MigBuster

If you see here: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/shaped.html The values shown here were determined experimentally by placing models in a wind tunnel and measuring the amount of drag, the tunnel conditions of velocity and density, and the reference area of the model. The drag equation given above was then used to calculate the drag coefficient. The projected frontal area of each object was used as the reference area. I'm fairly sure the actual values need to be determined through physical experiments - but they could be published somewhere - or for this game they might be estimated in relation to similar shapes. A comment from someone who does FMs would be usefull.

The real thing in flight should have the same aerodynamic principles as the aircraft - but i assume you need this for an in game object? (the weapons parameters look more simplified)

You would want to include the pylon and take account of where the store is on the wing For example a wingtip missile adds no drag (Drag Index = 0 ) But the same missile on a further inboard pylon will add more overall drag even though its the same shape (i.e. DI = 22) Flight manual supplements should have drag index for stores and related performance drops specific for that airframe only. Again a virtual wind tunnel might show you levels of Induced / Parasitic drag on each part of the wing/ store / pylon - which will differ vastly depending on speed, altitude, temperature - and that's just level flight - it all changes as soon as you bank or turn.

um afaik there is: Drag caused by lift is called Induced Drag Drag caused by the airframe and pylons is called Parasitic drag Total drag = Induced drag + Parasitic Drag Dont think drag from simple shapes will tell you anything - aircraft are not simple shapes - they have gaps and notches all over them. Any formula would probably have drag and lift coef variables - these are generally unknowns for airframes and estimated as far as I can see (although no expert) Never looked into it but there might be air tunnel app you can get where you can put a 3D object in? Also if you use debug in the TW games you will get a total drag figure - although wont be dead on might give you an idea - (well for good flight models)

Also found this Hi Everyone, First of all-- your assumptions are all wrong. This is not some petty dispute or someone storming off without just cause. This is an internal issue that can be easily rectified, but instead of engaging in clear dialogue, much more serious steps were taken. Steps that were public. We pride ourselves in being professional in every facet of our products and outward image, therefore this issue going public causes us great grief. We will not say more at this time. Please keep speculation to a minimum. Seeing something being destroyed in the eyes of the public after a concentrated effort of years of development is heartbreaking. We have a reputation to maintain, and seeing it be torn to shreds in the matter of two days is far more crushing. Especially with regards to what we have in the pipeline. We remain committed to the MiG-21 and are working hard to resolve this and move on. Please have faith in us. /Nicholas, Novak, Roland & Michael -- DCS: MiG-21 Edited by Cobra847 (Today at 17:23) _________________________ Artist -- Studio Beczl MiG-21/23

I was thinking of that - lets hope they have better luck than Andy Millman

They’re 49 years old, ugly and owned by NASA, not the Pentagon. But two modified WB-57F Canberras are now among America’s most important warplanes. With anonymous-looking white paint jobs, the Canberras have been taking turns deploying to Afghanistan carrying a high-tech new radio translator designed to connect pretty much any fighter, bomber, spy plane and ground radio to, well, pretty much any other fighter, bomber, spy plane and ground radio. That makes the former Air Force reconnaissance planes, originally transferred to the space agency for science missions, essential hubs of the American-led war effort. With the Battlefield Airborne Communications Node system, or BACN, the WB-57s act as Star Trek-style universal translators, passing data between planes and troops and finally bringing to life the Pentagon’sdecades-old dream of speedy, information-propelled, networked warfare. “It orbits high up and basically receives various platforms’ datalink data, then translates all that data and redistributes it in a fused manner back to different platforms in the operating area,” Aviationintel’s Tyler Rogoway told ace aerospace blogger David Cenciotti. “BACN bridges the gaps,” manufacturer Northrop Grumman boasted. The old NASA recon planes — the only two of their kind not yet consigned to museums — aren’t the only gap-fillers. Since 2005 the Air Force has slowly been assembling its own hodgepodge fleet of BACN planes. And yes, that’s pronounced “bacon.” In addition to the two NASA WB-57Fs, the Air Force possesses three EQ-4B Global Hawk drones fitted with the radio translator plus four similarly equipped E-11A Bombardier business jets, the most recent of which was handed over on Thursday. The different planes boast varying speeds, ranges and payloads, but what they have in common is the ability to fly very high for hours at a time, lending their electronic receivers and transmitters the maximum possible coverage. NASA’s old WB-57s might even be the highest-flying of the lot, with a top altitude of around 70,000 feet, high enough that the pilots have to wear pressure suits. It costs no less than $100 million a year to keep the BACN planes flying. They split their time between tests and war games in the U.S. and overseas deployments, with occasional down time to tweak their systems. The WB-57Fs are frequent visitors to Kandahar in southern Afghanistan. There’s also apparently at least one E-11 in Afghanistan at any given time. The EQ-4s have been spotted in Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan, where one crashed last year, and in the United Arab Emirates, apparently helping translate for F-22s temporarily based there to deter Iran. It’s hard to over-state the importance of the BACN jets. Owing to sporadic funding and technical hurdles, the Air Force — to say nothing of the rest of the military — has never managed to get all its weapons to speak the same electronic language. The flying branch had hoped to replace most of its frontline aircraft with an all-stealth fleet using just one special datalink. But that hope died years ago, and today the Air Force uses no fewer than seven different types of digital links — a “dog’s breakfast of different datalinks,” is how Lt. Gen. William Lord put it last year. Newer F-16s use one version of Link 16 and older ones another; A-10s and F-15s also each use different editions of Link 16 that aren’t always compatible. F-22s are the worst offenders, using the Intra-Flight Data Link that allows it connect only to other F-22s. Add the Army, Navy and Marines — oh, and allied militaries, as well — and the confusion only grows. Since the early 2000s the Pentagon has made several attempts to tear down this electronic Tower of Babel. BACN, co-developed by the Air Force, Northrop and NASA — hence the space agency’s continued involvement — is the one that worked the best. It’s the only deployed system that can sort through much of the radio garble, translating message formats back and forth to get warplanes communicating with each other and with troops on the ground. It’s networked warfare in a single box, albeit an improvised one. And that’s how net-centric warfare is finally becoming a reality across the U.S. military, 14 years after two officers coined the term and nearly a decade since the Iraq war proved the concept’s flaws.The grand, over-arching systems such as the Army’s Jitters radio and the Air Force’s all-stealth datalink have collapsed under their own weight. From the wreckage, the Army is cobbling together a network of upgraded radios and combat smartphones. And NASA and the Air Force have their sometimes-ancient BACN jets with their universal translators, orbiting over war zones making sure everybody can talk to each other. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/air-force-universal-translator/

Looks like something they have in air show simulators http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjvgC1cKQGA

Wonder if they pay those extras to act like that?

What a blow - that is just unbelievable - the amount of work that has been done and shown! The time and financial requirements are beyond comprehension for high fidelity simulators - and without a dedicated team motivated by a common goal it will always be the same - lets hope they sort out the problems they have. my 2c - DCS and its third parties might be better pursuing an FC3 to Hi Fidelity model - that way at least something will be released - even if the HiFi version never sees the light. Looks like the thread has been pulled by ED already Found this Originally Posted By: Dolphin887 Being on this project since day 1, I am very sorry Laszlo put this message on forum without consultations with the team, and any collective decision really made. Project is still fully active and this message surprised us (the rest of the team, 4 people) while we were actually working on it. Any internal problem need to be dealt internally, without any negative effects outside the team. In that sense, be reserved towards Laszlo's message for now, as we believe we will fix the issues soon (Laszlo is currently on the business trip). I personally hope Laszlo won't make more harmful moves until we discuss this matter. As from our part, 21 is not closed project, no worries.

Blimey - had to hang in the trees for a bit! - Glad to see they got out.

You mentioned you could get to CA using a Proxy site (when you couldn't otherwise) - so that says to me is has to be your ISP screwing around with its infrastructure. Have rang mine in the past and they admit to doing maint - so could be a case of being patient if so.

Video on the BBC about it as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-25782214 I guess he did what he felt he had to..............some people might have just thought sod it where is everyone else and joined a local nudist colony - but its probably fair to say that discipline and serving the emperor was drilled into the group he was in.

Nice landing - lucky they were still close to the field - and they got to use the tailhook!

Could be down to cost as it implies. In a ideal world all platforms would either use the same wireless protocol - or they would develop a single protocol and make newer versions backwards compatible with older ones. F-35 is advertised with another called MADL But way to solve a problem with modern technology - by using airframes designed long before digital packet switching networks were invented.

Short Blue Flag footage

WASHINGTON — A man was arrested on charges of attempting to ship technical data from the F-35 joint strike fighter to Iran, according to the US Attorney for the District of Connecticut. Mozaffar Khazaee was arrested Jan. 9 at Newark International Airport in New Jersey after the first leg of a trip to Tehran. Khazaee, who became a naturalized US citizen in 1991, was charged with “transporting, transmitting and transferring in interstate or foreign commerce goods obtained by theft, conversion, or fraud,” a crime that carries a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. According to a US government affidavit, federal agents began investigating Khazaee in November, when he attempted to send a shipment from Connecticut to the Iranian city of Hamadan. When agents inspected the shipment, they found “numerous boxes of documents consisting of sensitive technical manuals, specification sheets, and other proprietary material for the F-35. Those documents came from a company that Khazaee had last worked at in August of 2013. Overall, the shipment included thousands of pages of documents, including diagrams and blueprints of the high-tech fighter jet’s engine. Some of the information was marked as being ITAR- and export-controlled information. The affidavit does not identify which company Khazaee was employed by, but said he worked on a team conducting strength and durability evaluations for components for military engines. However, Matthew Bates, a spokesman for engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney, confirmed that Pratt is the company referred to as “Company A” in the affidavit. “Pratt & Whitney has been cooperating fully with the government on this matter and will continue to do so,” Bates said. “Because the investigation is ongoing, any additional questions about the investigation are better suited for the government to address at the appropriate time.” Property of two other unidentified companies was also included in the shipment. Rolls-Royce, a subcontractor on the engine program, is one possibility; the affidavit cites Khazaee as returning to Indiana, home of Rolls-Royce, after he left Connecticut. A spokesman for Rolls confirmed that Khazaee is not a current employee, but deferred further comment to the Department of Justice. A spokeswoman for Lockheed Martin, the lead contractor on the program, said the company is cooperating fully with the investigation but declined further comment “as the investigation is on-going.” “The F-35 Joint Program Office has been alerted to the investigation, and will cooperate fully with legal authorities pursuing the case,” Joe DellaVedova, the program’s Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement. “No additional comment will be made while the investigation is ongoing.” In early 2013, government officials acknowledged that hackers, most likely Chinese in origin, had stolen information about the fifth-generation fighter, which is expected to be the backbone of American air superiority over the next several decades. http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140113/DEFREG02/301130030/

Heres a similar French mix

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDaNALBKgxU

Ace - seems to be similar to my P-51 experience!

Fly in a V formation? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25737960 Cant help thinking - where do these people get funding from? - couldn't they have just asked someone who does Aero to look at a video? Next week - why do birds fly in a circle under clouds.

Also posed here http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3895732/Re_CombatACE_server_not_respon#Post3895732

Some interesting thoughts about improving the US low end fighter. Miscalculation: the need for a new US fighter export strategy in the global fighter market Part 1 http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/miscalculation-need-for-new-us-fighter_7.html Miscalculation: the need for a new US fighter export strategy in the global fighter market Part 2 http://manglermuldoon.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/miscalculation-need-for-new-us-fighter_13.html

Depends how you look at it - the F-16/79 was a massive downgrade over the Block 1/15 - you had an old J-79-GE turbojet with higher fuel consumption and 5860 lbs less thrust at AB compared to the F-100-PW turbofan and capability was intentionally limited. The F-16V on the other hand needs to be the most advanced version ever and offer capabilities (In a new airframe) at least on par with the Gripen if the US wants to stay in the lower cost market. As far as the US goes what else does it have to offer? - I mean F-35 is not an F-16 replacement - its F-15 size, has far more internal hardware / avionics and stealth, will likely sell far less, will never be anywhere near as cheap to procure or run. and likely will only be sold to select countries. If you did an F-35/79 - what would it look like - downgraded engine / radar, the DAS & EOTS would probably be removed, the RAM coating left off, other materials used on panels - and now you (could argue )have a airframe far inferior to the F-16V in everything but range.

Well hey at least its something for you long suffering DCS fans http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119201 Hey guys, I can't believe it's the middle of January already, this year is going to fly by, excuse the pun!! Development of the Hawk is going very well and she is up and running in DCS World 1.2.7. with full weapons capability so all my stressing on that front is over, thank you ED!!! This takes us to the next stage of development, BETA...yes you read that correctly We have a small group of public testers that will become the first closed Beta testers alongside our dedicated VEAO testers team. They will be testing all aircraft functions to make sure it's purring like a kitten and biting like a tiger. Which will then move us to the next stage, hmmm I wonder what that one is, suggestions anyone?? Following a team discussion last night and pending any natural disasters, zombie outbreak, IPR lawyers putting the breaks on or Tango getting hit by a bus; we are pleased to make the following announcement. Hawk Open Beta will be released as an FC3 level aircraft with fully clickable cockpit before the end of February 2014!! Confused? yes we thought you might be so please let me clarify. We are still working on the AFM, in fact that's going very slowly so we will be releasing the open Beta version of the Hawk as an FC3 level aircraft (as it doesn't have AFM) but it will have the fully clickable cockpit as some of you have got used to in the public alpha release. Should you not wish to use the clickable cockpit, we are looking at an option to turn that off/on. Now some of you may argue that this is in fact a DCS level aircraft because of the fidelity of the systems and clickable cockpit but we felt that without AFM it would be unjust to call it DCS level. So do we call it DCS:Hawk or simply Hawk or something else. We think in line with ED's FC3 products we will simply call it T.1A Trainer to differentiate this version from the full DCS AFM version. Costings; well we have considered the cost of standard FC3 aircraft add-ons and cost of DCS level add-ons (current and future) and have taken a decision as it will come with fully clickable cockpit functionality. The product will cost $39.99 and when we have the AFM version ready for release there will be a $10 upgrade charge should you wish to go for that. Final DCS:Hawk product will be $49.99 We feel that is reasonably priced for what you will get in this version which is basically everything you would expect in a DCS level fidelity aircraft apart from AFM. By releasing the aircraft next month and taking sales it allows us to further invest in the AFM programming. As you know I have fully funded development over the past few years but further investment is required and this is the best way to do it. We get investment and you get to fly the product, win win on both sides. To clarify; this will be a paid-for BETA version. Some things will not be implemented fully yet and we will make it very clear at the time of selling what is included and what is still left to be completed. Thank you again for all of your support and interest in our products. Chris and the VEAO team. Also please note that past competition winners will receive the FC3 Hawk and the upgrade to DCS:Hawk when it's available.