MigBuster

I think the beta version was quite impressive also:

Thanks for the Picture and information What information is there regarding how the autopilot influenced pilot handling during normal pilot operation? - was the physical control system augmented with a rudimentary analogue FBW system because it would have had to change control surfaces alongside the pilots inputs to be able to have any influence.

Well a Monkey would have no problems understanding that Im sure

Wow - great work! - well done

Great find that - and pretty rare footage I would say They are mostly F-5s flown by the South Vietnamese AF (VNAF) - the yellow and black checked fuselage stripe is the give away. AFAIK the F-5C was the USAF designation for the Skoshi project which had an AAR pipe off the port side of the canopy - which I assume were removed before transfer to the VNAF in 1967 - but the designation always seems to be F-5A for the VNAF service. They did have F-5Es and F-5Fs as well - but cant tell if there are any on here - anything with wingtip tanks is an F-5A/C.

Anything as long as you don't fly behind them in a straight line - Track IR is a real bonus to help with this - you can fly across the formation or up and down in the vertical - take practice though.

Well it does work - what path are you putting the extracted files into? - specifically viewlist.ini

That's just hilarious - all that work to end up with a massive high observable interceptor.

I change this in the cockpit.ini (a-6A_cockpit.ini) for the jets I have with bubble canopies: [CockpitSeat001] ModelName=A-10A_pit.LOD Offset=0.0,0.1,0.0 Position=0.0,4.34,1.17 ViewAngles=0.0,0.0,0.0 MaxYaw=179 <-----degrees MinYaw=-179 <-----degrees Then in Viewlist.ini In each class find these entries (apply to all jets globally) LimitPitch=FALSE -----> look up down - FALSE allows more freedom so I use it LimitYaw=TRUE ------> Set to FALSE to enable 180 all round - I keep this limited myself so I cant cheat in jets with a poor rear view. LimitRoll=FALSE You also need to disable trueview in TrackIR for zooming out properly at angles

Well there are a lot of WIPs - like in every sim - somebody has to actually make them for free you know! This is being cooked:

As far as this book goes the US had quite a few MiG-23MS (Flogger E) - downgraded export versions with **** avionics. The evaluation of this model was carried out in HAVE PAD - but in this book they summarize it as having turning performance similar to the non slatted F-4E with the same smoky engine problem the J79 had - basically an interceptor only - but very quick acceleration was better than any US jet at the time it claims. The USSR would have been using the second generation MiG-23ML/MLD by then - the MLD in particular incorporated mods to take account of the kicking received in 82 - and was probably a vastly different beast according to the attached. SovietMig23_View.pdf

.

Well people have to contribute if they want better models - people are trying:

Whatever sim you fly - there will be bits that other sims do better or have more of or.....whatever - there is no perfect sim out there - but a lot of people getting exited about things that may or may not happen. Different AI (SF2 good at turning gun fights, F4 good at BVR) Terrains (SF2 has 5 stock and a ton of add ons) 3D models (SF1/2 has a set Falcon 4 can only dream of at the moment) Flight models (Missile FMs in DCS basic, Only a few Jets with HFFMs in F4/DCS ) Graphics (SF2 DX10 - but DCS terrain engine looks better and far superior) Avionics (SF2 really basic) Campaigns (SF2/F4 have dynamic) Mutiplayer (SF2 um...) Time required (SF2 very little) Amount of cold war 3D Pits (SF2 FTW) Cold War setting (SF2.....only) I'm sure you could start a thread with the differences in.................

Not totally true - The second phase of the Skoshi project (Designation was F-5C with the Mods) included CAPs over North Vietnam, and Strike missions over the North as well (claimed in F-5 Tigers over Vietnam - A.Tambini) I wasn't disputing the claims - but making the point that G is a another variable figure that people seem to take at face value (like top speed ) without taking into account the other factors involved during manouveres. I am reading Americas Secret MiG Squadron at the moment (G.Peck) - which is the authors recollection of the declassified (2006) Constant Peg program that ran from 1979 to 1988. They operated mostly early and export MiGs (17/21/23) - all the MiG-21s were MiG-21F-13s it seems. The only instrument change they made across all of them was to replace the Altimeter (for one in Feet) and speedometer (For one in Knots) - because as you say its very difficult to interpret metric in a combat situation when bought up on imperial and vice versa. (but as said above maybe less problematic for test pilots) Constant Peg was primarily about dogfighting and teaching US flyers how to fight them - Its an interesting read - Some of the 1v1 dogfights like the AV-8B Vs MiG-21F-13 and another where the author in a single MiG-17F takes on 4 x F-4Es make good reading......

No one would believe it?

.Well errr - you might want to define what you mean by agility! - this might be true at certain speeds and altitudes (that you don't mention) - If you actually look at the Have Drill comparisons - the charts list that the F-5 was the only in theatre jet evaluated (F-8 was also compared) that had a superior turn rate (do we assume horizontal only??) under 450KIAS to the MiG-17 - so does that not make it more agile to the F-8 in the lower speed regime! - or are we talking about specific versions? To add to the above - I have an account from an Israeli Mirage pilot where after pulling out of dive in combat and nearly blacking out the G meter was stuck at 12G - so does that mean its a 12 G rated airframe? No it means that for very short periods of time Aircraft can sometimes be subjected to high G forces and still be in a state to fly (although be interesting to know if the frame was written off!!). Now how long could that 12G pull last before the wings fell off? - An airframe designed and rated to 12G should be fine though (baring any design assumptions as per the F-104G etc ).

I would look carefully and go with Toryu on this one - because at lower altitudes the published top speed difference is probably next to nothing (Also note the MiG-19 is nearly always clean). Production jets seldom go anywhere near their published top speeds (which were normally taken by a clean light airframe) - the time taken to get there and the amount of actual fuel they have are limiting factors. Say you enter a merge at 5kft, 500TAS and the MiG-19 enters at 530TAS (which it can do) - who has the advantage? - thats right neither - it all depends on the next move - The MiG-19 has an initial energy advantage - but he might waste all that trying to turn - or maybe my wingman shoots the MiG down with Missiles, Or maybe the MiG keeps on going and by the time I turn around I cant catch him. IMO you should be less concerned about published figures, and more concerned about where (what state) you enter the fight to give you an advantage.

Has the F-16I featured in another combat sim?

http://www.thirdwire.com/man/sf2/Strike_Fighters_2.htm#Using the Radar on F-15A http://www.thirdwire.com/man/sf2/Strike_Fighters_2.htm#Using the Radar on F-14A http://www.thirdwire.com/man/sf2/Strike_Fighters_2.htm#Using the Radar Some of the modern day mods will probably allow you to fire multiple Active missiles (AIM-120 for example) using TWS - cant tell you which ones.

Yes the F-14A can if you have SF2NA - you can lock up multiple targets in TWS mode to guide multiple active AIM-54As to multiple bombers. STT (Single Target Track) is the mode the radar goes to when you have full lock on a single target only - this is the mode required to be able to guide a Semi Active missile like the AIM-7 where only one can be guided at any one time (although active missiles can still be fired at a single target locked in SST).

Try compressing to a zip file - or create a Dropbox account and stick a link to the public folder - really easy.

Wow - totally amazing work!

An EM chart for an F-8 is what you need - you should get a better idea of what altitudes and speeds the F-8 may be best at if you compare it against the MiG-21F-13 one from Have Doughnut. Then all you need is a flight sim that does HF flight models of both!

See area51specialprojects.com/video/have_doughnut_tactical.swf area51specialprojects.com/video/havedoughnut_technical.swf Its still too much of a generalization to me - where is the instantaneous turn better? in the 0 degrees horizontal only?, at what speed and altitude? and if the MiG-21 has missiles under the wings and the F-8 is clean, the MiGs advantage might be cancelled out for example - in combat 2 platforms are unlikely to meet up in exact configurations. There is a chart in that lot for an F-4D (4 x Aim-7s + 50% fuel) vs Fishbed C (2 x Atolls and 50% fuel) - this is near the level of detail you want - however the performance changes if you change the stores and amount of fuel both have - so what 1 may be good at under one set of parameters - the other platform might be best under another set. For example over Vietnam the F-4D might have jettisoned its stores because a MiG-21F was about (with 2 x Atolls) - but the F-4D now has 4 AIM-7s, 2 x AIM-9s and a Gun Pod all creating extra drag and weight and thus totally invalidating the chart - because the MiG-21F is potentially far more agile against that than the analysis suggests.