Sundog
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Sundog
-
-
The A-10's engines and the way they integrate with the tail is to block the "turbine-view" from the ground/tail area. The horizontal tail and the vertical tails work to block the engine exhaust area from the lower rear quadrant's.
As for a dogfight between the A-10 and the F-16, given the same skill level of pilots, it depends on where they are in the envelope. If the A-10 is at alt and engages the F-16's, I expect the F-16's to win with their superior vertical maneuvering capability. Because they're fighting in the F-16's element.
However, if they are in the A-10's part of the envelope, on the deck, I completely expect the A-10 to win. Basically because if the F-16's use a vertical fight they're likely to lawn dart. If the F-16 tries a low alt angles fight with the A-10, it probably still has a superior turn rate, but the A-10 definitely has the tighter turning radius and if the A-10 pilot can't keep up in the turn, he can reverse and meet the F-16 Head-on. That gives the F-16 pilot a chance of winning if he doesn't miss before an A-10 shell dismantles the F-16 and gives the A-10 pilot an advantage, because my understanding is the A-10's cannon is accurate to between 5000ft-8000ft, where as the F-16's cannon is only accurate to 2000ft-2500ft. Of course the same Vulcan cannon in the F-15 is accurate to around 5000ft. I don't know if that is due to the heavier mass of the F-15 providing better damping while firing, or due to a stiffer structure on the F-15, but it is interesting to note the difference.
As for the F-16 versus F-22 in a dogfight, the F-16 simply doesn't stand a chance. It doesn't have any advantages over the F-22, other than small size and maybe making the pilot of the F-22 lose track. In the "Red Flags" the F-22s have participated in, Red Flag Alaska and the last one in Nevada, the F-22's did make some guns kills, because they were out of missiles, but one F-22 was shot down by an F-16.
But the reason is funny, because it would never happen in reality. Due to the limited number of "Red Forces," in order to make their "regeneration" occur faster, the Red Forces just had to fly North past a certain point and then they automatically regenerated to rejoin the fight. The F-22 was shot down by one such Red Force F-16 because he, the F-22 pilot, thought it was already dead and hadn't regenerated yet. I'm quite sure there won't be any mistaking which planes are still flying and which have already been blown out of the skies in actual combat.
As for F-16 vs F-18 combat, my understanding has always been that as long as the F-16 pilot keeps his energy up, the F-16 pilot has the advantage. But in the close in maneuvering dogfight the F-18 has the advantage due to the F-16's limited Alpha capability.
Lastly, in the Tigermoth vs F-22 arena, I fully expect the Tigetmoth to win. This is due to the wily nature of the Tigermoth pilot who will get the F-22 on his six just before he flies through a barn just wide enough to clear the Tigermoth's wingspan. The Inertia of the F-22's mass may get it through the barn, but I expect the "new wingtips," or what's left of them, to be somewhat problematic in continuing the fight.
-
Oh, I missed you were talking about an X-Plane series. I request the X-4 and X-5 to go along with the X-3 as well
-
Yes, I agree. Two planes I fly in the Bush alot are the Beaver and the Super Cub. It's time we had a Twotter to the same quality.
-
Have avionics been placed in the back seat or is that a blind flying hood?
Beautiful pics and I would love to see an Aerosoft F-5 as well.
-
The main reason the X-3 never went supersonic was it developed too much drag. It was designed before Whitcomb's work on the area rule technique was known and as such, it developed a hell of alot of wave drag as it approached Mach unity.
As for the X-29, it was very unstable. I think the F-16 has 5% negative static stability at subsonic speeds, whereas the X-29 had 35% static instability. However, for FS, it could still be modeled like the F-16 has been. Just because the X-29 had 35% instability, I don't know what gains were designed into the Flight Control System (FCS) so it actually could be modeled, just make it as responsive as you would like.
Of course, for FS9/X, I don't think it would be a huge seller. I'm not saying I wouldn't enjoy it, though. I've thought of tackling an X-31 myself.
-
Back when I was doing online combat in Fighter Ace and Aces High, one of the guys in our squadron used to fly Bronco's over Nam. He even sent me a written description of the radio chatter he used to call in an airstrike (it was Huns being called for the strike).
So you could just make a "VC" position(s) and use the Bronco to mark the target(s) with the phospherous rockets and then we can watch the AI F-100s swoop in and Napalm the target area, right?
Of course, for scenery, I use Martin Strong's Thai Scenery and those made by other users to fly some of my Vietnam era iron out of. Not to mention, there are a bunch of cool airfields all over Thailand that have been modeled that make it a great area to fly around with a good freeware mesh (Available at Martin Strong's site). In the mountains in the north east, there is agreat little resort airfield, sort of like Aerosoft's in the Himalaya's, only much lower, where once you are final, you're landing or crashing because of the mountain in front of you.
-
Thanks BernhardS, That's sort of what I expected, but just wanted to be sure.
-
Just out of curiosity, How does Rome compare frame rate wise to Venice?
-
Alright! Now that's awesome, especially the part about being able to place the cutter anywhere we like.
-
Wow, that's looking excellent Mathijs. The online squadron I used to be in, one of the guys in it actually flew those over Nam in the FAC mission. Man, did he have some stories to tell.
I can't wait to see more of it.
It would be cool to see the long nosed version, IIRC, which was used by the marines with the chain gun for night ops.
-
Aircraft
A-10 Warthog
DHC2 Beaver
Seahawk
Scenery
Scandanavian Airports 2
Menorca
Manhatten
Life in Elba
Future Purchases
(Hopefully if my companies start making money and I get a real salary):
1) The Germany Series. They look like absolute must haves if you want alot of great airfields and scenery to fly across Germany.
2) The Catalina. I've been waiting a long time for a great Catalina for MSFS so it's good to know we will finally be getting one of high quality.
3) San Francisco. I must say, as posted elsewhere, Monaco would be really great as well. Don't forget the sunbathers on the boats/yachts anchored off the coast
Another scenery I would love to see would be a complete Sicily and/or Malta.
My favorites
-DHC2 Beaver, oddly enough, because I usually prefer the military jets.
- Life in Elba. I love the small communities to fly around and do some site seeing, especially if they are islands. Manhatten would probably be my favorite, but it taxes my system too much. That isn't a complaint, I am hoping to be able to afford more memory this year (From 256MB to 1 GB) as the main shortcoming on my system is not enough memory to store textures. Of course, if I do get the memory upgrade, their San Francisco with the Mega Scenery textures will probably become my favorite.
A New Simulator (May edition)
in English
Posted
I realize what I'm about to say is probably outside the scope of this project, but I had suggested it to the ACES team before and maybe it could be a long term goal of this project.
What I would like to see is not a flight simulator, but a world simulator. I think of it as creating the world first, and adding water that conforms to the surface at a set elevation, so that the water bodies have depth. Then adding the atmosphere, weather, etc. As someone mentioned earlier, in the long run, this could enable developers to develop their own worlds, but that isn't my main point.
After you've created the world, you make a "flight sim engine" module for it for people developing for flight sims. You could also add modules for car dynamics for racing sims and train dynamics for train simulators and a maritime module for ships and subs, etc. I realize we probably aren't there with the technology yet, but if this was designed from the beginning to incoporate these sort of add-ons down the road, I think that makes the ROI much better for the project, providing I'm not adding too much overhead at the start.
I would also like to have scenery classes/eras available. Meaning, right now, all of the buildings and man made objects and possible texture sets are in a single class that I can turn on and off. For instance, you may develop the "modern world" set, which is everything as it exists now. However, add on developers could create their own "era sets," such as a 1950's era or a 1930's era. As a user, I could then decide that if I'm going to fly an old Cessna, I want to fly it in the world in which it was originally developed in, instead of as an antique today.
Also, I do like the way the flight model is developed in X-Plane, but I prefer the visual models of MSFS much more. I think it would be great to combine the two, where the flight model would be developed like in X-Plane, but the visual models would be developed like they are now for MSFS and then just make the ref point the empty weight center of mass to coordinate the two, just for an idea.
EDIT: I forgot to add, I would also like to see a flight control reference scaling calibration screen. What I mean is, for when a developer designs a plane and uses a certain j/s to develop the flight model with, the ability to make the calibration of my j/s similar for that same plane would help out. For instance, I use a Saitek, but a friend still uses a ms js. He thinks the plane is too light in aileron and I think it's too heavy. But that might be because one degree movement of my js causes two degrees of aileron whereas one degree of his causes eight degrees of aileron. Someway to scale these effects, or calibrate, per plane, to a reference file made by the developer would probably be helpful, if it's doable.