Typhoid

thanks!

talk about a straight line........

its a little extra work to get them into new campaigns since the terrains have to be modded too. I've added carriers to some of the older campaigns and some others have posted additions here as well (Vietnam Tet and Aussie). I've been building some carrier missions in various locales and wouldn't mind doing a few on request. which new carriers are you most interested in?

ha! Dude, I'm just pulling your chain a bit. of course you can include my work! :yes: nice project and perhaps you might want to upload it back here for a "standard multiplayer load" as well as for new guys to get introduced to the wider world of modding. As we all know, you have to have the exact same load for multiplayer and this would be a great way to include a lot of mod work for those who want to go on-line and sweep the skies. although I imagine that bandwidth of that comprehensive "starter pack" will be pretty monstrous!

Thanks! what is PSP6 and what photo of a 1st squadron Eagle are you refering to? I've got a grunch of file photos, including Eagles, that I was going to upload to Major Lee's site, if he ever lets us mere slugs know where it is now.

sadly, my (one of) old home is rusting away at the pier. She was held in reserve for awhile but is now waiting disposition. They are all high on the list for museums but not sure where Iowa will go. Belknap is nice reef now........

I always like to remind my Army friends that REAL Artillery is 16" :yes:

not on your list.

I guess the mods I uploaded will be reserved for the opposition squadron.....

just post your admin log-in and we'll take care of it........

I changed out a squadron in one of the WOE campaigns to a Navy squadron flying exclusively anti-shipping missions. worked most of the time. I would sometimes get a CTD and sometimes the geometry would freak out and crash during the mission but most of the time worked fine. I also have set up a War At Sea separate install where I am playing with different setups. I am using the Bering Strait terrain primarily in my single mission set ups and have had ZERO problems on that terrain with anti-ship missions. In the Germany terrain I have a 20% CTD rate.

seems to work pretty well. It tops out at about 731 and matches similar aircraft on the same profile. I don't know how accurate that is, but as a relative measure it seems OK. to reiterate what C5 and Streakeagle pointed out - a fully loaded aircraft is not going to perform that well.

in the aircraft yes. Are you in campaign play?

sigh...............

they are all referred to as blocks now within the fleet. All of the operational F-18's in the fleet are wired for the AMRAAM and the last of the AIM-7's are going, going, going....... "Offtopic Note: AIM-54C did not work for the better part of a decade after going into service. One the problems that plagued it during that period was a publicly identified flaw in it fuzing system that resulted in the missile detonating halfway to the target. The digital upgrade of the AIM-54C paralleled AMRAAM development, and both suffered from major teething troubles. Obviously, both of those missiles are absolutely amazing, but like the Sparrow and Sidewinder before them, they needed a decade or more to reach their full potential." no argument. The last block of AIM-54C's were awesome weapons and the broad characterization of the AIM-54 as unsuitable for use against fighters was simply obsolete at that point.

after they fixed their tactics! before that it was 1 to 1 which underscores our point!

sweet!

that too. I do that if when i don't have a seperate install to make a period or regional install. In my main-everything in it including the kitchen sink install that is how I have them. I like to tailor the installs though so that when flying single missions in Europe a Chinese or Pakistani fighter doesn't engage. I split of the WWII portion when my Foxbat wingman got is @$$ shot down by an F-4 (Wildcat!). So in order to do a separate install you either have to copy the cat file and rename, or expand the link to go to the directory in the other part. On my now 3/4 a terrabyte system I don't worry too much now about having several copies things.

just put another cat file in and rename it. Then the terrain works fine.

here ya go. Nice Talon mission to go sink Russian ships and dodge Naval Flankers. Pretty challenging mission actually since you run into Flankers and try to sink ships in range of shore SAMS. check the unit list and terrain and load them up. I had no problem launching although handling is tricky on the carrier approach.

"Man, my first approach turn stall maneuver and I put my boot on that throttle...yep and a banshee from hell itself erupted from my IP...never made that mistake again...gentle...gentle " I had a student do that when I was doing a little IP work during a practice engine out deadstick to a farmer's field. When it came time to terminate that and go around he jammed the throttle and the engine got real quiet. I wasn't so quiet..... low altitude restarts are fun!

absolutely correct. Pilots, training and tactics are what rule the skies. Any plane in the hands of the right pilot can kill any other.

Streakeagle has hit the nail on the head "Of course, it is nicer if someone posts universally accepted performance charts of each aircraft and a graph of where one or both aircraft are deviating from such performance rather than just quoting thrust to weight ratios and wing loading to justify their claim... there is a lot more to aerodynamics than just those two parameters. Having been involved with FM development in this sim for some time, I can say that most FMs out there are lucky if they are even within 10% of where they should be, so if one aircraft's FM is more than 10% better than it should be, the other aircraft is more than 10% worse than it should be, and the real aircraft have less than a 10% difference in performance... then you are going to encounter plenty so situations similar to this one. The effort it takes to get an FM within +/-10% over the entire Mach-Height range is tremendous, so if you don't like the FMs you are flying with, feel free to calibrate them and document the resulting performance so that you can distribute them as the less than 1% error flawless FM everyone should be flying ;) " this is a flight sim, not an engineering analysis program. The other part of that is that the turn capabilities and performance varies with speed and altitude. A simplistic statement that one plane turns better than another is not valid for different speeds or altitudes. Some are better high and some are better lower down. Some do better in a vertical fight and some do better in a horizontal fight. In Vietnam, for example, the Migs would fight a turning fight down low while our Phantoms wanted to go vertical at mid altitudes. Not such a simple parameter as 14 or 16 degrees of turn. I don't have any detailed performance charts for either aircraft and modelling that level of accuracy in the FM would be a very challenging project. However, its an open forum so, Blasto, if you think its wrong and should be something else, develop it and post it. Don't just sit in the corner and gripe about it. Get to work. I'll make one other point on the AIM-54 performance in which I do have the advantage of access at one time to some very detailed performance specs and analysis. the AIM-54A was a beast that was good at hitting non-manuevering targets. A slight jink at long range by the target could defeat the missile. At shorter ranges the AIM-54A could do better and the Iranian AF did have some good results against ingressing Iraqi strike aircraft. The AIM-54C+ block7 that was the end of the Phoenix line was a very different bird. It could see through extensive countermeasures and performed very well against manuevering targets at medium to close ranges. And the range is the key. The Phoenix had a very long burn time on the engine compared to other missiles and could therefore maintain energy and maneuveribility for a longer time. When fired within a specific tactical range it would be powered all the way to the target unlike most A-A missiles (including the AMRAAM) that burn short and coast while manuevering to the target. What this enabled was a counter fighter mode that exceeded the F-Pole of any opponent. The "No-Escape" zone of the AIM-54C+block7 exceeded the range of the FLanker with AA-10/11/12. In short, the F-14D could engage a Flanker and kill him no matter what fancy manuevers he might try with a missile that was powered all the way to the target before the Flanker could even shoot. Don't bother to ask me what those ranges/parameters are. I am merely stating the overall capabilities at a gerneral level. But, in the infinite wisdom of the bean-counters, this capability was too expensive and we lost the budget wars. And yes, from everything that I've heard from my contacts at China Lake, the Typhoon is an awesome dogfighter and can kick any Hornet all week and twice on Sunday. I suspect that it can kick any Eagle, Viper, Hornet and probably Fulcrum and Flanker in close. How well it does in the medium range I do not know.

80mbs in a zipped folder!! wow......

the Mirage I don't know about. in close against an F-16 both the Eagle and Tomcat would be dead meat. But they would never get in close........