ordway

Thanks, I'll try.

Thanks, I'll try.

I'm totally new at this. Is there a way to make it so that in a campaign and single mission that when you press the autopilot, you only stay at low altitudes...like in an African bush campaign? Thanks for any help

Thanks! Okay, now a second issue. In Suez 2, I need to reduce the number of airfields. How do I do this?

I'm totally new to this. I am working with the Suez 2 terrain. I need to find out how to place a training camp target on a "Kibbutz" tile and make it a target for a CAS mission and a strike mission objective. Thanks for any help.

This is extremely inspiring. Thanks.

The Mirage Factory F-4G by USAFMTL flight model seems to model the low speed handling better than many other F-4s to me...ie. it doesn't like it!!! This F-4G gets squirrely if you push it beyond the buffet and a wing often tries to sharply fall vs. many others where it just nicely stops turning. I have read over the years, if I remember correctly, that the F-4 versions could get very tricky if you pushed it at too high an angle of attack...from the F-4 manual in an accelerated stall, "wing rock becomes unpredictable and progresses to a high frequency." "Increasing aft stick deplacement increases the magnitude of roll and yaw oscillations at the stall." "Applying and holding full aft stick, even with ailerons and rudder neutral, can result in a spin." Nice job USAFTML! http://books.google.com/books?id=oeJuJtjK4...Qnx4Y#PPT221,M1

Wow, this is what an analyst had to say about the Super Hornet vs. Flanker... "In assessing the Flanker against the Super Hornet it is clear from the outset that the advantage in firepower, speed, raw agility, range and manoeuvre performance goes to the Flanker" "In terms of combat radius performance the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet, even with the latter carrying external tanks. There is no substitute for clean internal fuel. The Flanker's radar aperture is twice the size of the Hornet family apertures, due to the larger nose cross section" "High speed turning performance, where thrust limited, also goes to the Flanker, as does supersonic manoeuvre performance. The Super Hornet is severely handicapped by its lower combat thrust/weight ratio, and hybrid wing planform." "The Super Hornet does not have any compelling advantage in EWSP capability." "In summary, the Flanker outperforms the Super Hornet decisively in aerodynamic performance. What advantage the Super Hornet now has in the APG-79 radar will vanish in coming years as Russian AESAs emerge. The one area in which the Flanker currently trails the Super Hornet is in radar signature (stealth) performance. The Super Hornet has inlet geometry shaping, inlet tunnel S-bends, and an AESA shroud all of which reduce its forward sector signature well below that of the Flanker" "The supercruising Al-41F engine will further widen the performance gap in favour of the Flanker. What this means is that post 2010 the Super Hornet is uncompetitive against advanced Flankers in BVR combat, as it is now uncompetitive in close combat." Hmmm, well, errrrr, uhhh, ummm, we are still better trained....it's the MAN, not the machine! http://www.ausairpower.net/DT-SuperBug-vs-Flanker.html

It stalls in a heartbeat with only the >gentlest of pulls on the stick. Any chance you could look at some more parts of the data.ini for a clue? Hmmm, I'm not so sure that modeling this (F.3) Tornado to stall so quickly with a tiny pull on the stick is so inaccuate. It (F.3) was known to be almost useless in a dogfight and an almost stand-in as a "there is nothing else" sort of aircraft (F-14 was too expensive for the Brits). It was, I believe, meant to be developed as an extremely long range patrol interceptor over the northern approaches to knock down russky bombers before they hit the UK or Nato. I remember, a study sim on the tornado a few years ago...and it had the same fast stall and useless dogfighting capabilities. It also has a swingwing design, which in this case, I remember reading, was not designed for dogfighting in any sense of the word (unlike the F-14)...just high speed, low level work. I suspect that if it is modeled any better in the stall, that it will be overmodeled. It was a pig I believe. I think that AmokFloo might just have modeled this right on and that it might have the best Tornado flight model out there now (no insults intended at all to anyone [i appreciate your work immensely]). I have flown the Mig-17 (in aerobatics) and the Cessna Citation, but am certainly no expert on the Tornado. During desert storm, it (F.3 with two air forces) was not allowed anywhere near the action....anyone have any input on any of this...? Thanks,

The new model will not only mimic loss of roll authority due to wing-warping above 460 KIAS, but will also suffer from 'Mach tuck" beyond 475 KIAS, a prelude to a total loss of pitch authority above 502 KIAS. The '17 did not have hydraulically boosted elevators, so it was all but humanly impossible to pull out of a dive in one by yanking back on the stick above that speed, even though the real aircraft often sported a retractable stick extender, just for that contingency. Great idea! Thanks!

Thanks, Nice! ..I did not know that it had been updated since several years ago.

There was a user-made AI mod that makes the Migs better opponents. I do not remember where I downloaded it...anyone? -Pitts2A