Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by baffmeister

  1. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  2. Yes, he made a proper CF-5A sight which is included in the Beta 0.96 update above.
  3. CF-5A beta test FM attached. This is meant for Paulos' CF-5A package available here:http://combatace.com/files/file/13162-cf-5a-freedom-fighter/ I have only included the 72 version with the re-fueling probe. Should be easy enough to get this FM to work with the earlier version but I haven't tried it yet. This FM was backed out of the previous F-5E FM I did. I had some reasonably good data to work with but it isn't HiFi. I think it fits in with the TW aircraft reasonably well, though. Some differences between the F-5A and F-5E: The early F-5E generates it's maximum lift around 25deg AOA versus about 20deg for the F-5A. The early F-5E had about a 25% higher lift coefficient than the F-5A. The F-5E had about a 30% better sustained G than the F-5A. Based on the known F-5E data, that puts the sustained G for the F-5A at about 5.4G. Not sure at what speed but probably similar to the 550kts flaps up at sea level for the F-5E. CF-5A should be a bit better than the F-5A due to higher thrust to weight ratio. Some Notes: I got some CF-5A info from a flight manual available here:http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/northrop/f-5tigerii/4063e005-205a-1northropcf-5afreedomfighteraircraftoperatinginstructions.html#download Unfortunately, the entire performance and limitations section is missing from the CF-5A manual so had to make some guesses. There is an NF-5B manual available at that site but the flap set up on the NF-5A/B is different than the CF-5A. NF-5A/B had a strengthened wing to enable a basic combat flap set up that could be used up to 450kts while the CF-5A, as far as I know, would have had flap speeds similar to the F-5A. Here is how I have the flaps set for the CF-5A: The CF-5A leading and trailing edge flaps are VERY MANUAL. When selecting flap 1, you get leading edge flaps only, 24degs. When selecting flap 2, the trailing edge flaps will extend to the maximum 20deg position. IMPORTANT: USE FULL FLAPS FOR TAKE OFF! As with the F-5E, in the data ini I set the flap setting to 2 for take off but it doesn't work for the player aircraft. The AI aircraft seem to deploy the full flaps so it's not an issue with them. Flap limitation speeds for the CF-5A are a guess. I found a diagram in the flight manual showing the recommended procedures for a visual approach and the pattern entry speed is 300kts with flap 1 selected on the crosswind leg. I have the flap 1 speed set to 300kts. Gear down speed is noted at 240kts maximum so that's what the gear speed is set at. Full flaps are recommended after gear extension so I just set those at 230kts. For anyone interested, the NF-5A/B have a combat flap setting of 24deg on the LE flap, 8deg on the TE flap with a 450kt limit speed. Interestingly, they don't appear to auto retract above 450kts but they do have a lock out so you can't deploy them above 450kts. Probably a mach limit as well. I think the limit speed for full flaps [20deg] on the NF-5A/B is 300kts. Just mentioning the NF-5 info in case someone wants to build their own NF-5 FM from this data ini. From the flight manual, it seems the CF-5A wasn't equipped for sidewinders, at least initially. The manual does mention that the wiring was built into the wing but there are no launch rails available and the sidewinder tone adjust is disabled. I thought I saw a photo of a late CF-5D [dual seat] with launch rails but that would probably be post 1988, when they did some updates. Anyway, I've just changed the loadout ini to reflect the lack of sidewinders. I also changed the Mk-82SE's to regular Mk-82s. The AI seems to have a hard time hitting anything with the SE's. The CF-5A was equipped with a basic Ferranti lead computing air to air and air to ground gunsight. It had some kind of range adjuster on the L/H throttle. The gunsight had a 2 mil aiming dot with two reticle arcs on either side, open at the top. Not sure if there is a gunsight tga like that available, I just added the one from the Hunter9. The gunsight is designated an AWQ-501 but that might just be some CAF identifier. As well as the gunsight, I did some cockpit edits for the fuel gauges. There is a modified bit map included that makes 2x4000lb fuel gauges. The L/H is internal and the R/H is external. That's not realistic but it's better than before and the zero point is quite accurate. In general, the F-5A, CF-5A and NF-5A were intended for ground attack missions. I have been flying quite a few air to air missions with an F-5A in my fictional install and I find the F-5A quite a bit of fun but it is outperformed by the MiG-19 and MiG-21. I've been using guns only and find I need to keep the speed up over 400kts to stay out of trouble. The AI in my fictional install is cranked up quite a bit so things are probably a bit easier in a typical stock install. Some late model Sidewinders would make things considerably easier as well. INSTALLATION: There is a new CF-5A_72 ini included because I changed the name of the data.ini to avoid mix ups with the earlier version. It goes in the CF-5A_72 aircraft folder. You should back up the original ini. The new CF-5A_72_data.ini can just be dropped into the CF-5A_72 aircraft folder. The modified CF-5A_Cockpit.ini and CF-5A_loadout.ini also go in the CF-5A_72 aircraft folder. Back up the originals. The modified bit map for the fuel gauge goes in the cockpit folder contained in the CF-5A_72 aircraft folder. Back up the original bit map. Now that everything is as clear as mud, here's the FM: CF-5Afm0.95.zip DON'T FORGET, SELECT FULL FLAPS FOR TAKE OFF!
  4. The flight manual description is the same as the USAF manual so I'm thinking they both use the "standard sight."
  5. Crusader, any idea if the NF-5A used the default sight? I remember reading somewhere it was totally manual. I had a quick look at a USAF F-5A flight manual that might have been used for training foreign pilots and it describes the gun sight as non computing 100 mil fixed reticle with manual adjustment of the depression angle from 0 to 180 mils.
  6. Some Colorful Clunks inbound soon, for North American installs. I'm going to upload the CF-100 MK-4A first. It had the lower thrust Orenda 9 and is a bit of a cow so will phase it out about a year after the introduction of the MK-4B. I figure they would have upgraded the engines on the 4A's during any heavy maintenance checks. Skin credits to Frenchie1977! Somewhere over the Great White North. [the American part]
  7. I don't think so. Not sure if the F-5A came with a standard gunsight or not but from what I remember the USAF F-5's used in Vietnam had a different sight installed and the NF-5's were different again. If it's any help, my notes say the CF-5A used a Ferranti Isis gunsight designated AWQ-501.
  8. Not sure if I understand the issue. Does the aircraft in question actually contact the runway or does it float along to the end? A couple of entries in the [FlightControl] section of the aircraft data.ini can lead to fast approaches. [FlightControl] StallSpeed=74.68.............................................check this CruiseSpeed=202.93 ClimbSpeed=267.95 CornerSpeed=248.00 LandingSpeed=85.88.................................and check this if included. MaxG=8.50 MaxSpeedSL=361.11 MachLimit=2.048 MachLimitDry=0.980 PitchDamper=0.4 RollDamper=0.4 YawDamper=0.0 Some early FM's might not have the LandingSpeed entry and if that's the case the game will base the approach speed off the stall speed. In either case the game will adjust the speed depending on aircraft weight. From my experience the "LandingSpeed" entry actually adjusts the final approach speed and will over ride the "StallSpeed" entry during final approach. Some other entries that can be used to adjust the approach behavior are AI data entries: [AIData] LandingPitchForSpeed=-0.07 LandingThrottleForAltitude=0.05 LandingThrottleForVerticalSpeed=0.08 The above entries can be adjusted to try and get a stable approach but can require a lot of testing to get right. Sometimes adding additional gear or flap drag will help stabilize an approach.
  9. I've been trying to put together a new J-7E /PG etc. flight model while Russ does some model improvements so here's a public beta tester using one of his original models, available here: https://combatace.com/files/file/16926-j-7-series-fighters/ This has been a difficult plane to research and there is lot's more to do so consider the attached FM as just an aerodynamic test mule. I left the original date range "as is" but the service start date for the first production double delta version, the J-7E, was around 1994-95. The model best represents the J-7E which retained the 3 piece windshield but had only one gun on the RH side. The cockpit included with the original model probably best represents the J-7E as well, which had only a simple ranging radar, although it probably had some multi function displays as well. Later Chinese versions, as well as all the export versions had more capable radars and a one piece windshield. The original package contains a skin for both Pakistan and China so you might want to consider making two different versions. Pakistan was the first export customer and began receiving the first F-7PG's in June, 2001. A dedicated Pakistani version really requires a more modern cockpit with a combination of multi function displays and round gauges but at this point I'm not sure if there is anything suitable available. Any ideas? Here's a bit more info on dates and export customers: Prototype construction started in 1987-88. First test flight in May, 1990. J-7E and J-7EH[Chinese Navy] service entry in 1995. F-7PG first export version to Pakistan in 2001. J-7G upgraded Chinese version entered service in 2003. Upgraded radar and engine, one piece windshield. F-7BG exported to Bangladesh in 2005. F-7NM exported to Namibia in 2006. F-7NI exported to Nigeria, early 2008. F-7BGI final version built for Bangladesh, 2012-13 and probably the most capable, with upgraded engine and all glass cockpit. Other possible customers are Sri Lanka and Tanzania but I'm still researching those. For the export customers there were a lot of different equipment and load out options so it will take some time to get sorted out. Here's an interesting article that gives an idea of the performance improvements with the double delta wing: http://urbanpk.com/pakdef/pakmilitary/airforce/ac/f7pg.htm Regarding the FM, I have the leading and trailing edge flaps working with AUTOMATIC_MACH but there is no animation for the leading edge flaps. One source says the J-7E was equipped with a KG-8605 Active Jammer and a Type 941-4AC Chaff/Flare Dispenser but I just copied some ECM/Chaff/Flare entries from Wrench's F-20 Tigershark package. Here's the FM: J-7PG_DATA0.95.zip
  10. No problem, lots more research required.
  11. Nothing but the best! The rabbit ears have been upgraded with a directional high def antenna, probably NASA gear as well.
  12. I had all those cockpits beat way back in 2008. The combination "Entertainment Console" had it all but took up too much space so I had to downsize. It's much more modest now.
  13. Logitech Extreme 3D Pro Review.

    Mine's still working after many years but recently it's been requiring frequent calibration due to an off center issue. Was surprised to see they still make these so I just ordered a new one!
  14. I found some interesting MiG -21 data online so did a mini review of the ThirdWire flight model to see if there was any room to improve the performance a bit. Regarding the aerodynamics everything looked good and any changes that would have been made based on the data would have resulted in slightly worse performance so I left it as is. Best areas to improve performance were some adjustments to rack weights, some potential adjustments to empty weights on some versions but not the Bis, implementation of a combat flap set up for the later versions, and a work around for the Bis series to model the very large emergency thrust setting that was available below 4km/13123ft. There was a 3 minute limit on that system but it's not modeled. Might try something in the future to get an engine blow up at some point past 3 minutes but it's low priority. Here's some info on the changes: Engine Boost: I've been aware of this capability for a long time but didn't think it could be modeled. Turns out, it can! The engine afterburner mach tables use the same altitude table as the dry mach tables so what I did was add a second engine to the Mig-21Bis, but it supplies thrust in afterburner only. It adds additional thrust bringing the total thrust to 21825lbs static. At 13000ft the altitude table included with the second engine starts cutting down on the thrust until it's completely gone at 14000ft. The additional fuel consumption with the added thrust is modeled but it's not as bad as I suggested in a screen shot. After fixing a mistake the fuel lasts around 4 to 4 1/2 minutes but the fuel consumption and thrust can vary quite a bit depending on mach number and altitude. The additional thrust activates at about 98% throttle so to conserve fuel you will want to use the AB with discretion. It just occurred to me now I might be able to set the main engine up so it gets it's max thrust around 90-95% which would leave a bit of a dead zone between the main and second engine. Will give that a test at some point. Combat Flaps: This system appeared on the later versions, possibly first appearing on late production PFM's but not 100% sure about that. A graph showed the additional lift from the combat flaps that was available at speeds up to mach 0.90. I'm not sure how they worked in RL but these ones are just set to automatic mach and are fully deployed at 0.30 mach and fully retracted at 0.90mach with a continuous variation between points. The combat flap system worked between 0deg and 25deg flap angle. With the automatic combat flaps the landing flap setting is no longer available. Rack and empty weights: With the smallish low lift delta wing the MiG-21 suffers badly from increased weight. Any legitimate weight savings would help a lot. Anyway, from the info I was looking at the weight of the main racks was considerably lighter than the TW values so I made some adjustments. Aircraft empty weights need more research but the Bis looks about right and the MF looks too heavy by about 240kg. Any further information on these topics would be appreciated. Here are beta test FM's for the Bis and Bis-B: MiG-21BisFM's0.95.zip
  15. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  16. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  17. This post cannot be displayed because it is in a password protected forum. Enter Password
  18. Possibly not. I think I added some of Cliffs gear tweaks but much, maybe most, is original. I did get a look at an Impala flight manual so adjusted the gear and flap speeds, empty weights, fuel capacities etc. Also had a look at some performance charts to try and match sustained and instantaneous G but it still needs fine tuning.
  19. Yep. Real life but you can also add some really annoying pitch stability issues I was encountering plus other projects plus summertime. Public beta test FM attached. Hopefully I can finish this thing in October. The pitch stability issues can still show up but I don't think it's any worse than ThirdWire's Vampire which has a similar issue. At certain speeds, if you give the stick a large displacement forward or back, the plane will just continue climbing or descending and not return to level flight on it's own. I spent a lot of time balancing the tail with the auto trim turned off [AutoTrimLimit=0.0] and noticed it doesn't exhibit the odd behavior with auto trim off. At present I have the auto trim set to a minimal level of 0.15 but it's still enough to get the pitch instability at certain speeds. Anyway, the FM still needs some testing/improvements but will post it here for public testing: ImpalaMkII_DATA0.95.zip NOTE: The Impala has surprisingly large weight ratings for the weapon pylons but in real life, anything over about 1600lbs of racks/weapons would have required a reduction in fuel to stay under the 12000lb MTOW.
  20. I agree with jeanba. I still think there is some room to improve the low speed performance of the TW MiG-21 but in general you want to keep the speed up. Better, and I think more realistic low speed behavior would improve the defensive capabilities as well as improve the potential for firing solutions during lower speed turns but only in certain situations. I've been trying a few things with the Bis FM to better match the low speed behavior as described in the flight manual but it involves too much conjecture at this point. I'm still taking a look at the charts from the CheckSix site but I need more data to test against before releasing anything. From the flight manual, it seems the MiG-21 can easily get into the higher alpha zone while the TW MiG-21 FM tends to get "stuck" at about 28deg AOA. There seems to be a number of reasons for that. TW modeled quite a bit of nose down pitch moment in the stall region and the lift distribution is almost 70% on the outer/aft wing panel which makes it more difficult to get the nose up at low speeds. It will take some research and a lot of testing to see what might be improved regarding the low speed/higher alpha performance.
  21. What you're considering would be quite a bit of work, I think. You could add new runway lods to the terrain folder then adjust the Types.ini to use the new lods instead of the stock ones. Of course now you will have to use Mues Target Area Editor to reposition all the buildings, hangars, vehicles etc. that are now out of position. Not impossible but like I said, lots of work. Regarding Major Bloodnok's first post, I have that airfield installed but I don't think it ever had a data.ini file to go with it. I put one together with taxi, take off, and parking positions but haven't done any lights yet. Here's a screenshot and the ini file attached. With the curved taxi ways it was a PITA! WW2 Airbase ini: WW2AirbaseData.zip
  22. I originally thought the drag tables were just a modifier for the headline StallDrag=xxx entry but noticed the TW F-16 has StallDrag=0.000 for both inner and outer wing panels while still using a stall drag table. That's just an observation I'm passing along because I'm not sure how it works either. The F-16 still generates a noticeable increase in drag at the buffet point so the table seems to be doing something. When building a new FM I just grab those tables from a TW type with a similar wing design and move along. The above statement caught my eye. I always assumed, because every TW FM has a CDL table that ended at 28deg, there must be a limitation in the flight engine. The 28deg limit is probably OK for most of the older TW aircraft but might be a bit limiting for people wanting to model some of the newer high alpha types. I made an expanded CDL table to check out the behavior past 28deg alpha and it seems to work OK but needs more testing: CDLAlphaTableNumData=31 CDLAlphaTableDeltaX=4.00 CDLAlphaTableStartX=-60.00 CDLAlphaTableData=225.000,196.000,169.000,144.000,121.000,100.000,81.000,64.00,49.000,36.000,25.000,16.000,9.000,4.000,1.000,0.000,1.000,4.000,9.000,16.000,25.000,36.000,49.000,64.000,81.000,100.000,121.000,144.000,169.000,196.000,225.000 The above table probably looks familiar to many. The 28deg version is used on many TW types and is what you get when calculating for a symmetrical airfoil with an aspect ratio of 2.0 and an efficiency ratio of 0.80[80%] The posted table is calculated to +/- 60deg. I'm not really sure how best to implement this table. CDL=drag due to lift and the lift stops increasing at AlphaMax=xxx so it might make sense to limit the table to the AlphaMax range. As an example, your flying the latest high alpha wonder plane and it keeps making lift up to 38deg AOA. In this case it might make sense to stop the table at 40deg, 100.00 on the table. On the other hand, after reaching AlphaMax, the TW flight engine maintains the lift in a straight line [flat line/constant lift] to AlphaDepart=xxx. For the new wonder plane the AlphaDepart=60.0 AOA so it also might make sense to just continue the 100.000 data point right to the end of the table. Or maybe not. I'm not really sure how the game is modeling drag post 'AlphaMax' [edit] and AlphaDepart, maybe it has something to do with the stall drag table Mue was asking about. I don't fly the modern planes very often but I'm trying this new table out on one and for the MiG-21 Bis FM I've been messing with I've got the AlphaMax=33 so I'm trying the new table with a range to 36Deg. The table is an easy copy/paste job if anyone wants to try it out on a high alpha plane that uses the standard 28deg TW table.
  23. Just pissing around, somewhere over New Dhimar. Also bissing around...............
  24. Getting carrier planes to do nice landings can be a challenge. For the aircraft carrier data you can check this statement, which I assume shows the left/right offset of the touchdown point, then the fore/aft point. Mues lod viewer should work to adjust that. [Deck] SystemType=FLIGHT_DECK FlightDeckHeight=20.10 FlightDeckLength=396.0 FlightDeckWidth=84.0 LandDeckAngle=-10.0 LandingAimPoint=-0.35,-75.0//................check this If that doesn't work you might have to adjust the aircraft data ini. A slow stable approach works best. Sometimes increasing the drag on the landing gear and/or flaps can help. From my experience, to slow down the approach speed, you can adjust the LandingSpeed=XX to reduce the chance of an overshoot. Here's the TW A-4B: Aircraft Data [FlightControl] StallSpeed=46.80 CruiseSpeed=151.52 ClimbSpeed=195.04 CornerSpeed=158.72 LandingSpeed=50.69//...........you can try reducing this. MaxG=7.00 MaxSpeedSL=295.46 MachLimit=0.900 PitchDamper=0.6 RollDamper=0.4 YawDamper=0.0 GunBoresightAngle=0 RocketBoresightAngle=0 FlapSettingForLanding=2 FlapSettingForTakeOff=1 FlapSettingForCatapult=2 If the plane still has stability issues after lowering the approach speed you can try adjusting these AI values but it can be a long process trying to figure out what works best: [AIData] LandingPitchForSpeed=-0.07 LandingThrottleForAltitude=0.05
  25. Your translations are good, thank you!

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..