task unless you can read hex code like a dick and jane book. I found it is a lot more practical to try to retrofit SF2 material back into WoI with the last expansion pack. Up to a certain patch level, SF2 3d models could be retrofitted back into This version of WoI, which retains multiplayer. However, that final WoI+Expansion pack needed a patch to fix some bugs, and TK abandoned it. Also, getting the nicer, newer 3d models into the older game is one thing, but the RWR and some other functions take a step back. It would take a lot of work to bring all the aircraft, weapons, ground objects and terrain from all of the other games into this one installation. In the end, the original multiplayer was so limited in capability, it would largely be a waste of time to do so. The best path is to multiplayer is to play the original SFP1/WoX/FE games as is (with everyone sharing compatible mods). For all their limitations, I had a lot of fun playing them online. But, I have tried the DCS World F-86F online before the flyable MiG-15bis was released. You could fight AI with co-op or fly F-86F vs F-86F. It was so much better than any SFP1 based mutliplayer: runway starts, full graphics for terrain and clouds, complex AI scripting, landing/refueling/rearming. DCS still needs the SF terrain, plane, and ground object libraries, but the engine is pretty solid. The release of the F-14 and F-5, combined with Nevada and the MiG-21bis largely replaces the SFP1 experience with a far superior multiplayer setup. However, finding a multiplayer server that runs during your free time with people that want to play the same way you do remains the challenge. I thoroughly enjoyed the one F-86 server, but it disappeared after the MiG-21 was released, and I never really found another server that caught my interest. As a single player game, the SF2/FE2 series still has a lot to offer that you can't do with DCS World, yet. But multiplayer for the SF series just wasn't ever good enough to draw a crowd, and much better options are available. If someone wants to try to get an online group going for the old games, I can try to participate. I have all the old games and will install them as necessary to try. But there are some tricks required to get anything beyond Wings Over Vietnam or SFP1 running via HyperLobby. The real trick is using virtual LAN software to get around the issues DirectPlay and the SFP1 series games have with routing/firewalls. Hamachi used to be perfect for getting players all joined together despite routers, but it has changed over the years and I am not certain it is as useful any more.

I have been spending time on this well before there were PC flight sims. SPI had a board game named "Air War. "https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1629/air-war-modern-tactical-air-combat It was re-released by TSR while I was in high school about 1983, which was when I bought it. There were two scenarios in that game that were my all time favorite ones to play: two F-105s being bounced by MiG-17s (possibly recreating the first F-105 lost to MiGs) and "The Death of Major Lodge". Later on, around 1987 or 1988, I bought a very big book, "Modern Fighting Aircraft Volume 4 F-4 Phantom". http://www.amazon.com/F-4-Phantom-Modern-Fighting-Aircraft/dp/0668060689/ref=sr_1_20?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460837049&sr=1-20&keywords=F-4+Phantom It had a detailed description of this same air battle, complete with a diagram summarizing all of the key events. Over the years, I have built a decent library of books on F-4 Phantoms, the Vietnam air war, and air combat in general, which frequently mention this particular incident. Somewhere along the way, the narrative description changed as the existence, function, and employment of Combat Tree was declassified. Before, this incident was famous not for the death of Major Lodge, or being the source of one of Steve Ritchie's 5 kills, but because it was the sole textbook example from the entire Vietnam air war showing how great a weapon the AIM-7 Sparrow could be when employed Beyond Visual Range. The text would explain the unique circumstances of this mission that enabled Oyster flight to be certain that they were not firing on friendlies without getting a visual ID. Red Crown, airborne monitoring, and a lack of any allied aircraft in front of them. Now we no the truth: this was just one of many incidents where Combat Tree got an IFF response from MiGs confirming their identity as an enemy without a doubt and permitting AIM-7s to be fired well beyond visual range.

With blue numbers, which are USSR issue colors. Of course, humans aren't the best witnesses. Subject to errors. The USSR is steadfast that it did not fight in the air in Vietnam as it did in Korea. But what would make Locher see/recall these details other than actually having seen them up close? I would take his word unless better evidence such as photos/film contradicted him. But the VPAF records are fairly good, too. They certainly knew which aircraft/pilots didn't come home on any given day. It is difficult to accurately peel back the fog of war, especially when the whole incident was somewhat classified until recently due to the use of Combat Tree.

Reading and re-reading my sources on this subject take me back in time. The names are so familiar. ACIG has an alternative description of what happened taking into account what the VPAF reported sorties and losses were for that day. The US perspective had a flight of 4 x MiG-21s supplemented by a flight of 4 x MiG-19s. The VPAF claimed 2 x MiG-21 + 4 x MiG-19. But Roger Locher's description of the MiG-21 that Bob Lodge died trying to kill is indicative of a Soviet flown MiG-21. No VPAF MiG-21s meet Locher's description. The VPAF description would fit the initial detection of and killing of two MiG-21s, but then Roger Locher identified an additional MiG-21 at point blank range and Steve Ritchie also thought he had shot down a MiG-21. It is possible that the three known kills were 1 x MiG-21 and 2 x MiG-19 with Roger Locher having seen the second MiG-21. But then what did Markle see attacking Lodge? 2 x MiG-19 or 4 x MiG-19? I think the ACIG later amended their description of this fight to include for the possibility that there really were 4 x MiG-21s involved despite the VPAF claims, because I don't remember them previously accepting the possibility that there really were 4 x MiG-21s and my latest re-reading of their post did include that possibility rather than outright refuting it as I remembered. The USSR records admit flying combat missions in Korea but have never admitted doing so in Vietnam. But first hand pilot accounts (such as Locher's) indicate that it may have occurred whether the USSR realized it or not. One bonus in having the VPAF's account of that day is that there was one more kill that should be credited to that flight, and most probably Bod Lodge and Roger Locher: the MiG-19 that shot them down ended up running out of fuel, landing too fast, and flipping over on landing, killing the pilot. So the final tally for the day would be 4:1 in favor of the US. If Bob Lodge had heeded the "break" call from Oyster 2, it probably would have been 3:0. As smart and good as Maj Lodge was, he apparently had become obsessed with becoming the first USAF Vietnam ace. If he hadn't suffered from target fixation on that day, he probably would have been. He is a classic tragic hero. It still makes me sad to read about this mission. Especially hearing the recording of Locher describing the events. I am sure the VPAF pilots were heroic, too. The Osprey books on the VPAF Mig-17/MiG-19 and VPAF MiG-21 units do a good job of showing the war from their perspective. But as a US citizen and veteran who grew up loving our fighter pilots, I can't quite feel the pride and sadness of their situation as much as I can for US pilots. The same goes for Nazi and Japanese pilots vs Allied pilots. I love and respect them all, but I can't help but root and cry more for the home team.

Oyster flight on May 10, 1972 consisted of four F-4Ds: Oyster 1, OY 65-0784 crewed by Maj. Robert Lodge and Capt. Roger Locher Oyster 2, OY 66-8734 crewed by 1Lt. John Markle and Capt. Steven Eaves. Oyster 3, OY 66-7463 crewed by Capt. Steve Ritchie and Capt. Chuck DeBellevue Oyster 4, OY ? crewed by 1Lt. Tommy Feezel and Capt. Larry Pettit Here are some profiles from the Osprey book, "USAF F-4 Phantom II MiG Killers 1972-73": Having seen real photos of OY 65-0784 just two days prior to May 10, the first obvious error is the ecm pod in the front AIM-7 well. It should be an ALQ-101, not an ALQ-71. The 71 was under the left wing. OY 65-0784 and OY 66-7463 both had combat tree, so they both should probably have the red warning label seen on the splitter plate of OC 66-0230 and OY 66-6463. This red square is about the self-destruct mechanism for the highly classified combat tree system. While the profile doesn't show it, I have seen photos that indicate OY 66-7463 had "slimer" formation lights as depicted for OY 66-8734 and OY 65-0784. Knowing that the loadout on OY 65-0784 is probably wrong in the profile, the other two should be equally inaccurate, but may reflect what the pilots recalled in past interviews. Of interest to me is that Oyster 1 and 2 show ALQ-71 pods in the forward AIM-7 well while Oyster 3 shows AIM-7s up front and an ALQ-101 pod on the wing pylon.

It is just interesting after all these years with so many user mods that the carriers remained neglected. At this point, the limited life remaining for this sim due to operating system/driver version issues makes the value of any further labor intensive addons questionable.

I need to consolidate my sources. But the Osprey book on USAF F-4 kills in 72-73 is agreeing with my other book that chronicles all MiG killers of the entire war. The profiles in the Osprey book got some things right, but still have mistakes. Interesting text on the loadouts: the #2/#4 planes apparently carried fewer missiles based on a statement from the #2 pilot in this historical incident. Oyster 1: 3 x AIM-7, 2 x AIM-4 Oyster 2: 2 x AIM-7, 1 x AIM-4 Apparently all carried 3 drop tanks, which they dropped prior to engaging.

The early J models rushed into service had some reliability issues. The later post-Vietnam J models were much better, but were way behind what the AIM-G/H series had achieved. The jump from the AIM-9H to the AIM-9L was fairly small. Just a tweak to the seeker to give a chance at all-aspect. But if you look at the Israeli and Falklands data, AIM-9L series was still primarily fired from rear aspect, but achieved about 80% PK, not only well above the 15-25% experienced in Vietnam, but smoking the 35-40% achieved with AIM-7M in Desert Storm. As far as I can tell, AIM-9N/Ps were AIM-9Js altered to be roughly comparable to the AIM-9L/M without the all-aspect capability. On my submarine, we had the sonar equivalent to a RWR, the AN/WLR-9. Its job was to automatically warn us with a variety of beeps to any active sonar that met its detection criteria. It would give you a direction, a signal strength, frequency, and pulse length. But under some circumstances, the false alarm rate was very high and it would largely be disregarded -- though we had to verbally acknowledge all torpedo detections as false alarms to the officer of the deck in control. But when a real sonar or torpedo was really going active, it gave us great information automatically. We never faced the saturation of active sonars in all directions that Olds faced in Vietnam. The system would have been utterly useless in the middle of a surface action group banging away at full power on their active sonars. Nice profile. My books never had a current photo of the Oyster flight F-4Ds. This crew chief's photos are fantastic and belong in my books. I have identified three of the four tail codes in that flight. I would also like to know the tail codes of the sister, Balter, flight, especially the two that completed the mission and flew up high as bait. Once source confessed that 784 wasn't even assigned to them, but after scoring their kills, they used rank to have it the name blocks repainted/assigned to them. I never trust profiles. Photos have limited usefulness unless you can be certain about the date/location... but still much better than profiles. In the absence of information, I always take what I can get though. In the words of my WEPS on SSN-687 (weapons officer), "bad data is better than no data".

I have both. I don't have YAP3 or one last patch for YAP2 (though I still have the no longer valid email link to the patch).

He didn't / won't give me the latest versions, even cut off the last patch or two to YAP2. Important thing is that the one model I wanted from the original YAP did come with YAP 2: a really great rendition of CVAN-65. It cost me around $200, but no one else has released anything even close. My dad built the Revell 1/720 scale model of the Enterprise for me when I was 5 or 6. I bought and built the same model for my son :)

While I have flown a few campaigns, the vast majority of my experience is either in random single missions or hand edited historical single missions. I fought the AI to no end between the various patches/version changes to try to replicate historical reports on specific encounters. TK's AI just won't do what real pilots did. Always too smart or too dumb. But before SF2NA patches nerfed the missiles making even AA-2 Atolls effective, I could consistently get historical losses if not historical behavior from any well tweaked historical mission. The SF series may have been "lite" in certain regards (such as cockpit controls), but the flight and weapons modeling and even some of the AI behavior was very realistic and is still competitive against DCS World in terms of historical behavior/results. Of course, both before and after the SF2NA patches, I, as the player, could get unrealistically good results most of the time regardless of AI settings. I don't know if that is a result of game issues or because players get way more experience/training than any real pilot ever did.

I have seen some of the later YAP releases. About the time YAP 3 was coming along and being given freely to YAP 2 owners, I had a bad exchange with 05 on SimHQ because he was pissed at TK for making changes that broke his bug exploits (like refueling, because TK decided negative fuel flow in imaginary engines was a bug not a feature). So I was banned/terminated from being a YAP customer. Funny thing is that he said he didn't want or need my money, yet he kept every dime I ever spent on YAP1 and YAP2. I loved the models and idea of max detail historical missions -- did not like 05 and his hypocritical views where it was a federal crime to steal anything from him when a lot files he was selling were stolen from other people. So, short version: I can't buy YAP products, and I think that achievement ranks higher than being banned from the ATEAM, as anyone can get that by simply downloading more than one file in a year. I have been poking around the SF2 and SF1 files looking for options to expand/upgrade SF2 for Vietnam. But there isn't a whole lot of obvious support for the one or two things I was looking to do. I almost have my Coral Sea F-4B finished to compare/contrast with the FSX F-4B in the same skin. There are still some inaccuracies due to MyTai's decals and Sundowner's template not being quite right for the earlier 1965 F-4B. But I have merged the two in a way that will look good to most unless you have photos from exactly that time frame to compare. I would love to do a mission and some screenshots modeling Oyster flight on May 10, 1972. At this point, I know the tail numbers for three of the four that flew. But I would also need the tail codes for the two-ship Balter flight that was flying high as bait. I had gathered a lot of info to support doing this May 10 mission as accurately as possible. But I was trying to do missions in order starting with 1965 (see my F-100 and F-105 missions covering the first MiG kills and F-105 losses hosted on this site). I got frustrated when the very large mission I had worked on for so long got lost. I never rebuilt it and stopped trying to make historical missions from then on. I would love to model and fly every Red Baron report mission from the perspective of both sides. TK's all-knowing/all-seeing AI and super reliable missile patch for SF2NA kind of deflated my interest since a lot of missions require having one side approach the other undetected and/or for US aircraft to expend a lot of missiles for little or no results. So, I will settle for campaign missions with the latest terrain mods for semi-historical fun.

I am trying to build some nice screenshots to compare and contrast a max-modded SF2/Vietnam/F-4B/Coral Sea install versus FSX/TacPack/Vietnam/SimWorks Studios F-4B Beta release. What I have learned from doing this is: 1) Sundowner made some great templates available, which have to be modified to suit the particular unit/time frame I am trying to showcase. I am not very good at skinning and hate having to do anything more than download ready-made flawless skins by people with far greater skills than me. So, why doesn't SF2 have a complete library of skins that are hi-res/Sundowner quality for major stock aircraft the way SFP1/WoX did? MyTai did wonderful work for SFP1 and a mix between his work and the Sundowner templates is the way to go. But both the Sundowner template and the MyTai decals need to be modified to get nearly flawless results. I am spoiled from the past where everything I wanted just magically appeared (aside from Thunderbirds F-4E skins, and TK eventually improved that situation with a fairly decent DLC). 2) The stock provision for Coral Sea is still the stock Kittyhawk CV. 3) The freeware available at CombatAce for CV-43 supports SF2 NA carriers and is a huge improvement in many ways, but... 4) To this day, the only maxed out quality carriers for the SF series are YAP carriers, which don't inherently support SF2 and have the pretty, but impractical solution of having one version of the model for taking off and one version for landing. This looks great for hand written missions, but just doesn't work for generated missions, especially campaigns. On a related note: I was trying to replicate Oyster flight from May 10, 1972 for a nice screenshot. SF2 does not inherently support the "OY" tail code for the Triple Nickel in 1972 and CombatAce does not have an SF2 skin available, much less a Sundowner qulaity skin for the OY tail code. Sundowner did release a generic F-4D skin that would probably work ok if I had the right decals for 1972 Triple Nickel "OY" F-4Ds. But I can see the collapse of the SF community that took place in the transition from SFP1/WoX to SF2. In consolidating the core games, TK gave up some skins/decal variations that he had fully supported between SFP1, WoV, WoE, and WoI. The community never fully provided updated, hi-res replacements for the huge volume of material published to enhance/expand SFP1/WoX. So, what I really want, but am too unskilled/lazy to provide are: Complete skins at a Sundowner quality level for every aircraft in the SF2 library, especially the F-4. Freeware versions of all aircraft carriers that equal or surpass YAP carriers visual quality AND allow a single model to support both takeoffs and landings to be suitable for campaigns. Someone out there needs to get hot so I can ignore/criticize their work while I revert back to DCS World in the time it takes you to try to support an obsolete/unsupported sim that eventually won't work with the latest PCs/Windows. If you can't see the sarcasm/humor in my entire post, you can **** off! On the other hand, if someone could quickly polish up the 3d models/textures for an SF2 CV-43 Coral Sea in 1965 on very short notice, I would actually use it for a few screen shots.

Robin Olds had already long ago established that the AIM-4 was worthless junk. He had F-4s in his unit immediately field modded by talented mechanics to go back to the AIM-9B. Units in the field wanted the Navy AIM-9s, but their F-4s did not have the pylons/plumbing to support their seeker cooling. Inter-service rivalry can be healthy and good, like competition in a free market. But in Vietnam (and later), it got in the way of doing their principal job -- providing effective military power for the USA. I don't understand why any AIM-4s were being deployed, much less to the dedicated air superiority units like the Triple Nickel. An interesting fact is that Robin Olds couldn't stand radar warning receivers. He felt that they were nothing more than an unnecessary distraction in a situation already suffering from information overload. He always turned his off. In an environment like Hanoi, threat radars were in every direction and causing continuous alarms. He didn't want or need a light, a buzzer or a green screen to tell him he was surrounded by radar directed SAMs and AAA. He felt that you couldn't effectively defend against a SAM unless someone had eyes on it anyway, so he stuck to visual scanning techniques for keeping up with SAM threats. Of course, he had an amazing, almost superhuman, ability to maintain situational awareness and equally important, he was flying in a daytime environment where his eyes could potentially do an equal or better job of sorting out threats as long as there wasn't too much cloud cover.

The USAF AIM-9's actually regressed. The AIM-9E performed the same or worse than the AIM-9B and the early AIM-9J performed even worse. Had the USAF accepted the USN AIM-9D/G/H development path instead of going over to the AIM-4 and then trying to develop its own AIM-9, there certainly would have been several more kills. If the Navy had committed to slats and a gun, they might have done a little better, too. The Navy was more stubborn on slats than the USAF was on training. They bit their tongue and finally partially installed slats on the F-4S, admitting the USAF was right about the the aircraft being part of the problem instead of just being a training issue.

I certainly didn't mean to challenge/refute/or insult your discovery... but rather to clarify how the game handles the AI difficulty setting and explain alternate means for manipulating the AI to get the desired result. In my experience, Normal is the way to go for general gameplay. But saved missions with AI set precisely as needed to get the desired behavior is absolutely the best way to make historical missions achieve historical results. Whereas making all the AI supersmart produce decidedly non-historical results whether you are talking a single mission or a full campaign. AI vs AI is much different than player vs AI. Optimizing the AI to provide you with the best challenge may not work out the best for the overall intent of the mission.

While poking around looking for certain F-4 info, I stumbled on to a crew chief's photos of Major Lodge's F-4 Phantom just before he was shot down on May 10, 1972. They can be found here: https://plus.google.com/photos/116952585503241705522/albums/5756583234734344785?sqi&sqsi Upon close inspection, I saw something odd: instead of 4 x AIM-9s, there were 2 x AIM-4s. As of May 10, 1972, F-4Ds were still carrying AIM-4 Falcons while acting as the primary CAP for the largest air activity of the entire war! No wonder the majority of USAF F-4 kills were with AIM-7s. On top of that, I noticed ECM pods in two locations: ALQ-101 in the front left Sparrow well and ALQ-71 on the left inner plyon under an AIM-4. I would have guessed that they would only being carrying two AIM-7s in the rear wells (as was common since a centerline tank prevents launching the forward Sparrows), but per Roger Locher, Major Lodge took three AIM-7 shots on May 10. So for those wanting to recreate this legendary fight where a dedicated CAP of 4xF-4Ds engaged 2-4xMiG-21s (the VPAF claims 2, the USAF claims 4) and 4xJ-6(MiG-19S)s, the loadouts is: 2xAIM-4 (one to the inside of each inner wing pylon), ALQ-71 pod on left inner wing pylon, ALQ-101 in forward left AIM-7 bay, and 3xAIM-7 in remaining AIM-7 bays. I have been unable to confirm the fuel tank loadout, but it was probably 2 x wing tanks + centerline. Google Plus went away, but fortunately, I saved Joey Hill's great photos of F-4D 65-0784.

A long, long time ago, I had always set AI difficulty to "Hard". The idea is that it affects the probability distribution of pilot quality. There are baseline settings for each nation (or branch of service as the case may be) that are modified by the difficulty setting. The problem is that when you choose "Hard", not only do enemy planes tend to have higher quality pilots than normally specified by their nationality, but friendly pilots have lower quality. I wanted enemy pilots to be better, but I didn't want the friendly pilots to become stupid! I simply learned to live with "Normal". This should result in a good historical match for AI vs AI fights even if it leaves you effectively being an ace. No matter what the setting is, both the AI and the player tend to unrealistically maintain situational awareness, ignore fuel constraints, and fight to the death. Combine that with over-effective weapons and the result is extremely unrealistically high air-to-air losses. If you save missions, then manually edit the pilot quality for each flight, you can better control the flow of the missions. I tended to find myself giving both sides the highest quality possible to make the AI for both side do something more than wait to get shot down. Even then, the AI was never really as smart as I would have liked. But try out missions with every possible AI combination to see the full effects on gameplay. It can be a challenge to find the right combination for re-creating historical missions.