column5

BBC America, my brother. http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/topgear/

BLTDAN is gonna stroke out.

Guys like us we had it made... Those were the days... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrjbo9QRLk

Guys, Please don't forget that CA has subscription plans that allow you support the site and offset some of the high operating costs that MK2 is so generous to shoulder. The details are here: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?showt...hl=subscription I mainly point this out for new members, but perhaps some of you who have not subscribed yet are able to do so now? Please think about it! Please note that due to new laws, we can no longer send premier members a 3rd world child. Thanks, c5

My mind was idle tonight, and rather than hit the whiskey I decided to calculate and compare the wing loading of several aircraft at combat weight. Wing loading is a factor in an aircraft's maneuverability and can be used as a predictor although other factors are involved. Therefore the chart below is not a direct comparison of maneuverability but in light of many discussions here about the F-8 vs. F-4, the fighter potential of the F-101 and F-105, etc., it is interesting. The numbers were calculated by dividing the combat weight of the aircraft in pounds (as best as I can determine using semi-reliable Internet sources) by the wing area in square feet. The F-14A has an * because I don't know if the wing area figure I used is for max or min sweep, or mid-sweep. I think the latter, so the wing loading would decreas a bit at full sweep. Some surprises are the F-102's extremely low wing loading and the F-106 close behind. Both of these aircraft are said to have had excellent instantaneous turn performance, though. The F-100D fared better than I expected and I was surprised to see the F-15 down in the area with the A-4 and F-8. As for the F-111B...well Adm. Connelly did say that all the thrust in Christendom would not make that aircraft a fighter. Description of wing loading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_loading Next step is to work up thrust to weight ratios dry and wet for each aircraft.

Please to be enjoying our Tomcats: http://combatace.com/files/file/11076-f-14a-and-f-14b-tomcat-tmf/

Interestingly, a new driving sim will be incorporating some of the OP's ideas: http://www.testdriveunlimited2.com/ In addition to the driving portion of the sim, you'll be able to set up your house (mansion, really) complete with incredible garage as well as your out-of-car avatar. In the online portion of the game, you can invite people over to your house to hang out before or after engaging in multiplayer racing events. Its a very cool concept.

There are two problems when picking the cruise speed for an aircraft. The first is that the information in books and on the internet varys wildly. Google for "F-5E cruise speed" and you'll see what I mean. Most sites seem to list something they call "max cruise speed" which is even higher than 500 knots. The other problem is that for any given aicraft the most efficient cruise speed varies with weight, drag and altitude--a single figure won't work for all scenarios. Bottom line: pick a resonable figure that you are comfortable with and don't sweat it too much.

Due to our high-resolution Gold-HD modeling, if the maintenance guy gets drunk on the way home and his old lady bitches at him all night until he slaps the crap out of her and he doesn't get any sleep becasue she calls the cops, there is a % chance that he will misalign your discombobulator and your aircraft will burst into flames.

One answer is, as JediMaster says, it is lighter with a very good thrust to weight ratio. Another answer is that due to advanced aerodynamic designs, the F-16 and f-18 both make up for their "poor" paper performance with much better real-world perofrmance. You can't use the charts I made to prove that one aricraft is definitively better than another...well except in the case of the F-111B being a dog...but you can use them as a starting point for making more in-depth comparisons. I think that the MiG-21 is underrated because it has traditionally been flown by pilots who received poor instruction in poor tactics. I would hazard to guess that a Red Eagles pilot flying the 21 would have gotten much more out of the plane, and could have beaten an F-16 or F-18 despite their technological advantage. I also think that the way the AI handles the MiG-21 in the SF series reinforces the misconception about the 21 not being dangerous.

Years ago, the c5 site had a limited amound of transfer bandwidth so I wanted to optimize the downloads. I tested zip, rar, ace, 7z and some other compression methods and found 7z to be the best overall for the types of files that make up a typical SF download. Plus it is free and constantly updated.

A few things factor into that, but without doubt 600 knots at 2400 feet is a worst-case scenario for fuel efficieny. If you were to climb to, say, 15k feet and throttle back to 400 to 425 knots you would be much more efficient. I've got the max radius on the Tomcat set at 500 miles, but depending on where the carrier station is at the game might be forced to send you on longer missions just to reach the nearest target on the map. If you are using the afterburner a lot, though, you will run out of gas really quick. Edit: I double checked and I believe we have the correct internal fuel capacity set--7,347 kilos or 16,200 lbs.

Also, the endurance of various fighters varies widely. For example the EE Lightning was notoriously short-legged, and a 45-minute flight would be considered long. The Hornet has the same problem, and the Supa Hornet never really delivered on the promise of significantly better endurance. On the other hand, some aircraft like the F-8 had large internal fuel volume, leading to better endurance than some contemporaries. The F-14 combines huge internal fuel volume with turbofans for endurance that was considered good up to its retirement. Which particular aircraft are you havign problems with? Edit: One other thing. I notice in a lot of flight models (including some of my older ones) that the normal and max radius values are wey too high. These should reflect the aircraft's normal and max radius, which is half of the unrefuled range. Fixing these values will prevent the game from assigning targets too far away.

Looks great. I think we just forgot about it while working on everything else...

Much appreciated, sir.

Oooh nice!

Oh heck, looks like I didn't get the glove vanes painted on that F-14A_82. I copied the skin over from the F-14B and didn't add that layer.

Great shots!

Yeah, no Ugandan Air Force!

For your pleasure, baby!

Nothing good will come of this.

So I was thinking about the new SF2 game announced by TK, and I have decided based on what little info has been revealed that the scenario is going to be the Iran-Iraq war with a fictional scenario in which the US participates on the side of Iraq. I believe this because it will allow the F-14 to appear as both a player aircraft and as an AI enemy aircraft. It also allows TK to maximize the re-use of existing assets, as the Iranians flew several versions of the F-4. The new AI aircraft would be the several versions of the F-5 that Iran used during this time frame. The Iraqis of course had numerous types of MiG which TK already has. On the American side, TK already has the A-6 and A-7 which shared the deck with the F-14 during this period, and players could also fly USN F-4s against Iranian Tomcats as the F-4 remained on the Midway class carriers until replaced by Hornets. We could hope for an AI E-2. USAF aircraft are also already avaialble to TK, including the F-4, F-16, F-15, A-7 etc. An AI F-111 would be a great addition in keeping with the swing-wing theme of the game. The time frame of 1980-1988 might seem to be pusing the avionics boundaries, but all of the necessary aicraft except the Hornet (which didn't appear in the fleet until about 1984) are based on 1960s and 1970s tech anyway. Any thoughts?