Toryu

Seems like he could have ejected, but chose to ride it in, due to his knowledge about Combat Tree. His GIB (Roger Locher) was rescued, and what a rescue-ordeal that turned out to become!

An F-111 would be very cool, when flown to it's full potential (again, the maps are too small to really let the F-111 play it's ace-hand, but then again, who would want to fly 10hr missions, just because one can?). The F-4 always comes with a serious issue: Which one would they model? There are virtually unlimited possibilities (just look up the possibilities and options in SF2). People who wanted the F-4 in the first place are going to bitch because it's not their favourite one. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... Capability-wise, they're probably going to do an F-4E TISEO ARN with some PGMs any sh1tloads of other options. That would give most people a good set to play with, even though it wouldn't really be too interesting to me (I'd prefer a Navy model). The F-4E had the largest share of any production model and was exported to the largest number of export-customers. Any other model doesn't make any sense, if you're only going to do one F-4 model (though Blacklion213's idea of geting out an F-4B/C together with a SEA-Map seems very intruiging as well). Have Aviodev definately excluded a Mirage F1CT/CR for the future? Mission-wise, those airplanes are more interesting than the spanish airplanes IMHO. For the same reason, a Jaguar (any Jaguar) and a Tchad/ Mali Map would be awesome. Wasn't there an F-22 in "Air Dominance Fighter"? Not really up to DCS-standards, though. Couldn't agree more about the whole WW2-stuff. Not only is it getting boring to fight out the whole Spitfire vs Bf 109 thing again for the 50th time (not only is it repetetive as duck, it's also a boring airquake mission-setup). Also, the plane-set for the Normandy '44 is way off the mark. There was no 109K or a 190D flying above France. The really interesting things, e.g. the "other" Korea (which would NOT concentrate on the same MiG vs Sabre airquake, but focus on Strike, Interdiction and CAS, some of which at night, which really gets your heartrate going in those 40s-50s airplanes) are covered way too little. Sadly, most money can be made by the "trim on a slider" dogfight-crowd, which could just as well go over to Warp Thunder. Thus, DCS will follow the money first and *maybe* get into the more intresting stuff later on.

It's funny, Jedi - I'm pretty much the opposite of you then. I'd much rather have those vintage steam-gauge airplanes than all the computerized, hemet-visor *press a button and kill somebody* stuff. Think of the WOV expansion-pack maps with most of the airplanes we have for SF2 (incl Mods) but all on DCS standards. That's what I'd spend a fortune on. Now, the upcoming F-18C is a very late Lot as I see it, so while it won't be all the F-15E could offer, it can do a lot of stuff. Same with the AV-8B by Razbam. And the A-7D/E and the A-6E (guess we're talking 2020 there...). I'm personally hot for the whole Naval Ops thingy. If it's really getting the immersion up, this will actually make me buy a whole new rig (think: gaming reactor) and go on a shopping-spree (X-Plane 11 looks sweet, too!). The only thing missing then would be a proper naval map, other than this Black Sea or Strait of Hormuz puddles. Think: A night in the barrel - you're coming back from some uneventful midnight-mission and you're generally low on fuel (darned low bring-back capability on those Legacy Hornets anyway!), so you fly through the new-moon shitty-weather ink-bottle, only to bolter and go around. Now you're coming in for a second time, and you bolder again. Now you got to find that tanker-guy you made fun of last time you saw him in the other squadron's ready-room and the bingo-field, which is more than 500nm away, reports torrential rain, a visibility of half a mile, ceilings of 200ft and has issued a general warning low-flying cows due to "breezy" winds... I'm sorry - I'm getting carried away sometimes

S! to all USCG personnel, who I believe are way too little recognized for their daily service by the general public.

Who orders McNuggets in the first place?

Some people might just be bored by walking through the countryside, lookig for some super uninteresting sh1t, drawn on some lame-a$$ map. Especially, when paired with bright-as-fcuk people who don't know how to tie their own shoe-laces in the first place. What the mere private or NCO might find to be an entertaining worthy weekend's aventure is just another stupid game to the average pilot-aspirant. Pilots want to fly planes - they don't give a rat's ass about most of that usual military BS, like walking (excuse me: marching) in line or digging into the ground when it's cold and rainy outside, eating sh1t out of a 1950s aliminium lunchbox, getting screamed at by a DI with an IQ similar to that of 10 yards of brick-road, etc. But that's just my two cents. But then again, there's such a thing as army officers, so there surely has to be a source of strange people In my unit (Luftwaffe, and YES we did complain when somebody did rip the Playstation plug out of the wall) we had an officer aspirant (he didn't want to fly, crazy person!) whose dad was an army artillery officer (in the german army, berets are colour-coded; paratroopers have bordeaux berets, artillery people have pure red, etc.; the Luftwaffe knew berets look shitty and used side caps or Feldmützen instead). That aspirant would make a game out of pertending to hit his dad's beret and making a buzzer-sound while doing so. Now, you Brits didn't have a proper constription for some time, which supposedly takes all the fun out of the boot-camp phase: When we still had a draft, we'd have a take in every three months (four times a year). The DIs usually preferred the spring and fall intakes, as they would have the "best people to work with", while the summer intake (starting July 1st), usually had all the smart kids that would talk back, question stuff or starting to "think" and act on their own, when expected not to. The most funny intake was the one in winter (january 1st), as it had all the "Metzger, Maurer, Mörder" (butchers, bricklayers, murderers; tradespeople and usually not the sharpest knives from those cupboards or generally "difficult" people and draftdodgers whore were not bright enough to get an excuse). I've heard lots of funny stories about those guys - like being told to guard XYZ, then being forgotten about and still standing on guard at said object 24hrs later. When asked why they hadn't started to seek somebody out or trying to contact the barracks, they'd say they ere ordered to guard XYZ untill they were relieved... All in all, it was fun in retrospect, buy would I do it again? Probably not.

Interesting article. But why build a small-as-duck, stealthy CAS airplane? Just by the size of i, I'd rate it capability wise on par with a Gnat. The wing-thickness is very interesting. Why build a twin-turbojet with a max Mach number of *reverse*? This thing can't be more than a tech-demonstrator. There's probably more in the pipes. Or maybe not at all...

There's already an airplane that does all of that even better. The DHC-6. The Twotter also is a relict of forgotten times, but it's being made again. With an all glass cockpit and stuff...

I'm supporting the Vietmole.

Definately! That's what most old-fart pilots would tell you: Bombing is a black art rather than a science. I usually aim in a pretty dumb way: I fly/ dive the airplane directly at the target (so the target has no relative movement inside the reticle, which means I'm on a collision-couse with it) and I usually wait very long to make sure I'm minimizing my aiming-error. Before release, I slightly pull up the nose to correct for the ballistic arc. This is where part of the art comes in. I also either use CBUs (that'll do the job of correcting many aiming issues) or throw ripples of two or more. Now, using this technique, I would kill myself IRL, flying through my own bomb's fragmentation pattern, but it works in-game. It also is a good way of killing-yourself due to the autotrim-feature. By trying to establish a direct track towards the target, you're constantly applying forward pressure on the stick, which puts a lot nose-down trim into the airplane. I can't count how many times I've ended a shack with a smoking hole in the ground a couple of hundred yards away. Make sure you deploy the speedbrakes in the dive and you're easing back on the throttle - this will control your speed-pickup during the dive and will give you a better (smaller) dive-recovery radius. The more you train it, the better you get! The F-4B/C was a pretty shitty dive-bomber IRL: It's heavy and has a high wing-loading when all bombed-up (requiring higher pullout-altitudes), which will make it pick up speed quickly. The reticle wasn't realy optimized for manual bombing, either. Later models had better reticles/ gun-sights and had radar bombing modes introduced, helping a lot in delivering the bombs on-target. The good thing about the F-4 is (depending on configuration) you're able to bring a lot of destructive material to the game, making up for any problems. Try a different airplane for getting a hang on dive-bombing. An A-4 might be a good plane to start with, or even a prop (Corsair, A-1). Then graduate to faster aircraft. The principles are the same (see Andy Bush's tutorial already linked to in a post above).

There's no HUD on the ASA-M, just the gunsight and pipper. There are also no Sparrows on the wing-tips as the wings/ tip-launchers can't handle the weight. The F-104S introduced another wing-station (between the "normal" wing-station of the A,C,G and the tip-station) to carry the Sparrow or a Sidewinder.

Exaclty, good point about the sub-contractors. It's not just the airframe: It's engines, avionics, hydraulic- and electric accessories, wiring and other components that most people don't think about, when talking about the airplane. Each component does have it's own supply-chain (and some sub-assemblies have their own tooling). Some vendors might not even be in business anymore. Right now, everybody is in the "post production support"-part of the PLM. You can't just pick up a phone, call LM and blow money up their arse, hoping to kick-start F-22 assembly again in 6 months. Most of the capability is already gone. That's always the risk when shutting down assembly-lines prematurely. I can't see them with the Typhoon either - it's too much of a clusterduck when thinking about each country's share, different countries' versions' capabilities and a general unwillingness to take all the agreed upon airframes in the first place. Which of the original four contries' aircraft-version would you base a hypothetical USAF-version on? Maybe Austria want's to get rid of their Tranche 1 flying-club and sees a chance to sell... Heck, I could rather see the USAF going full Lafayette and shopping at Dassault

Why would they? Dead resources cost money. Nobody wastes cash for patriotic reasons - the reason why corporations dodge taxes whereever possible. LM would now rather put the F-35 forward. The Super Hornet doesn't fit into the USAF, unless somebody comes up with the idea of buying Growlers on top. Still, the SH wouldn't really fit the light-grey Eagle's role. It's too heavy and it's optimized into a different direction than required. The Typhoon would be a better solution: The lines are still open (better be quick there!) and the airplane has comparable capabilities with lot's of growth-potential, if it wasn't for cash-issues. Political issues give or take. The problem with the C/D Eagles is they're old airframes. You can "zero-life" them, but that will be enormously costly and will only give you an almost 50 year old airframe-design (Yes, 50 years isn't too far around the corner!) with comparatively old avionics and/ or cockpit-interfaces. Beyond that "Silent Eagle"-idea a couple of years ago (which was more strike-oriented, to steal away some F-35 money), there hasn't been much coming from Boeing about advancing the Eagle. That is a good sign they're also thinking the C/D's airframe is finished and there is no more money to be made with it. I don't think Boeing could come up with something substantial on short notice. The F-16 does have a similar age-related issue, but thanks to it's long list of customers it has aged better. Making things easier, going "big wing" (like on the F-2) would probably be a good idea for such an "air dominace F-16". To be realistic, though, LM would probably pitch an F-35, instead of throwing money at the F-16. The F-16 will die in a couple of years, unless the Air Force decides to cancel or postpone some earlier F-35s and replaces some old F-16s with whatever "new" F-16 they could think of.

Love it!

Good point there. The TERPS-requirements would probably kill any percieved benefit in terms of land and airspace-use. Maybe you could build that sort of runway in Montréal-Mirabel, but hardly anywhere else. Unless you're going Full Nelson and design a complete new kind of approach (like a 9° idle, speedbrakes semi-deployed (somewhat like DLC on the L-1011) spiral glidepath) to get the required obstacle-clearance. That won't help on departures, though - just think of how funny an ODP-chart would read for those runways.

Given the fact that you can very easily kill your MLG by taxiing too fast around a corner at close to MTOW, that idea is pretty much useless. It will be hard to minimize side-loads on the landing-gear with different required turn-radii for different required take-off speeds. Not only that: You'll have to accelerate and decelerate to that speed which will bring you through a large band of non-optimized radii, leading in turn to variing and generally substantial side-loads. Twice per flight.. Say hello to Mr Rear Spar Crack Inspection, he's living here now... There's a killer-argument right there. Other considerations (like crabbing and wing-low angles to protect against nacelle-strikes, etc.) are equally forbidding. Nice idea for the sake of an idea, but little operational gain. @ Erik: You could design a WAAS/ ground-based differential GNSS spiral RNAV-approach, which could be flown automatically on profile. Theoretically, the accuracy is already there, but certifying that kind of approach (we're currently at "ILS CAT I"-accuracy in RNAVs, you'd nee "CAT IIIc-plus" {I've just made that one up} accuracy on that loop-runway) would be a real bear. There already are other ways to streamline traffic. Airport-space is seldomly of any signifigance.

There is a reason for stated performance- and safety-limitations. Watch this F/A-18 pilot nearly buying the farm, while exceeding the "max bank-angle change 360°" (as in "only one roll at a time") limit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZNaQuUGluk

There is a difference between hydraulic boost and irreversible controls with an artificial feel system. The former still has direct aerodynamic feedback from the controls and beyond the boost-capability (which is fixed), the same limitations apply as without boost. The hydraulic boost is basicly just a an enlaged, mechanical bicep. The problem with hydraulically actuated (no matter if boosted, or irreversible) ailerons and high-aspect ratio wings is that even though you'll have some improvement in roll, you'll eventually run into a speed-regime where you'll just twist the wing and the net-effect is a reduced roll-rate as wing-twist and aileron-deflection cancel each other out. You'll gain better roll-authority between the airspeed at which you'll read max pilot-strenght and the speed where wing-twist becomes significant. This realm is typically not too large - depends on the layout of the original control-systems and it's gearings/ possible boots tabs. As long as there wasn't any substantial beef-up of the wing (improving the torsional stiffness), the hydraulically boosted ailerons don't do too much good above wing-twist speed. The pitch-boost may be a lot more helpful (if the tail can take the additional high-speed loads). Upon reaching Mcrit, things get interesting, though. Elevator-effectiveness blends out and unless there's a possibility of trimming/ moving the whole stabilizer (e.g. Skyhawk or Hunter), pitch-authority will decrease. You'll run into hinge-moment issues and the small elevator combined with an aft-moving center of pressure is less effective the faster (Mach) you go. In the end, it all comes down to how much additional force the hydraulic boost could field.

The early MiG-21 also had hydraulic pitch control, yet their high-q performance was nothing to write home about. Is there any word about the differences in MiG-17 pitch performance between unboosted and boosted? The transonic performance will stay poor due to the lack of a stabilator.

We have probabaly always had some every once in a while. But only recently people have been able to prove it with cell-phone videos. Of course with Global Warming, they will happen more often in the future. Supercells happen here, too. The overall-conditions (e.g. a dry line over Texas) are generally much much less favorable for twisters over here, though.

You know MB, you can delete posts or lock threads ramdomly without the another person having a chance to reply - the elephant won't leave the room.

Some nice little video that makes waiting for the next F1 release a bit sweeter. Skip to 2:27 if you're not francophone...

...and you thought you had a shitty day...

Skip to 01:47...

In America, gangbangers kill a part of the young non-WASP population. That has happened for the last - what? - 35 years? I feel this is underreported. The funny thing to observe is how Trump's vagueness allows him room to maneuver and wind himself out of later accusations. Hopefully he is more than just a master of manipulation and can actually do stuff. I doubt it, though. The guy has been bancrupt so often, he's probably gonna shut down government within the next 6 months.