GalmOne

In the DCS module, the F-86F has limit load factors in symmetric flight between -3/+7G. In the T.O. 1F-86F-1 manual, it states that "Positive G limits for airplanes not changed by T.O. 1F-86F-544 are 5.0 G for straight pull-outs and 3.3 G for rolling pullouts". Furthermore, a picture of the F-86F accelerometer pegged with red marks on the -3 and +7G lines apply only to "F-86F-1 through F-86F-35 airplanes changed by T.O. 1F-86F-511, and F-86F-40 airplanes". Does anyone know what these technical orders are and if they applied to Korean-War F-86F's or our F-86? The above quotes in the manual make me feel that Korean War F-86F's could only pull +5G which doesn't seem right based on what I've read everywhere else. I can't find a shred of info on any Sabre that is only rated at +5G. If you need the link to the actual manual, I can post it here but didn't now since not sure if the devs allow it.

Well I'm not sure if that's the case. If the turn rates at 7 G match the EM plots, then pulling 5 won't draw any new conclusions. The DCS Sabre is technically a post Korean War plane, and as such does correctly pull 7 G maximum as a sustained limit (not sustained turn). My question is really if the Korean War Sabres had this limit or the lower 5 G limit. If the latter is the case, which seems unlikely, then Korean War scenarios in DCS would have to limit the Sabre's max G. More than anything though, I'm just very curious as to whether this plane was so limited as to only pull 5 G which would be a huge handicap in combat over Korea.

The +7G load will stay on our F-86 because it's a post-Korean War aircraft. I am wondering if the Korean War Sabres had the 7G limit load or the 5G one used as sustained.

Awesome

I'm looking to compare the hard wing F-86F to the MiG-17A, but any other close data is welcome. So far I can only find bits and pieces of info on either plane, but I need some help on finding a bit more so I can compare the planes directly. So far I can only find this EM chart for the F-86F: As you can see, it has no context on fuel load or altitude. I can only guess it's at 50% fuel, sea level since the numbers are so high. There's a clearer copy in the link below but it's in Japanese: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%95%E3%82%A1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%AB:Energy_Maneuverability_diagram.jpg There's also a MiG-17F EM diagram at 20000' and 50% fuel on slide 22 here: http://area51specialprojects.com/video/havedrill_tactical.swf Thanks!

Thanks, streakeagle, but that is the exact same slideshow I posted at the end of the original post. Sadly it only contains 1 graph of a MiG-17F at 20,000 ft. So I don't really have a direct comparison between the two planes until I can get a graph for each at either 20,000' or better yet, sea level.

Some sources I read say that the USN made the Tomcat's safe load limit +6.5g. Another thread here http://combatace.com/topic/72262-what-was-the-initial-allowed-g-limit-for-the-f-14a/, which is a little short, still provides some insight on the F-14's g-loads, but only the ones imposed by the USN for long service life. Were there any official USN sustained, max and ultimate load limits listed for the F-14A or did pilots just have to know the lame +6.5 g's and fly by that? For example, the F-15A's max and ultimate load limits were something like +7.33 g and +12 g respectively. From what I've heard from other sources, pulling +7.x G's in an F-14A was a non-issue. Also what are the negative g's that an F-14A can pull? Thanks!

Awesome post! Best fighter the USAF ever built. Too bad the translation is a bit wonky.

Such a fatigue-fighting measure is pretty sad considering it just eats away at maximum capabilities. This is why finding the collection of graphs to which the one above belongs would really help in getting an idea of the F-14's turning capabilities. If only the US Navy had graphs like the USAF.

Ah ok so the energy management diagram isn't showing up but I found one EM diagram which is supposedly for the F-14. It looks to be either for an F-14 at very high altitude or a very high heavily-loaded Tomcat or both. Take a look below. If anyone knows where to find the rest of these graphs, let me know! The thread I took this from is here (post 89): http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/military-aviation/56690-fighter-performance-actual-plane-analysis-6.html

Does anyone have screenshots of g-load, V-n diagram or turn rate diagrams for the F-14 that look like the picture below? I find that being able to compare the planes at every interval of the flight envelope can help me picture what a plane can do.

Thanks for the input, gentlemen. Though, Toryu, what I meant was the design ultimate loads. I.e. when it comes out of the factory fresh and new. I suppose I would have to draw one of those Goodman diagrams we did in class. Except for an entire airplane rather than just a landing gear trunnion pin! EDIT: Although I just remembered that everywhere I read, they say that the introduction of the Tomcat meant that the Navy had a plane that had a "21 percent increase in acceleration and sustained g-force, 20 percent increase in rate of climb, 27 percent increase in maneuvering capability, and a 40 percent improvement in turning radius." Are they just referring to the F-4J Phantom? If so that means that when the Tomcat just entered service, the max G must have been higher than 6.5 since the F-4J was rated at just about that.

I've been trying to find out what speed limitations were set for Phantoms (if any) carrying gun pods in Vietnam, particularly the following: - SUU-23 - HIPEG Mk 4 Mod 0 I already know that the SUU-16 had an optimal speed range for proper use, so I'm not too concerned about its performance, especially in lieu of the SUU-23 being better. As for the USN/MC pods, I found a Hughes tool company report stating that the HIPEG 20 mm gun pod could be flown "at speeds up to Mach 1.2 on wing pylons": http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/601655.pdf but no altitude is given, and I have no idea what plane is being tested. I've also read a number of accounts in the Osprey books about how the HIPEG Mk 4 pods were used often by the USMC, and that they were maintained so well, they could be used for A-A combat, but never got the chance. What would be great is if I could find a chart with the load outs and their respective limit speeds. I'd like to somehow eventually code these limits into the SF2 aircraft if possible.

Thanks for the link, but I can't seem to find much there other than decal placements and such.

Turns out the info I need is in this manual: NAVAIR 01-245FDB-1T - which is the tactical manual for the F-4B. Anyone know where to get one? Preferably under $15.

According to reports I've been reading, it seems that the US has been procuring faulty avionics since the Cold War. It also seems that upon upgrading these faulty systems, they don't test the newer ones either. One would think that a RWR and jammer would be of paramount importance in this day and age but why does the US military seem to not care about the quality of these avionics? The examples that come to mind are the different versions of the ALQ-135 jammer system in the F-15C and the ALR-67 variants found in many Navy aircraft. What leads the military to procure such equipment without testing them? In particular, I've read accounts of DoD reports stating that the ALR-67 could not interpret the difference between a hostile and a friendly emitter and that Desert Storm Navy pilots who flew Hornets and Tomcats sometimes completely shut off their ALR-67 RWR's and used "DoD-Classified" methods of safely operating in hostile airspace. I can't find enough credible evidence stating that such problems plagued all Hornet and Tomcat aircrews but I can see this as being a horrible issue. The ALQ-135, too, had failed tests carried out on it and did not live up to Air Force requirements. I don't see why it would be hard for the Navy and Air Force to incorporate working jammers and RWR/RHAW equipment so that every US crew member can be safe.

I guess I did by merging the folders? I installed it like any other mod. I put it into my StrikeFighters2Vietnam mods directory and merged folders accordingly. Then I tried it again in my StrikeFighters2Europe mod folder which has NO other mods in it. I still had the same error. I forgot to mention that all my missiles are there but the other Hornets, as well as mine are still invisible.

This is looking great but each time I install this, my plane is invisible in both the hangar and the game. When I actually start the game, I only get a HUD and no plane, and the game cannot be unpaused :(

I finally found time to not do work, find some good wifi and watch this. Very funny! And educational too!

yes, now that you all mention it, it just sounds the same as any other company trying to release the best product first. But if anyone has more in-depth reports on the ALR-67 RWR, that'd be great. I feel it's possible to find it, since it's just an outdated receiver which more than one plane used so I'll keep digging. I can't find any on the AL!-135, but I've been told jammer information is almost always completely classified.

Here is an excerpt from the ALR-67 report: "As a result, the Navy installed the unsatisfactory system in operational aircraft for use by the combat forces. Subsequently, some Navy pilots during Operation Desert Storm distrusted the system to the extent that they stopped using it to detect threat radars and relied instead on other means that DOD considers classified. " The links are here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-68/html/GAOREPORTS-NSIAD-96-68.htm and google books' link to a US GAO report : http://books.google.ca/books?id=syS19GF2CFMC&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=%22ALR-67%22+problems&source=bl&ots=f8TnE16z2P&sig=CABAh9FXrUG-8mk6Z3y9kFN20gk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fEgcUazID-u00QGQ7YCwAw&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22ALR-67%22%20problems&f=false

I've got some screens of Sundowner's absolutely excellent hard-wing, Midas IV F-4E phantom - "Chico the Gunfighter" mod. Starting off with a nice stroll above NVA territory. Running into some trouble - solution: ripple fire some AIM-7's And coming back home with some scars

Hello, I have modded my copy of SF2: Vietnam using the excellent Air Ground Expansion: Gold. I noticed that the Mk 4 Mod 0 gun pods are not jamming as often as they used to. Is there a way to make them jam like they did before? Also, if anyone has some real-life info on the combat use of these pods, that'd be great. I'm finding very very little information on this gun pod (a.k.a. HIPEG) except that only the USMC used it in strafe attacks. I like using in air-to-air sometimes, but I feel like I'm cheating if the guns aren't jamming after long bursts or high-G. Whether using them in dogfights was even possible during the Vietnam War, I cannot say. I know that F-8 Crusader pilots got 4 kills with their jam-happy guns so maybe the USMC could've got some kills with their pods if they had more chances to dogfight.

So after a bit of searching, I found some information on the HIPEG tests at China Lake. Tested versus an SUU-16A USAF Vulcan pod and at speeds to 600 mph and G-loads from 0 - 6G, both guns were fired for 5 seconds each and proved satisfactory (pdf here from Hughes Tool Company, dated 1964: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=AD0601655) The only reason I could imagine a jam from HIPEG use is overheating barrels as another source states here in Rocketeer Magazine from 1965 (http://chinalakealumni.org/Downloads/Rocketeer/1965/Rktr12.03.1965.pdf) that the 2 gun barrels had only a 10,000 round life each, as they were smooth bore barrels designed to be replaced quickly and easily.