Do335

Afaik the saying of xx missile has xx range or in this case xx plane has a xx climb rate has long been defunct. Too much variable at play to make it a fixed number. So tech manuals flight test results and EM charts are much better. At least certainly trust your own math.

Heck (pun intented) at least for me I don't think I have nearly enough. Currently reading this thread at the DCS foras, seems to have some good info although it's certainly not likely to reach any conclusion. Among them I finally see how the 6/3 wing works. There's also some good source there like the Mig's TO. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=139690&page=7 Climb rates the F is much better for sure. There should be a comparison in your F-86E thread between the pics of mine and Fubar512's. (obviously the cliche of climb rates ain't a fixed figure but weight and altitude etc... dependent)

Agreed, as tactics are dominated by doctrine. The Mig is first and foremost an interceptor and was how twas employed. But this period has always been a bit of mystery. First and foremost the KAW never rose to much fame compared to 'nam, let alone the gulf war. The real life accounts are hazy at best due to the years. The USAF side of the story is relatively transparent, but they're still subjective. The USSR/China side is shrouded by a thick layer of propaganda, secrecy and language barrier. For the technical side the info is even more scarce among the flight sim community. It is a time before John Boyd and his theories rose to wide recognition, so while we have some detailed EM chart comparison between the modern day fighters F-16 and Mig-29, except this chart that even no altitude is noted, there had been none other hard, indisputable facts/numbers comparison between the Sabre and Fagot. There are lots of accounts/personal opinions spread thru various websites and message boards but nothing concrete. And even then, EM chart is not everything. While it depicts maneuverability, it doesn't for aircraft agility. Or control ergonomics, operational suitability, maintenance and reliability etc a multitude of aspects. As a result we're forced none other than forming our own opinion. My own is that there's a degree of truth in Clark's words if I wade through its bitterness. I have no doubt the Mig outperforms the sabre up high. The situation is only worsened in his ride the 86E, it was heavier than the A and does not have the added thrust or wing area of the 6-3 86F. The all flying tail on the E helps with high mach dive and maneuvering, but it becomes less relevant when altitude is the dominant factor. Operationally when the E was coming off line, it was just the time when the soviets transitioned to the more powerful Mig-15bis which made things even worse. The things going for E's favor are the "soft" factors, better agility, SA and cockpit ergonomics, and of course, better dive and low altitude performance. And so the Sabre's tactics would be to defend itself with its agility from the initial onslaught and drag the fight down low to gain the upper hand. Therefore the Mig on paper dominates this fight. It dictates the when and where of the engagement. But in reality there's this problem of pilot proficiency. In effect the Mig requires BnZ tactics, which demands precision shooting. I have a hard time imagining the poorly trained Chinese and NK pilots mastering this. If they're forced to tangle, the energy advantage is nullified. Of course as pilot skill gets better, it becomes the dominant factor and aircraft performance becomes less and less important, therefore we get the ~1:1 exchange ratio between Russian and US engagements. Also there is a tactical problem of the Mig as a "climb advantage" fighter. What happens when it is caught at altitude (energy) disadvantage? I think there is another reason why the Migs were sometimes reluctant to engage. While they have the numbers advantage vs F-86s, the total numbers of UN fighters still far outweigh them, therefore the airspace down low for the Mig is dangerous. For example the F2H Banshee is quite capable of defending against/fighting the Mig at altitude due to its low wing loading, but it's mostly assigned mud moving duties. This also should be another reason why both sides employed "jet streams" instead of a large group entering mig alley in later stages of war. Quoting from Osprey "F-86 SABRE vs MiG-15, Korea 1950-53" When it comes to the case of Lt Col Clarke, IMO it is quite likely that he met a honcho, or simply a Soviet pilot who is gutsy enough to dive thru severe buffeting. The Mig's actions are not unreasonable, as the dive started at 42,000 ft, even he faced control lockup, there is still ample altitude to deploy boards and pull out. Most importantly, as Streakeagle says he was too close as in gun range. The dive while defended him, mayhaps threw the mig pilot off his aim due to control problems, wasn't enough to get far enough out of visual range. It was only when he relied on his own training and pulled the rolling reversal with a far more responsive jet at 12,000ft that surprised the Mig and escaped. Tis my assessment of that situation. If I go so far as to make a suggestion, since the 86E boasts far better control approaching the mach, some high speed nose low maneuvers would better help his predicament, somewhat like F-4 vs Mig-17 tactics while better preserve his altitude reserve. I'm ofc just an amateur and can be completely off. I can also see the psychological effect of being in such a life and death situation. There was a brief moment when Lt Col Clarke was below the Mig with a tally while the Mig doesn't, essentially an SA advantage. Instead of capitalizing on this by going on the offensive, his intention was to evade detection and escape. But tbh put anyone except someone extremely brave and confident in that situation it would likely be the same so I'm not really in a position to say otherwise, but just to note (to myself as well) that the numbers in play are after all secondary.

Tirak I reckon we actually have the same theory. But my main problem with EricJ's incident while obviously a shame is not why the project didn't succeed but why they had to censor posts and ban users. Even if this is a "too high up on your horse" thought, OK then why not clear the misunderstanding (like just spend 5 minutes to talk it over "really sorry but our hands are tied", or is it that hard a thing to do) before action is taken, it is not like there is an open explicit violation of forum rules, obviously EricJ spent his own money on the project if there is any indication of commitment. So it is whether they are treating the forumites, customers, contributors etc with recognition and respect. Anyways sniped by EricJ LOL, but hope you can get well soon and recover for it ain't worth it. Plus DCS doesn't rein forever.

Read some.. I still remember a TV interview with the Chinese ace Zhao baotong. He had 2 F-86 scale models, one painted with the yellow tail, the other painted with the checkered flag. He pointed to the yellow tailed one and said: these guys are harder to deal with. LOL It seems the 51st had some attitude problems! While it is true that the 15bis is much superior to the 86E up high, I think the author could be a little burned by how he was treated by his CO and the general public. It is now known the mig does have buffeting and total aileron control loss approaching the mach. The late model got the automatic air brakes. And while the Sabre could eventually extend in the dive the better t/w ratio of the mig means the latter could easily keep it up initially. I think the mig was so deep in his six that a simple climb or dive couldn't solve the problem if I'm not too arrogant in disputing a RL pilot that is!.................

EricJ it could very well be... not experienced with DCS communities there but I reckon these serious sims tend to have a circle of friends thing. For example the BMS dev circle is tightly controlled, a new developer no matter how kick-ass his coding skills needs to have a sponsor to join (plain words "do we like you"), and information is shared tightly within but not to the outside. Of course it is for another dev team working for free so things could very well differ. One would think for a commercial venture, the question to be asked is "is this a good business opportunity" rather than "are you connected". More importantly, why does an unsuccessful buiz venture warrant banning.

One actually can fly any aircraft in Falcon with pits and FM and whatnot, the avionics albeit F-16 is still very extended due to the 16's multi-role nature. Not having an audience as wide as DCS with Falcon BMS imo is none other than its free ware nature, that it cannot reach the stability, compatibility and easiness of use compared to the standards of decent commercial ware. IMO the steep learning curve of figuring out the avionics etc is pretty overrated... When one gets to the avionics part you're on the right track of playing the sim and most likely enjoying it, plus one only needs to figure out just a few buttons to play instant action. The learning curve of configuring the software, aka the old "dance" is the hard barrier there. Over the years I've resorted to a habit of at least cleaning the puter once a month just to iron out the CTDs / graphic anomalies due to over heating, and even a few windows re-installs. The multiplayer success rate (everybody connects oK, no weird stuff during flight) in retrospect felt like only 60-70% counting all the sessions. My 2c.... As for DCS itself I can only think of "communist" style community management. See a post ya don't like, censor it! See some one ya don't like, labor camp... uur... ban him! I for one is unable to stomach it.

And a revised F-82G FM, as the original is slow, unable to sustain level flight at 30,000 ft and has a very sluggish pitch. Since it is after all still a mustang, I mixed in and adjusted P-51's aero on the wings, stabs and elevators. Did away with the fake engines and added WEP to the main engines instead. Edited aero on the flaps. Also changed AI ground attack params per usual. It is some 20kts faster than the P-51, so seems OK I reckon. The AI can finally land gracefully now. At last, getting around to campaign building........

I used to put all kinds of pics on top too. But now I really like a simple blue. It feels easy going and relaxing.

Yeap. I suppose flyboys'll be flyboys :p https://youtu.be/uzZ6Fak4uoQ

Tweaked data for B-29, Seafury and Firefly. The Seafury was already top notch by Baffmeister, so nothing major but just to bring it to KAW standards. Also added dual rocket loadouts per pics found on the net. Added dual rocket load to Firefly. The B-29 is a nail biter as the FM is so old, the engine power was even set twice as the real life value I guess just to compensate. I brought it back to the normal 2200hp and increased CLa on the main wings 20%, moved the Xac forward (the original had main wing Xac aft of CG, dunno the author's thinking on this) which helped keeping nose level. Various other tweaks, aero on the stabs and flaps, engine data, stall/landing speed, bombing settings, damage model, loadouts. It's still not perfect but until a guru makes it a new FM, AI should be able to handle it and hit targets.

I don't believe it. ♫♫ Come gather around ppl, wherever you roam..... ♫♫ Nice one, Wrench.

Had fun with Nova F-16 and -22 on some Pentium III and win2000, nice hardware at the time. Was good

popped up on my feed. Yep just a youtube clip. But gun cams of Korea seems relatively rare. Air to air gun cams start at around 21:30. Previous ones are bombings. "GP" stands for group. oh and I think best shot goes to Mr Blesse :D

Found another goodie original video and background here http://www.flyingfiendsinkoreanwar.com/18%20Jun%2053%20Video.htm

eh... The modern day fighters' specs and designations like the F-16 etc are just as confusing. They're many times modded complex systems and can't be easily summed up for sure. What's been confusing me lately are what squadrons used what. For example I've seen 8th FBW (35/36/80FS) Sabres, all designated F, but some with slats and some without, in the same time frame of summer '53. Is it due to 6-3 conversion kits logistics. But more importantly Is it that some squads operated the slat wing, while others used un-slatted wing, or is it that the slatted and un-slatted are inter mixed within the same squad (less likely but still) But I digress, as this still needs further research... On the Chinese side the propaganda is stronger for sure. Few years ago a military magazine published a documentary article on battle of Cho'sin reservoir, which included astonishing casualties of the PVA, and was subsequently banned. Praises have repeatedly went to the "hero pilots" who fought the imperialist Yankees over the Yalu river via movies, mags articles and festivals. There were tons of propaganda stunts over the years, nowadays I can only laugh. The Chinese ace Wang Hai have since risen through the ranks, went on to be chief of the PLAAF and pushed the Flanker deal with the ruskies in the 90s, and ofc, extremely corrupt. Oh right, he's undertook a rather famous flight simmer under his wing as well, who produced a korean jets mod called "sonic age" for IL2 which, actually, was just a copy-paste of Ultra Pack. It is fair to say that truth is impossible to find. But I believe if one searches for it, it becomes closer. You are in these respects indeed fortunate to be a 1st worlder, Heck, for democracy is fought for and won, and truth is easier to find. However, I'm still curious to find who shot Kennedy. The state of Texas was supposed to de-class the files in 2013, and cheekily postponed it(?)!

It is indeed so long ago that even vivid memories become hazy I reckon. I've read some accounts of sabre pilots association and some of their descriptions are plainly off vs historical/RL documents. But, they're not historians nor armchair hobbyists, just young men fighting for war and their lives. They don't need to remember or care about minute technical details. And apparently there're still korean war claim debates here and there it probably will never settle... tttsk. Tech wise the Sabre and Mig are very very equal with strength and weaknesses imo. However I do believe the USAF claim of superior pilots. The Chinese and NK pilots are mostly utter crap. They were peasants. The ruskies are on par with americans but rotation on a unit basis disrupted the inheritance of combat experience. In comparison the 4th and 51st arrived and stayed, new pilots can be brought up by vets so all the better, and they're offensive/aggressive which is the right way to use air power. What I get from this, is that doctrine and big sky mentality isn't built with a few good techs. Entirely my own opinion, ofc.

I am confused. Are you saying the E initially used un-slatted hard wing and where would that come from? Isn't it commonly known the Es initially had slats just as the As did. Also I fail to see the relevance of 86F's data. It is ofc faster just as the chart shows. But that TO doesn't include data for the earlier A/Es. OTOH the A's TO doesn't note a single difference between the GE-7 and GE-13 in all the performance charts. It is probably safe to assume the improvements are non-performance related.

Sure. T.O. -1 of F-86A. Mil power climb chart. Note the listed engine: GE-7/-13. There is no difference between the 2. T.O. -1 of F-86E. GE-13 engine. Note the reduced climb rate, and lengthened climb time. As for retrofitting Sabre Dog and B-47 engines to the 86E, I'm almost calling it. I'm thankful for your FMs, but it doesn't mean you can make stuff up.

Per your previous post, I assume you possess some deep source, Fubar512. As the net generally states GE-17/GE-25 engines are either for D/K Sabres or bombers. So I then assume the GE-17/-25 engine installations happened in later years state side. And if GE-13 is the usual engine, it has the same nominal 5200lbs as GE-7 on the A, but obviously E is (10%?) heavier and it has to fight Mig-15Bis. I want to see source.

For early years in Korea I think it's safe to assume they're the same engine... the E should be bit of a pig. Unless it's diving.

Nice reference. Thanks!

I'm in love. One can never have too much power!

Tac01, Can you say more about the squadron. What countries (timezone) are you in or is there a website?

The problem as I see is, "trim" axis and pitch axis is the same one, so can think of nothing within the game itself... Although for Hotas cougar ppl at least I have an idea of writing something in foxy. Foxy is quite powerful programming wise, maybe something can be done to make tapping the trim hat equivalent of moving the pitch axis's neutral/center position. But atm just can't be much bothered, being pretty ok with normal FM etc :|