MigBuster

Here is another recent one

F-16: The Shattered Dream The F-16 was designed from the outset as a pure Air to Air fighter, but what eventually went into production wasn’t quite the envisioned dream. The dream was partly from renowned aircraft designer Harry Hillaker at General Dynamics,who in the mid 1960s spent many of his spare hours designing the aircraft of his dreams – “a lightweight, high-performance jet that could fly circles around all other fighters”. He got to work with a group of people that got dubbed the Fighter Mafia on what was eventually to be to be a “best effort” technology demonstrator for the USAF. The Fighter Mafia? Hillaker stated there were three core members of the Fighter Mafia, namely John Boyd, Pierre Sprey and himself. They had ideas that went against the grain of the USAF upper echelons at the time and they wanted a lower cost, lightweight Air to Air fighter. [1] There were other protagonists but regardless of who they were the Light Weight Fighter (LWF) would not have happened without their influence in the Pentagon. John Boyd Ex fighter pilot John Boyd who also now worked at the Pentagon had recently been applying his work on E-M theory to the design of the F-15. However he had in his mind a concept for a Light Weight Fighter (LWF) and he sat down with Hillaker and they started to put ideas together. Much has been written about Boyd but what we can say is that he was very well respected by most for his achievements, however he upset a lot of the establishment at the time which may have ultimately gone against him. In 1975 the Air Force awarded Boyd the Dr Harold Brown award (the highest scientific achievement granted by the Air Force), with a citation stating how E-M was used in designing the F-15 and F-16.[9] Pierre Sprey On the opposite end of the achievement spectrum was this guy, yes the same one that you may have seen recently on RT (Russia Today) going under the title of “F-16 designer” or even “creator of the F-16” (taking credit for dead peoples work……classy Pierre). [13] Pierre Sprey was at the time a civilian Defence Analyst (with no military background) at the Pentagon and his involvement in the F-16 seems to have been minimal. It consisted of collecting data on aircraft reliability, effectiveness and cost and analysing the data with Hillaker and Boyd. [1] Corams Book, “Boyd” makes out the inlet in the F-16 was positioned where it was due to a suggestion by Sprey [14]. Unsurprisingly this appears to be patently false.[21] Described by others who worked at the Pentagon at the time as a Luddite[28] and a gadfly[2] his name is regretfully part of this history. Was the LWF to be a day time only Visual / WVR fighter? yes and no! The USAF design goals for the LWF demonstrators stated only clear Weather and, day conditions with capability to be upgraded later to all weather & all light conditions. The Fighter Mafia didn’t want radars in the LWF did they? Corams Boyd [9] makes out the addition of a large ground mapping radar was a change not wanted, whereas Michel III [26] makes out the USAF added a Pulse Doppler radar that the Fighter Mafia completely opposed. Other available information suggests that Boyd did not want a Radar in the F-16 due to his experience of small radars in single man jets in the 1960s. A valid point at the time because they were very limited without a dedicated RIO/WSO as found in the F-4. He likely was surprised at how good the APG-66 was due to rapid advances in computing technology. [6] According to Herb Hutchinson, Boyd eventually agreed that the added capability to the F-16 was cost effective and mission effective. So the LWF was never going to get a radar or AIM-7 right? Err false……at the point the LWF prototypes were being built (now designated YF-16), they had provisions for AIM-7 and a bigger avionics package than was specified for the LWF requirements [7], and this was long before the USAF got their paws on it. If the LWF concept went into production it almost certainly (politics permitting) would have had AIM-7 and an APG-66 type FCR regardless, even if the radar had only A-A modes. In 1974 the USAF specified instructions to General Dynamics and Northrop near the end of the LWF project for the missionized USAF Air Combat Fighter they wanted. This included: “Air-to-air armament includes the carriage of four AIM-9J/L missiles, an M61 A1 20 mm cannon with 500 rounds capacity, and Group A provisions for carriage of two radar-guided missiles (replacing two AIM-9J/L IR missiles).” But the YF-16 had a tiny nose and no radar? It is important to ignore what the YF-16 looked like because it was a quick build technology demonstrator. It must be clarified that one of the YF-16s actually did have a radar[20] required for testing the Vulcan cannon. Some may be aware that the F-4A (F4H-1F) also received a complete nose job from block 3 to accommodate a larger radar.[25] Okay so why then did the production F-16A not carry the AIM-7 from the off? This one is less of a mystery but has been intertwined and confused with Fighter Mafia ideas and the LWF concept. Officially the USAF simply had no requirement for AIM-7s on the F-16A so they were never put on. General Dynamics did conduct proof of concept AIM-7 firing tests in November 1977, including conformal fuselage carriage, but no effort was made to develop this because it wasn’t required. [5] Unofficially and sadly it was 100% politics. There were zero technical reasons why the production F-16A didn’t carry AIM-7 from IOC in 1980, however there was a big political reason likely involving the F-15 and sources outside of Coram do verify this: Air Force four-star generals had ordered him not to put a Sparrow missile on the F-16 because they didn’t want it competing directly with the F-15.[3]. This consensus also being backed up by one of the initial Viper cadre in the late 1970s: “The lack of a radar missile capability for the Viper was pure politics. The radar was modified quite cheaply in late 70's to use the thing. Small CW antenna in the radome and a tuning doofer in the RIU, and presto!” [4] Myth of the simple Fighter Compared to the F-15 the F-16 was actually a far more technologically advanced design with far higher risk. This was down to several factors: · The F-15 was the first fighter to be procured in years by the USAF and was very costly, so McDonnell Douglas favoured a lower risk approach. [1] · To get the range and performance required for the size, the F-16 had to use a full on cutting edge Fly By Wire computer system and be longitudinally unstable. Such was the risk the design team had provisions for mounting the wing further back if the FBW system didn’t work with a penalty in range and performance degradation. [1] YF-16 wins the fly off but then what? After the fly off in 1974, the YF-16 was considered the better aircraft simply because it met the combat relevant tasks set by the USAF, whereas the YF-17 did not. Lower cost and the decision to use the F100-PW engine (also used in the F-15) no doubt also went in its favour. Once accepted the F-16 design was then handed to the US Air Force Configuration Control Committee (CCC) led by ex fighter pilot Alton Slay. Here the LWF concept was killed and a slight redesign turned the F-16 into the “multirole” fighter the USAF wanted with an emphasis on the A-G role. [2] What is clear is that they enlarged the fuselage to add more fuel (to retain the range) and increased the wing area from 280sqft to 300sqft (to retain some manoeuvrability), the horizontal tail and ventral stabilisers were also enlarged [8]. What is less clear is the various amounts of weight that was added. [15] Boyd it seems did not agree that 300sqft was a big enough increase to retain the original manoeuvrability and spent considerable effort to get it increased to 320sqft but alas failed to get this changed – he blamed the F-15 and politics as part of the USAF decision. [9] A multirole F-16? When the F-16A first rolled off the production line, despite being bigger it was actually lighter than the Prototype YF-16 used in the flyoff (which was just a quicky build tech demonstrator). [8] It was however not the LWF the mafia had hoped for and was never designed for carrying loads of bombs and external ECM pods. Hillaker stated that if he had designed the F-16 as a multirole jet as the USAF wanted to use it he would have designed it differently. The Harry Hillaker F-16 design with emphasis on A-G was the excellent if underpowered F-16XL. [1] F-16XL - Fly super jet fly! (f-16.net) Okay so was having no AIM-7 capability a problem? F-16s would not see operational AIM-7 capability till around 1989 on the USAFs F-16A ADF [16]. The AIM-7 was only certified on the F-16C post 1992 by General Dynamics who had to fund it themselves. The AIM-7 was never part of the USAF F-16 plan at all and the F-16 ADF really was a one off. It seems the AIM-120 was hoped to be in service by 1985. The first "guided" F-16 AMRAAM launch took place in 1985 however operational service was delayed six or so years. This sounds like criminal negligence on behalf of the USAF because with no AIM-7 but still a major A-A role for USAF flyers in the Cold War it didn’t sound like a great deal for the flyers. There was some saving grace however, being the 1980s there were a lot of ways around the relatively primitive radar and missile technology of the era [22] and the F-16 despite the enforced lower performance was still in some respects superior to the F-15 close in. [23]. In the 1994 William Tell Air Superiority competition both participating Air National Guard units flying F-16A ADFs finished top and wiped the floor with five regular USAF F-15C units. This was not a surprise to anyone in the F-16 community. So what would a LWF F-16A look like if the USAF had accepted it in an alternate reality? · Smaller with 280sqft wing area and less fuel (but similar range). · Around 13000 lb empty weight. [15] · Engine: Same F100-PW-200. · Avionics: APG-66 with nose enlargement, RWR. · AIM-9, AIM-7 and Cannon armament. · Drop tanks. Hillaker stated he thought if the F-16 had gone to production as intended then only about 300 would have been procured by the USAF………..just like the F-104.[1] Were the USAF right to do a half arsed redesign on it? History would say they were. It was more useful because A-G is where most of the action has been and despite the lower A-A performance it turned out to be more than good enough in the A-A role. New F-16s still roll off the production line in 2016 (nearly 40 years of continuous production) and the F-16 is still seen as a benchmark design to compare others to, so can’t be too bad. It wasn’t all roses though - with the “Multirole” F-16 the USAF had plans to add everything but the kitchen sink to it over time, to the inevitable point where they had structural failure at Block 30 when trying to wedge such things as LANTIRN onto it [24]. That meant the structure had to be totally redesigned at Block 40/42 and accounts for much of the weight increase at those and later blocks due to the effort to turn it into a bomber (Switching to the F-16XL might have been less hassle after all!). Later projects to improve performance on the production F-16 were also cancelled, notably Agile Falcon [17] in the late 1980s (to make the wing bigger - kinda similar to what Boyd suggested originally) and Multi Axis Thrust Vectoring (MATV) [18] in the early 1990s. Getting old and fat The production F-16 got fatter and fatter so here is a very simple chart that shows Wing loading increase over time. And the F-16 today The F-16E may have the highest Wing Loading on the chart but it is no doubt the best production F-16 for real combat today (before the F-16V upgrades take place). AESA radar, sensor fusion, internal ECM suite, towed decoys, FLIR, and CFTs for extra range……..all the important parameters of a fighter today require space in the airframe……..so not completely suited to a LWF concept……….. But it was a nice dream while it lasted…………… References: [1] Interview: Harry Hillaker - Father Of The F-16 http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=135 (Accessed 2016) [2] (Michel III, M.L, 2006) THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM [3] Retired General Mike Loh who worked on Alton Slays USAF CCC team: In June 1972, the Air Force had sent Loh to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for a master’s degree in aeronautical engineering and assigned him to the prototype office at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio to manage the budget, contracts, and overall engineering for the Lightweight Fighter. When the F-16 was selected, the Air Force formed a system program office at Wright-Patterson, where Loh signed on as director of projects, with the responsibility to integrate the avionics and weapons systems on the airplane. But he was in a quandary. Air Force four-star generals had ordered him not to put a Sparrow missile on the F-16 because they didn’t want it competing directly with the F-15. But they didn’t say anything about inventing a new missile. “I pursued a lightweight radar missile very quietly, as an advanced development project, with no strings to the F-16 or any other fighter,” Loh says. “I worked quietly with missile contractors and the Air Force Development Test Center at Eglin to put together radar missile designs that could fit on Sidewinder stations. This initiative later turned into AMRAAM, the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile.” (Bjorkman. E, 2014 ) The Outrageous adolescence of the F-16, Air and Space Magazine http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Outrageous-Adolescence-of-the-F-16-241533731.html (Accessed 2015) [4] “The lack of a radar missile capability for the Viper was pure politics. The radar was modified quite cheaply in late 70's to use the thing. Small CW antenna in the radome and a tuning doofer in the RIU, and presto!” http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8478&hilit=Boyd+love&start=15 Pat “Gums” McAdoo http://www.f-16.net/interviews_article28.html [5] Information provided by GD engineer **John G Williams [6] “ I will add that JB was totally against putting a radar in the Viper, as the radars he was familiar with (and that would have fit in the nose) were pretty useless and for the most part was weight he felt the F-16 could do without. I suspect he was surprised with how good the radar turned out to be (although still very weak compared to the Eagle)”. [Roscoe retired USAF Fighter Pilot] http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=8478&hilit=Boyd+love&start=15 [7] Although the LWF requirement specified only minimal electronics , the design team recognized that an operational aircraft would probably require a heavier and more bulky avionics package. The decision was made to size the aircraft to carry heat-seeking Sidewinder missiles plus an M61 cannon, but to make provisions to allow Sparrow radar-homing missiles to be carried at a later date should this be required. F-16 Design Origins, Code One Magazine http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=131 (Accessed 2015) [8] “ I was a structural engineer on the YF-16 and F-16 flight test teams, so was familiar with weights at the time. Forty years is too long to remember all the numbers, but when the F-16 was in early flight test, I did a weight comparison between the two and was very surprised to find the F-16 empty weight was less than the YF-16. So, the YF-16, designed for 6.5g at 14900 lb was heavier than the F-16, designed for 9g at 22,500 lb. Don't confuse the design weight as the actual weight, two totally different things. Here's why the YF-16 was heavier. First, it had a much larger structural margin. meaning it was designed for 25% overload capability, because no 150% static test was performed. Second, it was not a refined structural design, either design loads or stress analysis. If there was any doubt about load or stress, it was made a little heavier. Third, manufacturing processes were not refined. It was built as cheaply as possible. Remarkable, when you consider the added g and design weight, larger wing, horizontal tail, and ventral fins, and longer fuselage of the F-16, in addition to an 8,000 hour service life.” [John G Williams**] http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25121&p=266379#p266379 [9] (Coram. R, 2004 ) Boyd: the Fighter Pilot that changed the art of war [13] Some of these gems are captured around 36:03 on this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HVY6Fdc2CM [14] (Coram. R, 2004 ) Boyd: the Fighter Pilot that changed the art of war p246. [15] Source [2] (Michel III) claims 2 tons (4000 lbs) and source [9] (Coram) claims 3000 lbs. Simply using the same wingloading value as Boyd wanted at 320sqft but for a 280sqft design gives around 13000 lbs so may as well go with that. [16] F-16A ADF http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article14.html [17] Agile Falcon http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article21.html (Camm F) The F-16 Multinational Staged Improvement, RAND N3619. [18] F-16 MATV http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article19.html (Accessed 2016) Thrust Vectoring in the real world, Code 1 Magazine http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=163 (Accessed 2016) [19] Egyptian Block 32 with AIM-7 http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article4.html (Accessed 2016) Note: this is not for certain because according to General Dynamics (Lockheed Martin) the AIM-7 was only certified on the F-16CD in 1989. [20] “ I am not sure where the false story of no radar on the YF-16 started, but I guarantee you it was there. It was not a radar like you might expect, with a scanning antenna inside the radome and a glowing, flickering screen in the cockpit, but it was a radar nonetheless. The function of the radar was to provide range-only information for the gun sight. Although I'm not certain, I seem to recall only one of the airplanes had a gun, as a cost saving measure. If so, only one airplane would have had the radar system.” [John G Williams**] “Confirming that only the second prototype had a ranging radar installed, the Solid State Range-Only Radar (SSR-1) developed at General Electric, AESD, Utica, New York. “ [http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA041197 ] http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=28763&p=312806#p312806 (Accessed 2016) [21] The General Dynamics team also studied several different air intake configurations before settling on the final air intake located underneath the nose. The ventral location for the intake was chosen to minimize the sensitivity of airflow into the engine to high angles of attack. At a 20-degree AoA, the local flow direction to a ventral intake was only ten degrees below datum, as compared to 35 degrees in the case of side-mounted inlets. The design team had actually started with a chin-mounted Crusader-type intake, but it was gradually pushed further and further back to save weight until the process finally had to be halted to keep the intake ahead of the nosewheel. There are some disadvantages to such an air intake location --- the mounting of the inlet underneath the fuselage is potentially dangerous to ground personnel and appears at first sight to invite foreign object damage (FOD) to the engine by the ingestion of stones and other runway debris into the intake. However, it avoids the gun gas ingestion problem, and since the nosewheel is further back, it avoids nosewheel-induced FOD. In order to save weight and complexity, the geometry of the intake was fixed. F-16 LWF http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article4.html (Accessed 2016) [22] (Anderegg C.R, ) SIERRA HOTEL FLYING AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IN THE DECADE AFTER VIETNAM, Chapter 17 [23] “Throughout the book I have attributed credit where it is due. However, many statements in the book are my own. For example, in the last chapter I write that the F–16 is a better day, visual dogfighter than the F–15. F–15 pilots who read that statement will howl with anger. Sorry, Eagle pilots, but I flew the F–15 for over ten years, and that’s the way I see it.” (Anderegg C.R, ) SIERRA HOTEL FLYING AIR FORCE FIGHTERS IN THE DECADE AFTER VIETNAM “If my memory serves me right, our pair won the 2v2 training session, but in a 1 v1 scenario, the Baz was no match for the Netz. The latter jet has to be the worlds best WVR fighter platform.“ [baz [F-15] pilot Yorem Peled ] (Aloni, S, 2006) IDF/AF Israeli F-15 Eagle units in Combat, Osprey [24] “There was a total re-engineering of block 40 structure following a static test failure of a block 30 airframe. Test failure was at 137% of limit load, well short of the 150% requirement. Patches applied to block 30 airplanes allowed those airplanes to continue flying. Airplane weight had increased with each block from block 1 on and it finally caught up with the true capability. So Block 40 was essentially a new structure, much stronger than previous blocks. The block 40 LANTIRN installation was also a big driver in redesign because it drove the CG forward. That shift required more down tail trim load, increasing fuselage, tail, and wing loads. So block 25 structure is not close to the block 40 or 50 structure in static or durability capability.” [John G Williams**] http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=27459&p=299748#p299748 (Accessed 2016) [25] F-4A http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f4_2.html (Accessed 2016) [26] the Configuration Control Committee ordered it equipped with a small but highly capable pulse Doppler radar, something the Critics had adamantly opposed. (Michel III, M.L, 2006) THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS: HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM [28] Retired General Mike Loh: Loh says that each Fighter Mafia member had a different agenda. “Boyd was unquestionably the leader and dominated the crusade. His motivation was to vindicate his EM theory, and he wasn’t concerned about any mission beyond close-in air-to-air combat. He spent hours debating anyone who challenged his views.” On the other hand, General Dynamics [Author: Pentagon not GD! ] system analyst Pierre Sprey “was a true Luddite, opposed to any advanced technology,” says Loh. “His agenda was to produce the cheapest fighter for daytime air combat in Europe against Warsaw Pact forces.” (Bjorkman. E, 2014 ) The Outrageous adolescence of the F-16, Air and Space Magazine http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/The-Outrageous-Adolescence-of-the-F-16-241533731.html (Accessed 2015) **John G Williams was a structural flight test engineer at General Dynamics, and worked on programs including the YF-16, F-16, F-16XL and F-2A.

I have had a look as well - Russ had started one here http://combatace.com/topic/75027-my-projects/ Last year I got this 2015 book which is done out in Yefim style technical detail...so it is pretty comprehensive:( Camms Last Fighter Projects ) http://www.aviationbookcentre.com/military__jet_era/hawker_p1103__p1121_camms_last_fighter_projects/16533_p.html

Just the B-2 hey...you certainly now how to fly under the radar

DCS: F-5E Tiger II Out of Early Access This past week Belsimtek resolved the remaining issues to bring the Tiger II out of Early Access status. These included: Inverted spins have been simulated UHF radio - Hinged access door will now open AIM-9 tone will not be heard if both wingtips are gone Landing gear audible warning will be heard when warning test switch is enabled TACAN channel selector animation has been corrected Fixed RWR sound issues with new contacts Wing bend and twist due to G-loads has been corrected Changing TACAN channel will not interrupt current radio chat Input: Added some axis commands for TDC, rudder trim, lights etc. With an F-5E air start, the aircraft will be trimmed to the assigned speed like it is implemented for all other aircraft Aileron limiter now disabled at cold start Single player missions added Added inert and training stores Added wing damage with high G overload Drag chute cannot be fully deployed without an airstream Drag chute model corrected Belsimtek has (as always) done an amazing job with this aircraft and exemplifies the high level of quality and detail that DCS World modules bring. With the Tiger II exiting Early Access, we are celebrating this with a sale and two bundle deals! Between today at 1500 GMT and lasting until Monday, 21 November, purchase the Tiger II at 20% off. DCS E-Shop DCS: F-5E Tiger II Sale and Bundle Deals We are also offering two new bundles with 40% off: DCS: F-5E Tiger II + DCS: NEVADA Test and Training Range Map DCS: F-5E Tiger II + DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 These bundle deals start today at 1500 GMT and last until Monday, 14 November at 0900 GMT. Get them in Special Offers section DCS World 1.5.5 from Open Beta to Release Version Last week we released the Open Beta version of DCS World 1.5.5. You can read the changelog on the forum here. Based on both internal and external testing, we have decided to move version 1.5.5 from Open Beta to the release version today. You can download the complete installer from DCS site. If you already have DCS World 1.5 installed, please either run 1.5 to start the updater or manually update by selecting Update DCS World from your Windows Start Menu / Eagle Dynamics. DCS World 2.5 Update We have determined that the DCS World 2.5 update will not be available in 2016 as we had earlier hoped. This is mainly due to additional work needing to be done of the Caucasus map update, and we don't feel it can be accomplished within the next two months at a high level of quality. Before we can complete this map update, we first need to finalize and release both the Nevada map update and the Normandy map. Those, along with the Spitfire, are now our highest priorities. Once the Nevada update and the Normandy map tasks are complete, our map team can return to the Caucuses map and move the 2.5 closer to an Open Beta release. Also, please note that official information is only passed along through our Newsletter and press releases. Hornet Update As with the DCS World 2.5 update, it was also decided last week that the Hornet Early Access will be pushed beyond our original desire to release by the end of this year. As mentioned a couple of weeks ago, we are now very busy coding the various cockpit systems and flight dynamics. However, as this work continues and we acquire new information, the level of complexity has become more apparent and it will take more time than first estimated. When we do have significant news on the project to share, we will certainly do so. Once the Early Access for this project goes into pre-purchase, we will announce its release date then. Sincerely, The Eagle Dynamics Team

Well I voted Trump in this forum poll Ran his campaign more like a TV show and just didn't seem to care about the things he said.......the votes still rolled in. Sure it will be fine..........

Dont know much about that fly off myself, sounds like something else to research thanks. Were you not part of the YF-23 project at the time?

For half a century, this tough flying pick-up truck served the US Marine Corps with distinction. Carleton Forsling gave us the low-down on flying the Phrog, including his experiences in the unforgiving conditions of the fighting in Afghanistan. https://hushkit.net/2016/10/24/the-phrog-of-war-flying-the-ch-46/

DCS: Spitfire LF Mk. IX Available for Pre-Purchase on 3 November 2016 We are happy to announce that DCS: Spitfire LF Mk IX will be available for pre-purchase from our E-Shop starting 3 November 2016 for $39.99 USD. Spitfire in the DCS E-Shop Pre-purchase the Spitfire and receive a 20% discount on its 16 December 2016 $49.99 USD release price. The Vickers Supermarine Spitfire is arguably the most iconic fighter aircraft of World War II. Famous for its role in the Battle of Britain, the Spitfire served as Britain’s primary fighter during the entirety of the war. The Spitfire combines graceful lines, eye-watering dogfight performance, and heavy firepower in its later variants. For DCS World, we are happy to bring you the most accurate and realistic simulation of the Spitfire LF Mk IX ever created. The aircraft has been tested extensively by current Spitfire pilot Nick Grey and is unmatched in fidelity and detail. The Spitfire Mk IX was originally developed as a stopgap measure as a response to the appearance of the Focke-Wulf FW 190A. The Spitfire IX is powered by the Merlin 66. This engine produces its best performance at slightly lower altitudes than the older Merlin 61. Spitfires equipped with this engine were designated LF Mk IX. This was the most numerous version of the Mk IX, with 4,010 produced. The majority of Mk IXs of all types used the standard "c" wing, which would often carry two 20mm cannon and four .303in machine guns. The Mk IX replaced the Mk V from June 1942. It allowed the RAF to go back onto the offensive in occupied Europe, and resume the "circus", "ramrod" and "rodeo" raids. Its first combat success came on 30 July 1942, when a Spitfire Mk IX shot down a Fw 190. Amongst other notable achievements, the Mk IX took part in the highest altitude combat of the Second World War, when it intercepted a Ju 86R at 43,000 feet over Southampton on 12 September 1942. On 5 October 1944 Spitfire Mk IXs of 401 Squadron were the first allied aircraft to shoot down an Me 262 Jet. The Mk IX remained in service until the end of the war, even after the appearance of the Griffon powered Mk XIV. It is considered by many combat pilots as the greatest aircraft of the war and a personal favourite of Johnnie Johnson, Britain's leading ace of WWII with 34 confirmed kills and 700 operational sorties, the vast majority on Spit IXs. Key Features of DCS: Spitfire LF Mk IX Unmatched flight and ground handling physics that allow you to truly feel what it's like to operate this legend Highly detailed, six-degrees-of-freedom (6 DOF) cockpit Interact with cockpit controls with your mouse Accurate Spitfire LF Mk IX model, squadron markings, and weapons Detailed modelling the Spitfire LF Mk IX instruments, weapons, engine, radios, fuel, and electrical systems Fly with fellow P-51D Mustangs as you battle Fw 190 D-9s and Bf 109 K4s in single and multiplayer dogfights Instant Action and Single Missions Interactive training missions Campaign (for final release) Selectable options of elliptical or clipped wing variants (for final release) Bonus Week Special Continuing from last week and lasting until 8 November at 0900 GMT, we are offering a huge 60% savings using bonus points many fantastic products. Please visit to DCS E-Shop DCS World 1.5.5 Open Beta Soon we will be releasing the 1.5.5 Open Beta update to DCS World. Once we feel that any "Showstopper" bugs have been resolved, we will release it as the public version. Some of key features of this update include: Tactical Markers for F10 Map At the request of virtual pilots, we have implemented an option to add markers to F10 map while in a mission. Using a new button on the F10 map toolbar, any player can add his or her mark to the map with a brief description. Thus, you can mark a point or target or landmark on the map, and all the players from your coalition will immediately see it. For example: you could mark targets for the next sorties on the map that could then be assigned to coalition members. Thus, online gameplay becomes much more interactive and makes it possible to develop teamwork under the conditions of rapidly changing environment. Su-27 Incorrect indication of fuel quantity when start in air has been fixed Flight control system with AOA and G-limiter has been adjusted Autopilot has been adjusted Tires strength has been adjusted UH-1H A new option has been added that allows you to now choose different control modes of using TrackIR and mouse together to control the machine gun and door gunner with no need for manually adjustment mouse axis and TrackIR settings F-5E Tail spin has been modified (nature of the aircraft spin entry has been specified) Inverted spin has been simulated Critical engine operation modes at the spin entry have been simulated Radar operation under the conditions of active jamming has been simulated Presentation of the ground clutter on the radar display has been simulated An option to adjust visibility of the target mark using the VIDEO switch under conditions of ground declutter has been added RWR operation simulation has been improved (audible signals from various threats depending on the type of threat operation mode and missile launch signal have been added) The radar beam motion (B-Sweep) has been better simulated on the radar display There are also many other corrections and improvements. See in the Official Updates forum section. Sincerely, The Eagle Dynamics Team

Cheers guys You can find info into air intake position in ref [21] Note that what is good for one aircraft isn't always good for another...the initial design evaluated quite a few layouts including twin engines / twin tails / and even delta canard before settling on that design. The Ye-8 did have a similar mounted intake yes.............the Hawker P1121 and P1103 designs also did in the mid 1950s although they got stopped by a certain white paper........there may be others.

Pass on engine type https://fightersweep.com/6341/china-makes-huge-step-forward-j-20-debut-flyby/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=59&v=pPsWiJlJsrQ

Another vid here today http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/37831721

Bonus Week Special Starting today at 1500 GMT and lasting until 8 November at 0900 GMT, we are offering a huge 60% savings using bonus points many fantastic products. This bonus special applies to the following DCS World products: DCS: F-5E Tiger II by Belsimtek DCS: A-10C Warthog DCS: M-2000C by RAZBAM DCS: L-39 Albatros DCS: Flaming Cliffs 3 Su-27 for DCS World F-15C for DCS World A-10A for DCS World Su-25 for DCS World DCS: MiG-15bis by Belsimtek DCS: F-86F Sabre by Belsimtek DCS: Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst DCS: Fw 109 D-9 Dora DCS: P-51D Mustang DCS: SA342 Gazelle by Polychop Simulations DCS: Mi-8MTV2 Magnificent Eight by Belstimtek DCS: UH-1U Huey by Belsimtek DCS: Black Shark 2 DCS: Combined Arms DCS: NEVADA Test and Training Range Map A-10C: 16-2 Red Flag Campaign F-15C: 16-2 Red Flag Campaign Black Shark 2: Republic Campaign Su-27: The Ultimate Argument Campaign P-51D: High Stakes Campaign A-10C: The Enemy Within Campaign A-10C: Basic Flight Training Campaign Please visit: DCS E-Shop DCS World War II Update Work continues at great speed on new elements of DCS World War II. Much of the work is focused on DCS: Spitfire LF Mk IX and the Normandy map, and both are, or will be soon, going into internal test! This is always a good sign that we are approaching an Early Access release. In addition to the Spitfire and WW II era map, we also continue working on new AI units to inhabit the map. Last week we had a look at the Tiger tank, this week we offer first looks at the Panther and a work-in-progress image of the B-17. DCS:NEVADA Test and Training Map Update In previous newsletters, we shared images of the new airfields coming to the NTTR map. In addition to the airfields though, we will also be adding many new small and large urban centers like St. George, Laughlin, Tonopah, Goldfield, Caliente, and many others. DCS:F/A-18C Hornet Update Although most of the art work is done for the Hornet (minus a few external stores), most of the current work involves the coding of the various systems and flight dynamics. In addition to that, we are also very busy with documentation and the refining design specification as we gather new information. Once the project gets closer to Early Access, we can start talking more about this project. DCS World 2.5 Update In addition to the Hornet, NTTR, and DCS WWII tasks, another high-priority task for us is wrapping up DCS World 2.5. The primary function of 2.5 will be to combine both 1.5 and 2.0 into a single executable and thereby being able to access all maps from a single program. We are close with the last two big items being the resolution of how we will render forests and trees in 2.5 and updating some of the old objects to our current format. Once those two items are addressed, we will start releasing some new images and videos of what is in store. Steam Sale Also starting today and lasting for the next four days, Steam is having a sale on all DCS World products, with a 30% discount! Visit:DCS World in Steam Sincerely, The Eagle Dynamics Team

Faced with such a mouth-watering menu of Soviet fighter projects that never entered service, it was almost painful to select a mere ten. https://hushkit.net/2016/09/01/10-incredible-soviet-fighter-aircraft-that-never-entered-service/

Yes one of the reasons the nose mounted air intake on jet fighters followed the TurboJet into history........for optimum airflow it clearly needs to be placed much further back. The Canards on the Ye-8 according to Yefim et al were either mechanically fixed or flowed freely with the airflow so it could only provide increased lift in some parts of the flight envelope over the PF (especially over M1.5 it appears). This is nothing like the Canards you might find on a Eurofighter where they are computer controlled along with all the other high lift devices using FBW to optimise lift and drag over the entire envelope. This is something you could not do at the time of the Ye-8....... but they did improve some basic agility metrics over the PF in some areas of flight due to the increased lift. The MiG-29/Su-27/F-16 also have fixed Canards of a sort..they are blended forebody strakes (sometimes called LERX) they can provide a large increase in lift but you don't get the drag or vibration issues suffered with uncontrolled Canards. When combined with FBW and the high lift LEF/TEF you get a significantly massive performance increase over conventional 3 Gen jets for the areas of flight they are designed for.

It is easy to read the YE-8 section in Yefim and completely misunderstand what is written for sure. All the data in there and what I have seen is at high altitude supersonic, including increased L/D and CL over the MiG-21PF so cant really dispute that without better data. The problem is that there is literally no relationship between this and the rest of its flight envelope especially when we are talking about subsonic lower altitudes. I don't know what temperature the data was recorded at but most late 50/60s interceptors (F-104, MiG-21PF / Lightning etc) could hit M2 at 49,000ft no problem. However there is not a production F-16 that can even get near M2 at 49Kft outside of a freak day in Siberia..only the downgraded F-16/79 could have even got there. Why do I say that....one massive factor is use of Turbojets that put out a lot more thrust at high altitude high Mach and a requirement as interceptors for high altitude performance...... The 4th Gen jets went with Turbofans which provide far better subsonic performance and fuel economy at lower altitudes where they are expected to spend 95% of their time.....so at M2.0 49Kft even the F-104 and MiG-21 can apparently pull higher G than an F-16. Here is maybe a good example.............. the F-16XL had a 25% higher L/D at supersonic over the F-16A.......but subsonic it totally reversed the F-16A had a 25% better L/D..............so making assumptions based on a few single data points at one part of the envelope only serves to mislead.

According to what exactly? there are quite a few reasons why I stated there is no comparison (assuming the German translation of agile is not something totally different.) Who has the performance data to compare......did they compare it against the MiG-29 9.12 and then come to some assumptions?

You might have to do with any alternate free versions you can find to download here for now until they are available for sale in your country. Please note that as trustworthy as someone may come across we do not recommend passing any financial details to anyone without some third party protection.

The Ye-8 was an improved MiG-21 derivative that was supposed to radically improve on the MiG-21PF interceptor.........hence the larger nose with a bigger radar. The performance improvements were at high altitude supersonic over the MiG-21......there is no comparison with an F-16 - that had totally different design goals.

After mastering the Lightning and Tornado, the RAF’s Ian Black volunteered to fly France’s hottest fighter, the superb Mirage 2000. Black explains what is was like to fly the ultimate Mirage, and how it fared in dogfights against the most formidable fighters of the 1980s. https://hushkit.net/2016/10/13/mirage-2000-pilot-interview-cutting-it-in-the-electric-cakeslice/

Posted today: Former F-16 pilot Nate “Buster” Jaros asks if the stealth and advanced technologies of the F-35 overshadow the need for nimble fighters. What he says might surprise you. https://fightersweep.com/6305/can-the-f-35-dogfight/

Keith Shiban flew the B-52 in the nuclear deterrent role, and in combat missions over Iraq. We asked for his assessment of a bomber pilot’s nightmare, the latest generation of fighter aircraft. His conclusion? He’s glad he’s retired! Over to Keith: “As an old bomber guy, I write about fighter planes the same way I would about grizzly bears, biker gangs, and mafia hit-men. I’m no expert on any of them. I just know I wouldn’t want one coming after me. So here is one aviation geek’s look at what’s out there today and what’s coming in the near future.” https://hushkit.net/2016/10/06/a-b-52-pilots-guide-to-modern-fighters/

The original article from Hanche is here (scroll down for the English version) http://nettsteder.regjeringen.no/kampfly/2016/03/01/f-35-i-naerkamp-hva-har-jeg-laert-sa-langt-the-f-35-in-a-dogfight-what-have-i-learned-so-far/

Some of this could be useful http://combatace.com/forum/268-thirdwire-strike-fighters-2-series-knowledge-base/page-3?prune_day=100&sort_by=Z-A&sort_key=last_post&topicfilter=all Also http://combatace.com/topic/44026-converting-older-planes-to-work-in-sf2-%E2%80%93-a-basic-guide-by-migbuster/

Available from BMS Forums Ladies and Gentlemen, on behalf of the entire BMS development team, I am happy to announce that the latest iteration of the Tommo Falcon 4.0 total conversion modification - Benchmark Sims 4.33 U2 - is available for you to enjoy as of RIGHT NOW! Update 2 is mainly a "bugfix" release, i.e. we focused on getting things more stable and consistent.