Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: jet fighters  (Read 12268 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mojojojo

  • the only guy who uses the wildcat in multiplayer
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1368
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2012, 02:06:46 PM »

The MiG-17 is a fantastic jet to fly, but you really do have to fly within it's limits.

Personally, I love the CAC Sabre. You can throw it around however you like and always lands on its feet. Plus has a huge reserve of power for when you need it.
yes i can shoot down anything in a saber mk32
Logged
i7 4790K quad core 4.4GHz/8GB DDR3-1600/ASUS Z87-A/ EVGA GTX 970 4GB/128GB A-Data SSD+1TB HDD/EVGA 650w 80+ gold PSU/ NZXT Source 530 gaming case

BT~wasted

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1468
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #25 on: March 27, 2012, 03:28:22 PM »

The MiG-17 is a fantastic jet to fly, but you really do have to fly within it's limits.

Personally, I love the CAC Sabre. You can throw it around however you like and always lands on its feet. Plus has a huge reserve of power for when you need it.
yes i can shoot down anything in a saber mk32

LOL F-4? 21?  :P ;D
Logged

Roger Smith

  • "Cast in the name of God, ye not guilty" -Big O Boot up message
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 946
  • HgZ? He's just another Jason Beck
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #26 on: March 27, 2012, 08:05:50 PM »

this is a simulator of ww2 here have nothing to do MiG -17 and MiG-21
are you still playing V4.09b1m?
Logged

SAS~Malone

  • flying as #46 with the FAC
  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14559
  • proud member of that 'other' site
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #27 on: March 27, 2012, 11:27:17 PM »

lol, yeah, just please ignore that comment from radko, guys, he quite obviously thinks this is the banana forum, or something.
in a WIP thread about jets which have long since been successfully incorporated into IL2 through modding, a comment like that is just plain ignorant.
please, let's just move on with the discussion at hand. ;)
Logged
.....taking fun seriously since 1968.....  8)

SAS~Anto

  • Aussie Bush Pilot
  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4434
  • Retired from modding
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2012, 12:24:02 AM »

The MiG-17 is a fantastic jet to fly, but you really do have to fly within it's limits.

Personally, I love the CAC Sabre. You can throw it around however you like and always lands on its feet. Plus has a huge reserve of power for when you need it.
yes i can shoot down anything in a saber mk32

LOL F-4? 21?  :P ;D

My father once told me about a war games exercise with the USAF (either in Darwin or Queensland). They were using F-100s, which they claimed were the best fighter in the world at the time. The RAAF used the then outdated CAC Sabres. Despite the F-100s obvious speed advantage, the CAC Sabres and their pilots ran circles around them. Namely these had a lot to do with the training of the USAF pilots.

During the Vietnam War, the RAAF deployed a squadron of CAC Sabres to Ubon in Thailand to act as base defence. Quite often they would act as opposing force aircraft for F-100 and Phantom crews to practice against. Again it was reported the RAAF pilots regularly came out on top, especially at low altitudes.

On the flipside, during the Indonesian Confrontasi, the Indonesians regularly sent MiG-21F-13s on border incursion missions to northern Australia and Malaysia. RAAF were generally frightened of the MiG-21 and on most occasions, were unsuccessful at intercepting them. One day though, a clever fighter controller ordered a scramble early, predicting that the Indonesia would send their MiGs on patrol shortly. They did and diving from their patrol height, one of the CAC Sabres got within about 3km of the MiGs. Thankfully the MiG out-ran them as he was probably only seconds away from a missile lock and the start of a Pacific-wide conflict!

So I would say, never underestimate these 1950's transonic jets. The US did in Vietnam and they paid for it!
Logged

mojojojo

  • the only guy who uses the wildcat in multiplayer
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1368
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #29 on: March 28, 2012, 03:04:09 PM »

the mig-17 is similar to the CAC saber (in terms of performance), but the saber is more stable.
Logged
i7 4790K quad core 4.4GHz/8GB DDR3-1600/ASUS Z87-A/ EVGA GTX 970 4GB/128GB A-Data SSD+1TB HDD/EVGA 650w 80+ gold PSU/ NZXT Source 530 gaming case

Far77

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 170
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #30 on: March 29, 2012, 12:24:06 AM »

the mig-17 is similar to the CAC saber (in terms of performance), but the saber is more stable.
Yes, Mig-17F is better with its afterburner "on", but without afterburner he is almost sitting duck against CAC-Sabre. So in average they are comparable.

Interestingly that IL2 AI(ace) is used to prefer Mig-17f (a test in QMB with AI-Mig-17f against AI-CAC-Sabre goes into complete defeat of the Sabres)...

But it is AI problem, as for example P11 can chase F-86f and the AI-ace-pilot  of the Sabre shouts: "Somebody clear him off my tail!" while making circles around P11  :)



Logged

LuseKofte

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6886
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #31 on: March 29, 2012, 03:02:48 AM »

I`ve talked with a real pilot and he mentioned that he likes MiG-17 very much. He says that it is the best jet in IL-2.

For my self, I do lot easyer sabrekills with mig17 than migkill with a sabre
Logged

SAS~Tom2

  • SAS Honourable Member
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7954
  • no sweat
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #32 on: March 29, 2012, 07:02:10 PM »

My vote always goes for the Canadair Sabre MK.6..  :D
Equippped with the powerful Orenda 14 engine keeping the airframe of the F-86Fs, I assume it comes close to the CAC-27 Avon Sabre on engine and airframe performance.
I just had the honour to exchange an e-mail with the current team leader of the RCAF Hawk One demonstration team and eagerly look forward to his reply whenever the gentleman will have the time.
He gave his ok to me to fire away a couple of questions and I can only say these late Sabre jets "rock".

http://blog.hawkone.ca/

It is good to see this noble heritage is kept alive.

Tom
Logged

FIGHTS ON

  • Modder
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 25
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #33 on: November 05, 2012, 03:50:54 AM »

Jet FMs: maintaining AoA (or rather IL2's tendency for involuntary pitch movements).

I type from a position of ignorance of just how much work goes into 'tweaking' the FM for aircraft in IL2 and I suspect the answer lies in the fact that the game was originally aimed at prop driven a/c in the range 100 - 300 KIAS. Whilst I understand the maths that speed = more lift, surely aircraft are designed with a "known" centre of lift/gravity etc. Therefore it would appear that the basic IL2 FM is flawed in that whilst trying to maintain a jets angle-of-attack (AoA) any change in speed seems to result in a change in pitch (AoA) rather than the rate of decent/climb that is wanted (no 'pilot' input to stick). With some excellent new jets being added to the game, trying to 'land' (especially at sea) using a WWII "dive & flop" is clumsy and guesswork, landing the jets works better if able to keep the nose slightly high and rate of decent adjusted by throttle - but not when the 'game' randomly adjusts your pitch.
Question: Ignoring the "if you wanted a flight sim you should have bought....." [this game is just the best!] am I asking the impossible?

note: With experience & knowing the 'numbers' (that deliver a perfect approach) it is achievable - but does not allow for any corrections & almost a perfect set up from miles before touch down.

post added to "Jet fighters FM" to trigger discussion, not in any way a criticism of this excellent game.
Logged

NS~mati140

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 727
  • #27 of the New Squadron (NS)
Re: jet fighters
« Reply #34 on: November 08, 2012, 09:51:44 AM »

Jet FMs: maintaining AoA (or rather IL2's tendency for involuntary pitch movements).

I type from a position of ignorance of just how much work goes into 'tweaking' the FM for aircraft in IL2 and I suspect the answer lies in the fact that the game was originally aimed at prop driven a/c in the range 100 - 300 KIAS. Whilst I understand the maths that speed = more lift, surely aircraft are designed with a "known" centre of lift/gravity etc. Therefore it would appear that the basic IL2 FM is flawed in that whilst trying to maintain a jets angle-of-attack (AoA) any change in speed seems to result in a change in pitch (AoA) rather than the rate of decent/climb that is wanted (no 'pilot' input to stick). With some excellent new jets being added to the game, trying to 'land' (especially at sea) using a WWII "dive & flop" is clumsy and guesswork, landing the jets works better if able to keep the nose slightly high and rate of decent adjusted by throttle - but not when the 'game' randomly adjusts your pitch.
Question: Ignoring the "if you wanted a flight sim you should have bought....." [this game is just the best!] am I asking the impossible?

note: With experience & knowing the 'numbers' (that deliver a perfect approach) it is achievable - but does not allow for any corrections & almost a perfect set up from miles before touch down.

post added to "Jet fighters FM" to trigger discussion, not in any way a criticism of this excellent game.

I don't understand you here - as long as trim position is constant and there's no input on the stick the aircraft will mantain a constant AoA, but that means change in pitch whenever there is change in applied ammount of thrust. Unless the jet has FBW and auto-trim - which 50's jets didn't have. The change in thrust results in change in vertical speed, not hotizontal speed, and changing pitch results in change in AoA and a change in speed - but to mentain that speed aircraft has to be trimmed, to mantain the constant input corresponding to that speed - otherwise aircraft will pitch up after centering stick trying to get back to its source speed. And that's how it works for jets currently - any change in thrust requires change in trim to mentain constant pitch.

If you're talking about flaws that F-9 and AFAIK F-84 have, that's a bug I believe, and it's here since years, and indeed is pretty anoing - at low speeds applying thrust not only doesn't increase climb rate, but even pushes you towards the ground, while lowering power results in slower descend - that's completely inverted and nowhere near correct for ANY plane. Sabres don't have this problem, I had countless carrier landings with FJ-3 and whenever I went too low, appilying more thrust saved me instead of blowing me into stern, like it does in Panther.

Another annoying thing is spike at leveled elevator in some planes, which got somewhere extreme in recently released Cougar - when centering input back from e.g. pitch up position, the center point moves towards pitch down and pitching down results in center point instantly shifting into somewhere up, and violent bump down of the nose, and vice versa - like if trimer was broken and flopping in the wind. If it happens during final approach - you're dead. That was considered a minor bug and noone fixed it, even though, in ammount of it Cougar comes with, it ruins gameplay with this plane, and got my excitement about it from before release into zero-interest. Too bad, it was and interesting plane and it would be a beast of sea if it didn't behave like that.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 24 queries.