saisran

Got the F-5N and took it for a quick mission quickly got intercepted by 4 F-16A Netz. A good opportuinity to test the tigers on something with comparable role. so 4 F-5N with 2x AIM9L each vs 4 F-16A with 4x Winders each. Alerted by the AEW on bandits postion we quickly spotted the Vipers. I thought I'll let my squad hang back tried to get 2 quick kills with the heaters while buying for a gun solution as i order the rest of the squad to chase down the remaining viper... But, as it turns out you CAN'T play around with a viper and expect not to get bit. Face shot on one of the vipers which hit but only after he and his buddies got their winders out as well. With all the "I'm hit, I'm taking damage" calls... i'm not sure if any of my wingmen survived. actually i couldn't care less as i got a viper in front and another on my tail. the Viper as always turns quite well and happily so does the tiger. 400 kts circle bled down to 300+. got inside I assumed he'll reverse his turn so i leveled my wing and he did as i thought. fired my last AIM-9L and it hit. But i forgot about the viper on my tail. Missile warning called on me. I inverted my plane and pulled down hard to the deck dumping every flare and chaffs i got to no avail. the missile flew into and through my left stab and took it out. My plane didn't go into flames as the missile didn't explode(weird) but i'm roller coasting and viper's still at my six. Thankfully 4 is still alive and he took it out the remaining viper high tailed out of the fight and 4 and i left him alone. thankfully i managed to regain control of the F-5 by feeding it stick and some rudder. Max Mil power and climbed up to 480 knts at about 15Kft flew it all the way to a friendly airbase and tried to land there but at landing speed the F-5 is quite hard to control so i had to took it up again away from any infrastructure and bail. The entire fight, from the first missile shot until the remaining viper disengage was quick. probably as fast as yo can read the above paragraph. In the end the tigers are very manoeuvrable and bleed a lot of energy quickly which is good for getting into position quicker than you're opponent but i think if the circle continued on in a long fight the viper will have an edge or his buddy on my six will get me which he did. Between the two fighters i'll probably pick the Viper to defend my airspace like the USAF did. but for joy riding its the F-5. Btw, i'm not sure if that's how it's supposed to be but the damage on my Tiger II is on the left but im rolling to the right ain't it suppose to roll to the left as i lost a lift surface on my left tail and not on my right?

Guess I'll have to ge Guess i'll have to get me that F-5N. An unrelated question Caesar... Do we have a skin for the F-14D (159600) aka Christine? just read about the aircraft being the longest serving D.

Let's have eric do the hornet and probably dave Agree with the Viper. Im sure a lot of people are willing for the phantom.

Does this count as DACT? Me: Mig-29K with 4x R-73 vs AGM-88C Harpoon (a couple of them) Tried out the Mig-29K i DL'd yesterday. Jumped in a quick mission but unfortunately it was an intercept of Intruders with harpoons slung underneath and no Air to air weapon. The mission ended up in a race to shoot down the intruders before they get the ASM off. got a couple but half of he squad got to fire their ASM... here began a high speed chase. 100 ft on the deck going a Mach 1.1 in an effort to save homebase. Luckily the harpoons ain't going mach11 like TK's other ASM but skimming the surface as published about mach 1. I chased after the group on full burners the Mig manages to reach mach 1.24 and i decided going any faster is more than what i can handle. still im faster than the harpoons and i closed in on the group. Eventually the ASM goes under the speed of sound and i position in for a kill. Almost hit the deck pulled up a bit, nosed down found a missile in the middle and squeezed the trigger... killing two harpoon and myself included. So im not sure what happend but as soon as the ASM exploded my cockpit turned orange and my plane was onfire. I guess killing an ASM with guns isn't a good idea as the harpoon has a warhead for sinking ships and being behind it going mach 1.24 i flew right into its blast radius. Next pic is what happened to our naval group.

Same as my Man here! F-14 Tomcat in For every mission! any year before the tomcat. its crusaders and phantoms. :airplane:

Very nice, i bet you had a harder time getting it to spin than recovering. :)

from the look of things... i thnk im better off not knowing.

For the AIM-54 I wa talking bout TK's Version that one goes just above mach 4 (although only tested two firings) Making its value as base(althugh some sources says the phoenix only reach mach 3.92, probably sea level launches) and just adding a low value on the sustainer at a lengthly duration to maintain constant speed and reach desired range as i think the missile can carry itself a long distance at sustained high speed (probably about mach3 and mach 2 for really max range) Just have to test it in game to see how it works

Normal FM on asymmetric load is fair enough in the Hornet as the plane computer deals with it in RL(i think).

True, i just wanted to know long and howmuch boost and sustainer a missile should have so that it doesn't accelerate to mach 20. Probably will just do as Eric says and view the missiles in flight with the Debug. 3rd party weapons are mostly ok but the R-37 goes to 9+mach R-77 at 5M and R-27 goes to mach 5.5 half a sec after launch and sustains to target. His AIM-54 works quite well but still a bit over mach.only problem is the narrow FOV of the missile granting how large a radar it has.

does this work? how? will it pack all my object files like weapons and aircraft into a CAT file of relatively smaller size than the orignal folder? thanks

Sorry, I didn't mean to say that the turkey aint agile. i mean it's not the most agile. Like i said it's responsive but just doesn't dart around like an F-16 or a rafale. Personally, i love how the F-14 handles it's confidence inspiring as you know you wont be botching it by giving too much of a bad input. the "flap method" you thought me also worked wonders, allowing me to curl inside a lot of unsuspecting targets when going BVR gets too boring. (i don't know i'm just so lucky with the AIM-54) As for the Tomcat flatspin/stalling.... That only happens once in a blue moon. basically you must really want it to stall to get it out of control and recovery is a zinch. Zomb. Where's the next vid?

what's an Iron Eagle film???

How come i were not aware of that tool. thanks for the heads up Edit: Ok what's the name of the tool?

I found some really cool stuff about math and missiles wonder how can i use it to correct the missile performance in SF2? those ASM are flying at Mach 11!!! Subject: A simple formula for estimating missile performance. dwightlooi 3/15/2008 10:28:12 PM I want to take this opportunity to introduce everyone to a very simple formula that can be used for estimating the performance of a missile. It goes like this:- Change in Velocity (Delta V) = 10 x Specific Impulse x LN (initial weight / final weight) m/s This assumes that all the fuel is used to get the missile as fast as possible and none is used to provide just enough thrust to sustain a given velocity. In otherwords, it assumes an all-boost motor not a boost sustain motor. For example, let'a take a look at the AIM-120A AMRAAM which we have some decent info on... Launch weight = 335 lbs (Published stats) Motor weight = 156 lbs (WPU-6/B HTPB rocket motor weight as per Raytheon) Approximate specific impulse = 245 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors) Approximate fuel fraction of motor = 85% (typical of robust aluminum cased aerospace rocket motors) OK... if 85% of the motor's mass is the fuel, we have about 132 lbs of fuel in the AMRAAM-A -- roughly a 39.4% fuel fraction (sounds about right). So let's run the numbers... Delta V = 10 x 245 x LN(335/(335-132)) = 1227 m/s The formula predicts that the AMRAAM will go about 1227 m/s (~Mach 3.7) faster than it started. If it is launched at say Mach 1.5 it'll be going Mach 5.2. In reality the AMRAAM doesn't go that fast. The reason is that not all the fuel is used to get it as fast as possible. The AMRAAM's motor is a boost-sustain design. It is probably grained to take the weapon to abut Mach 2.5~2.8 faster than it started at (Mach 4+ in a typical Mach 1.5 release). The rest of the fuel is shaped to burn much more slowly to keep it's velocity at or near the achieved maximum out to a longer range before the motor burns out. Well, for any given fuel fraction and specific impulse, a designer can decide how fast he wants to go and how long he wants to stay at or near the peak velocity achieved. For instance, if a missile carries 40% of its launch weight as fuel and uses the typical a modern HTPB propellant motor, it can:- (1) Spend 25% to get an approximate Mach 2.1 delta V and 15% on sustaining that speed for a relatively long while. (2) Spend 30% to get an approximate Mach 2.7 delta V and 10% on sustaining that speed for a shorter while. (3) Spend 40% to get an approximate Mach 3.8 delta V have no sustain burn time at all. BTW, in reference to the above comment on deceleration... it doesn't really work that way. If a missle starts at Mach 4 at burn out and decelerates 25% to Mach 3 after 10~15 seconds, it WILL NOT decelerate to Mach 2 (another 33% from Mach 3) after 20~30 seconds. This is impossible because aerodynamic drag (Fd = Cd x A x 0.5 x P x V^2) is a function of the square of velocity. As velocity decreases, drag force decreases exponentially in relation to it. Hence, if the drag for at Mach 4 causes a 25% loss in velocity in 10~15 seconds, there is no way a much lower drag force at Mach 3 will cause a 33% loss in velocity after another 10~15 seconds. What happens is that deceleration is non-linear; you start off steep and the slope flattens out over time as velocity and hence drag drops. It'll take a missile a heck of a lot longer to decelerate from Mach 4 to Mach 2 compared to say Mach 2 to Mach 1 for instance. Actually it also depends a heck of a lot on altitude (air density)... Let's plug some numbers shall we? Question: How much thrust is needed to sustain Mach 3.0 in an AAM like the AMRAAM? Drag force (Newtons) = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A P = Density of Air (kg/m^3) ; ~1.29 kg/m^3 @ sea level; ~0.232 kg/m^3 @ 12,000 m V = Velocity (m/s) ; Mach 1 = 340 m/s @ sea level; ~295 m/s @ 12,000 m Cd = Co-efficient of Drag ; ~ 0.6 to 0.95 for rockets depending mostly on finnage, nose and tail profile A = Sectional Area (m^2) ; ~ 0.025 m^2 for a 7" diameter missile. For an AMRAAM like AAM going at high altitudes (40,000 ft)... Drag Force @ Mach 3 = 0.5 x 0.232 x (295x3)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 1590 Newtons = 357 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 2 = 0.5 x 0.232 x (295x2)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 707 Newtons = 159 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 0.232 x 295^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 177 Newtons = 39.8 lbs The same missile going Mach 3 at Sea Level... Drag Force @ Mach 3 = 0.5 x 1.29 x (340x3)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 11,744 Newtons = 2640 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 2 = 0.5 x 1.29 x (340x2)^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 5,219 Newtons = 1173 lbs Drag Force @ Mach 1 = 0.5 x 1.29 x 340^2 x 0.70 x 0.025 = 1,305 Newtons = 293 lbs Assuming that there is no sustainer, the deceleration experienced at Mach 3 by the 203 lbs (empty) missile is Deceleration @ Mach 3 = -F / mass = -1590 / (203 x 0.454) = -17.3 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.059/sec @ 40,000 ft Deceleration @ Mach 2 = -F / mass = -707 / (203 x 0.454) = -7.67 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.026/sec @ 40,000 ft Deceleration @ Mach 1 = -F / mass = -177 / (203 x 0.454) = -1.92 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.0065/sec @ 40,000 ft Deceleration @ Mach 3 = -F / mass = -11744 / (203 x 0.454) = -127 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.39/sec @ sea level Deceleration @ Mach 2 = -F / mass = -5219 / (203 x 0.454) = -56.6 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.17/sec @ sea level Deceleration @ Mach 1 = -F / mass = -1305 / (203 x 0.454) = -14.2 m/s^2 = - Mach 0.042/sec @ sea level OK... enough of the math and the formulas... what does all these mean? Well, it means that while coasting at Mach 3 an AAM is going to lose about less than 2% of its velocity a second at high altitudes while it stands to lose about 13% of its velocity at sea level! Huge difference isn't it? Remember though that the rate of deceleration actually DECREASES as the missile's velocity decreases. It is easy to see that one can claim that a missile can burn out burn out its booster and sustainer and be effective out to over 100 km at high altitudes or be useful only against helos after 10km on the deck! Also, we can make a pretty educated guess as to how much thrust the sustainer has to make. An AMRAAM class missile with a 400 lbs sustain thrust will be able to stay above Mach 3 at high altitudes and stay about Mach 1.2 at sea level. An AMRAAM class missile carrying about 10% of its launch weight as sustainer grained propellant will be able to keep this level of thrust lit for 20.5 seconds in addition to whatever the boost time was using the 30% of its fuel to get a roughly Mach 2.7 Delta V after launch. A missile like this when fired at Mach 1.5 will reach Mach 4+ and keep above Mach 3 for the duration of the sustainer at high altitudes. It will also reach about Mach 2.5 and keep above about Mach 1.2 at sea level. A motor grained for this thrust profile can have a 10 second boost at ~ 2460 lbs thrust and a 20 second sustain burn at 400 lbs thrust -- this is a 5:1 boost sustain ratio. This is also about right for thrust profiles of star grain vs core burn solid propellant burn rate profiles. Another rough rule of thumb:- The time it takes for a missile to lose 25% of its velocity after burn out at supersonic speeds. Never @ > 100,000 m (~300,000 ft) ; in space ~150 seconds @ 24,000 m (~80,000 ft) ~70 seconds @ 18,000 m (~ 60,000 ft) ~25 seconds @ 12,000 m (~ 40,000 ft) ~10 seconds @ 6,000 ft (~20,000 ft) ~5 seconds @ Sea Level Remember, fractions over time are not additive. In otherwords, if a missile loses about 25% of its velocity in 10 seconds, in the 10 subsequent seconds (t =20s) the missile loses approximately another 25% of the remaining 75% not a 100%. Total velocity loss is ~43.75% not 50%. This is highly collated to the fall in air density. Drag = 0.5 x P x V^2 x Cd x A. Holding everything else constant Drag falls proportionally to density. Drag also falls exponentially with Velocity which accounts for the loss in velocity in the given time slices being about 25% instead of closer to 40%.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=99261 So it seems that topgun will have a 3D makeover in IMAX for Feb 8 to 13? wonder if you're Girlfriends up for a early valentine date? Guy's can droll over the tomcats while she can drool over Iceman's Flabs i mean Abs in 3d. :)

Why dont you just edit the Version.INI of the mod folder you want the SF2NA-ONLY install and change the properties to read only? something like this? [Version] BuildDate=Jul 2012 StrikeFighters2=FALSE StrikeFighters2 Vietnam=FALSE StrikeFighters2 Europe=FALSE StrikeFighters2 Israel=FALSE StrikeFighters2 Exp1=FALSE StrikeFighters2 Exp2=FALSE StrikeFighters2 NorthAtlantic=TRUE StrikeFighters2 Exp3=FALSE I think this way the game will only look at the CAT files from NA...

Here's//www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-combat-01.htm Heres some reading on the F-14. Some reports on strike mission possibly

Thanks for the info guys, and with the advancement in radar tech(AESA). Its only a matter of time until a new radar half the size of the one in tomcat provides twice the range and hopefully with a multi-track function as well. i just wish they could design a plane that looks as good as Tom Cruise.

Don't forget to download the latest super pack. These guys did a damn great job on it.

Nice DACT guys, great read. Good to know you guys are doing this again. BTW, that damage model on the F-14 looks great but can the meek warhead in the AMRAAM do that amount of damage or is the RealLife -D version got a bigger punch as well as range? I kinda thought AMRAAMs have half the range the Phoenix does.

I'm so glad im not the only tomcat lover in this site. :airplane: :airplane: :airplane: :airplane:

I prefer fighters based on looks as well, and a bit of history. here's my favorite fighters from top to bottom. 1. Tomcat - probably the most aesthetically pleasing design for a modern jet fighter. That swing wing, twin engine and twin tails, from any angle the tomcat looks good. the plane equivalent of an E-type jag or an alpha romeo. 2. F-4 Phantom II - ugly as hell but has definite character. Well loved and war proven. 3. F-8 Crusader. another ugly design. but its tendency to swap ends and bearing the moniker as the last gunfighter gives it charm. (i tend to favor naval fighers) 4. F-86 sabre. - very clean design. simple,practical and beautiful. 5. Dassault Rafale/Jas-39 Grippen - what cani say. this two delta looks almost the same and both of them looks really good. 6. Flankers - next to the F-14 in terms of looks the only drawback is that the long arched nose/cockpit/fuselage area makes it look like a platypus or a duck in some angles. 7. F-16XL - The viper has grown on me for the past year but i still think it looks like it has been squashed before rolling out of the production lines. The XL gave the viper added girth that improves ins dimensions aesthetically. In terms of fun in the cockpit. 1. F-14 hands down. throw it anywhere you like and it'll forgive you. But you have to stay smart as you're not as agile as they are. But in any situation you have the highest probability of the first shot and control of the fight. sacrifice your -54s so they go on the defensive early on, if it hits.. well you're going home early. 2. A-10- guns guns guns... them tanks! 3. F-8 i just like being in this plane 4. F-16 dog fights are the norm. winders galore then guns guns guns! 3. F-5