Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mathijs Kok

Preview : The Fighting Falcon

Recommended Posts

I agree with VinFlyer that the topic has veered a little to the right (or wrong!). But for my last comment on computers, my next one's going to be a Mac Intel. With what Windows has done to my sanity over the last three years....I need that like I need a hole in the head. FS9 and FSX rusn great (better than most) on the Mac at terrific frame rates, and the hardware behind it is just too easy to work with not to take advantage of it. Plug it in, turn it on, it works. When did a PC do ever do that without extensive configuration.

'Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mathijs, I was wondering if the F16 will have a smoke system on the wingtips? If the answer is positive, is it possible to used it separately and also both of them?

Sound question: How realistic will the sound be? I mean the afterburner and the typical high sound when throttle is in idle? When you select the tower view, is it possible to record realistic increasingly engine sound like when you are on an air show? I ask that because most aircrafts for fs9 end fsx the sound is not aggressive and realistic enough. Is it even possible to increase the sound volume when the plane is in tower view mode?

Cockpit question: I assume gauges will be smooth and framerate friendly. I hope there will be a 2d and 3d cockpit with all the main and subpanels.

General questions? Will the F16 have an ejection seat, chute break with realistic effect? Is it possible to create the heat condense after the engine? See the picture below what I mean. Look at the middle right side after the afterburner.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=1220...next_id=1220695

Thanks for the answers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so ur suggesting a tigermoth could blow a F22 out of the skies if it has a good pilot in it? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Partially correct. A well trained pilot will have a better succes rate than a badly trained pilot. Having said that, the F-16 is more likely to win that dog fight, as is it more likely to win the dog fight with the A-10 as mentioned several posts back. Dog fighting is basically about energy management. The F-16 was designed for aerial combat, whereas the F-18 and A-10 where intended for ground attacks. The early versions of the F-16 could accelerate while climbing vertically (later and heavier versions can't do that anymore), the F-18 and A-10 wouldn't be able to match the performance of the F-16. So if I could choose, I would definitely prefer to be in the F-16.

Then about the earlier discussion on the engine protection of the A-10: The engines were not put where they are for protection of the engines themselves. They were positioned just in front of the tail section, so that the exhaust jet would pass in between the two vertical tail planes, this helps reduce the heat signature of the aircraft when seen from the front. That means that it is more difficult to shoot the A-10 out of the sky (with a Stinger missile for example), when it is coming straight at you.

The notion of the wing being in the way when a missile intercepts the A-10 is flaude, most missiles fly at supersonic speeds whereas the A-10 would have serious issues when flying supersonic (those wings were not designed for supersonic flight). So any missile could easily catch up with the A-10 from behind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that the engines where put there because of that huge cannon. because of that cannon i would be very hard to have an airscoop underneath like the F-16 does. and yes i think the

A-10 would have a descent amount of flutter at mach 1 :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are at the technical aspects here. Thats one portion of the cake.

But when your are in the plane, even when two pilots fight against

each other in the same type of aircraft, the tactical decision of the

combatants stand over all.

See. One man asked me: Can a Tiger Moth win against an F-22.

And I say: Yes it can. Each aircraft has its advantages and disadvantages.

When one aircraft shows the other aircraft openly its weak positions,

it will lose.

The Tiger Moth is SLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW, against the F22.

This is an advantage and disadvantage. The Tiger Moth should not try

to outclimb the F-22. This is Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad.

And the F-22 should not try to dogfight the moth in hilly terrain.

You understand? When you see you have only disadvantages in a

fight, you have to run. This is not weak. This is a warriors decision,

that knows he can beat the enemy better the next day.

But think: You dive your moth to a swarm of sitting birds on the ground.

When the F-22 arrives you fire some shots at the birds and hundreds

of them come up. Then the birds will land right in the jet compressor

and the F-22 becomes a sail plane.

Or better: Phone some guys on the ground with your handy that you

got company an they should pack out their shoulder fire sams.

The F-22 is a war plane, but war dont goes :I have that engine and

those firepower:. It goes: What possibilities do I have and how to use

them. See: The NearEast-Resistance dont have any Airplanes. But

they down F-16s, Apaches and so on.

That would be: Pedestrian and F-16. And dont tell me F-16s wins every-

time against them.

th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er first off all u should try typing without the white lines, saves a lot of space :)

and secondly: i wouldndt see you blasting an F-22 ou of the sky with a moth caus is doesnt even have the aquired firepower ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can a Tiger Moth win against an F-22.

And I say: Yes it can.

Agreed, given the right circumstances a great pilot could probably down an F-22, but honestly that would be the strangest dog fight ever.

It goes: What possibilities do I have and how to use

them. See: The NearEast-Resistance dont have any Airplanes. But

they down F-16s, Apaches and so on.

That would be: Pedestrian and F-16. And dont tell me F-16s wins every-

time against them.

You won't hear me claim that an F-16 would beat the stinger armed insurgent every time, in fact, I would expect it to be the other way around. And when it comes to an F-16 versus an F-18, I'm not saying the F-16 would win every time either. In the hands of the right pilot the F-18 definitely has what it takes to gun down the F-16. However, technically speaking, it is more likely for the F-16 to come out as a winner. Hence, I would prefer to be in the F-16, as it increases my chances.

It's almost like Formula 1 races. If you put Raikkonen in a Spyker-Ferrari and Albers in the Ferrari, it is not unlikely for Raikkonen to win a few races, but I'd still have my money on the Ferrari as it simply outperforms the Spyker.

I always thought that the engines where put there because of that huge cannon. because of that cannon i would be very hard to have an airscoop underneath like the F-16 does.

Nope, if that was the only reason they could have put the airscoops on the side, like with the F-14 or F-15 for example.

They did move the nose gear off to the side because of the canon. The recoil of that huge gun is so bad that it would throw the aircraft off balance (and probably into a spin) if it wouldn't have been positioned along the centerline of the aircraft. I have even heard claims that the recoil is capable of slowing the aircraft down to a halt in mid-air, not sure if that's true though. I do know that that cannon is an amazing piece of engineering (as is the A-10 itself).

grtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really depends on how BAD the F-22 pilot really is :D

Well I think it depends what the assigned task is.

    If it was protecting the area against ground attack aircraft, the F-22 would probably win.
    If it was to get air superiority the F-22 would probably win.
    If it was support a ground attack the F-22 would probably win.
    If it was to get intelligence the F-22 would probably win.


      It's hard to see under what conditions the F-22 would NOT win over the Tiger Moth. Not getting shot down means nothing if you can just fly around and not actually DO anything. I take the liberty to assume the F-22 would not be shot down.

      I am the first to enjoy these mental exercises but all military equipment is there for a task, if it can not perform the task it has no reason to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ timmy

the power of the gun is said to have the same force as one enginge there fore canceling out the thrust of an engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but all military equipment is there for a task, if it can not perform the task it has no reason to exist.

Same goes for all commercial products. If FSX would not exist, aerosoft's Falcon would be junk as well. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same goes for all commercial products. If FSX would not exist, aerosoft's Falcon would be junk as well. :wink:

Nope, we would release a version for.... uhhh... ahh darned...

Well basically you are right. The stage we are in right now prevents it being ever compiled into a FS2004 projects. Even a single panel of the VC contains more polygons then FS2004 could handle for the full VC pit. It simply would not compile for FS2004 unless we drop a lot of the details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting opinions. :?

A Tiger Moth pilot could not possibly position his reticle (if he had one! :P ) on any jet aircraft. How could he win a dogfight? Any of the above mentioned jets could swallow up a Tiger Moth in its wing vortices...inside the realm of a valley at low altitude, as well.

The F-22 is _decidedly_ better than either the F-16 or F-18.

The F-18E is decidedly better than the F-16, which is better than the F-18C.

Which plane would I want in a guns-only, close-in, dogfight? There is no choice, the F-22.

The F-16 is to the F-18C what the F-8 was to the F-4. The former being a "fighter pilot's" aircraft. The F-18E is the best of both those worlds.

Give me more planes than the enemy, comparably equipped to shoot them down, and I'll come out a winner against any of the three above.

Just a few comments....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Which plane would I want in a guns-only, close-in, dogfight? There is no choice, the F-22.

I'm not so sure that I agree with that statement. Today we live in the "see first, shoot first, kill first" world. That's what the F-22 has been designed to do and it does it exceptionally well. True, the F-22 is a remarkebly agile aircraft, but so is an F-16A. So in a guns only dog fight I would have my doubts on which plane would have the upper hand. Probably the one with the better pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today we live in the "see first, shoot first, kill first" world.

When did we not? This is nothing new. It's always been this way, though during the F-14 era one could make a case that "stand off" was possible. A visual was still required during this period, as it was when I flew back in Vietnam.

Two equal pilots...the F-22 wins. An F-16 pilot who understands his envelope fully against an F-22 pilot who perhaps understand one-half of his...the F-22 wins. It's THAT much more maneuverable. And I'm certainly not the only jock who shares that opinion.

But as I said before, the F-16 is a pilot's aircraft, much like the F-8, given a choice of having some fun I'd take the F-16. If my life depended on the aircraft, how could you make any other choice than the F-22?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the power of the gun is said to have the same force as one enginge there fore canceling out the thrust of an engine

Yeah the gun is said to have 9,000lb of thurst when spun up to full speed, and that combined with aerodynamic drag is said to be a greater force than the engines at full power, which is why the engines automatically go to full throttle when the gun is activated.

Though the plane will not fall from the sky if the gun is left on for a long period, as the plane would simply slow down to the piont where engine thrust is equal to the combined gun thrust and aerodynamic drag, since the drag is greatly reduced at the lower speeds.

There can however be a stall danger if the pilot were to pull some hard G's at the end of the strafe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But a war is made of mass action, and that party with more planes

that the kill-ratio consumes wins.

So when you have for example 200 F22 who kill 1:10 and you have

5.000 Chinese cheap fighters, who do you think survives at last?

Its like in the formula one. There is no much difference between

drivers and cars when you look at the times. Only split seconds.

And the competition is made with around 20 combatants, I mean drivers. But would it be more, you would see that in average only the mass makes

the difference.

So more driven rounds or in air war more battle fought with more fighters. And what shall I say: When we see what standed against the US-Fighters in the modern wars since 1990 there were only dinosaurs of near eastern air forces with pilots that havent seen much air time due shortages of jet fuel. So most of kills in 1990 Iraq Invasion were fleeing Su-25 Pilot some 10 Meters above the ground heading to iranian territories. The same with the Mig-29. The all got the missiles directly in their asses. No battles.

Easy kills.

And most of the american fighters were downed by their OWN air defences. Congratulations.

So today, their is no more hero pilot. Its mass slaughtering when opponenents with similar qualities crash together.

In the cold war the casualities of the clashing russian and western forces above the inner-german-border were calculated as this:

DAY 1: 45 Percent

DAY 2: 35 Percent

DAY 3: 15 Percent

So in peacetime, being a fighter jockey is nice. But in war, and against a real enemy with a real air force thats a slaughterhouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A visual was still required during this period, as it was when I flew back in Vietnam.

That was actually exactly what I was aiming at. The F-22 was not designed to ever get into a dog fight. 'See first' these days means on the radar. It was specifically intended to use beyond visual range missiles like the AMRAAM. The enemy pilot should be using his ejection seat even before he ever noticed the F-22, whether visually or on radar. Which is why I had my reservations about the dog fighting capabilities of the F-22.

But you are right, I have been looking up some numbers and the F-22 is more than likely to kick the F-16's ass. I knew the F-22 had some powerful engines, but 70,000 pounds of thrust is just ridiculous. (...really cool, ....but ridiculous)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was actually exactly what I was aiming at. The F-22 was not designed to ever get into a dog fight.

I think if the fighter's going to replace everything we have in the fighter/attack military environment (which it can do quite well) then it would have to comply with close-in engagement requirements. Those with whom I've talked about this plane, who were a part of the program during it's initial conceptual stages, did take a lot of this into account. No doubt you have seen a few of the full-length demonstration videos floating around the net that show it's maneuverability.

Can the F-16 fly backward?

Anyway, it's a good discussion as we wait for the unveiling of the Aerosoft F-16, a bird that promises to be one of the finest sim aircraft available for FSX.

What plane do I fly most now on FSX to have fun? The RealAir Spitfire, which transitions to the latest sim without issue. So when it comes to flying a "pilot's airplane", I can't wait for the F-16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...