Discussion: OUR Official Combat/Training Aircraft

Yeah..so I made this topic to talk about our combat and our training official aircraft. You can propose all aircrafts you want, but you must to say "what we must to choose him".

Dwayne: T-50 (C) - T-2C (T) - F-4E (T)
Frakke: T-2C (T) and Mirage 2000-5 (C)
Raptor: MiG-29

We need a good aircraft who can represents us, be manoeuverable and at top for the combat/training!

You forgot to add T-2C for training for me.

Also, we should probably consider flight exam aircraft as well, since the T-2C doesn't have a gun, not even a simulated one (though I guess it'd be kinda difficult to simulate another simulation ). I'd say the F-4E would be perfect for this. It's difficult to maneuver, which is perfect for actually testing cadets to see that they have learned and truly understand the fundamentals, rather than just relying entirely on muscle memory. They should be able to take what they learned in one plane, and seamlessly apply it to another one.

As for discussion, the T-50 is the MOST maneuverable plane in FG. Try it yourself, and you will see. Only the Su-37 is capable of doing the same post-stall maneuvers; however, that will always result in a virtually inescapable spin. The T-50 will never suffer from such instability, especially since, unlike the Su-37, it's AB isn't broken, allowing it to reach its highest thrust capabilities easily. It can also maintain at least 60 degrees AoA very easily.

The T-2C is used for training US Navy pilots in real life. The FG version is made by Dave Culp, so you KNOW that even if the cockpit isn't a perfect replica of the real thing, you still have all of the instruments you will need, AND the plane will handle exactly like the real thing, b/c he uses real flight test and wind tunnel data.

As for the F-4E, well, it's another Dave Culp plane. Its maneuverability is crap, which is perfect for flight exams, so we can test the cadets to their very limits. The airframe starts to buffer at over 8 degrees AoA, resulting in dramatic loss of airspeed, and it stalls at 14 degrees AoA. Easily, the crappiest maneuverability. However, a flight exam plane shouldn't just be difficult to fly. It needs to have all the necessary instruments so that it CAN be flown easily with enough experience. Of course, Dave Culp always makes sure his planes have all the necessary instruments in the cockpit.

see next post

SR-71 - Holds all sustained speed and altitude records for any air breathing aircraft. What more do we want in a recon plane?

FG model reasons... Look up the actual flight manual online; If you know how to fly the plane you'll see how well the FG experience matches the pilot instructions. Make sure to use the correct model (JSBsim only). The manual gives a climb schedule that matches right up to the FG model's characteristics. That's really the only argument for it - that it matches the real thing. Also, its not just a cakewalk to fly - going through transonic is best done directly following instructions from the real manual. Landing is usually best done with ILS and autopilot at least to maintain heading and make a landing straight down the runway. You can also move the vantage point outside the plane for a good visual (but that's not cool ) Perfect landings in the cockpit aren't easy - challenge.

Vostok - Its the only well modeled FG rocket. Real militaries rely heavily on satellites for intelligence, communications, and logistics.

The model is simply amazing both in flight properties and exterior model. Its a real rocket and flying it manually will show you why we use computers to launch these things. I can fly it to stable orbit - so we can release our virtual satellites. And I think training will have to involve learning the gauges and watching a successful launch along with some patience
Interestingly the controls are very simple (I use only arrows). Its 100% timing and precision (my best flights come from counting arrow clicks - no other controls.)

As for bombers a few aircraft come to mind...

The B-1 model is has extremely advanced weapons systems for guided and unguided bombs. It is a great general use bomber for the EAF. Its not particularly fast and its not stealth so it might not be right for heavily protected airspace but it can fly close to ground level at high enough speed to get out much better than a big one (i.e. B-52). The interior and weapons systems are the best I've ever seen in an FG bomber and best of all... Its not hard to fly

We'll have to see how the B-2 reacts to radar systems to determine if it is of value.

XB-70 JSBsim: Love it or hate it the plane is tactically perfect for EAF. In FG there are no advanced anti-aircraft missiles on the ground meaning that actual airplanes are the only way to intercept a bomber. Its weapons system is very simple... it drops unguided bombs. However, how is the enemy going to do anything about it? A mig-25 MIGHT stand a chance at intercepting but it would need to prepared to intercept well before the bomber was even close to the target. Once the bomb is dropped it will be out so fast no one can do anything about it.

While I'm here - I tried out the T-50... handles amazingly. Perfect for actual combat. I didn't mess with the trainers but the T-50 is the one that counts and having it was a good call. Also - It simulates the increased drag encountered in the transonic. Most FG fighters do not... that was cool. A mig-29 would be useful for low speed/altitude but its YAsim which typically cannot handle supersonic very well.
The Mirage is JSBsim so I have high hopes Its on my list to test right now.

The political transport and Sea rescue are interesting:

Political transport immediately brings the excellently modeled 747-400 to serve as air force one. I live in the US so I do not know what the various European political transports use.

Water rescue: I personally like the DHC Otter and definitely the Supermarine 2.6B. The first is so versatile - you can land it nearly anywhere. The second is just plain fast... Its limited to a water base but the top speed is 324 miles/hr - and it was designed as a fighter so that acceleration is super quick. Maybe the fastest seaplane in FG. I also like the Catalina for SAR. It is slow but can stay in the air forever - and slow isn't so bad when you're searching.

We will need helis but I can't speak about that one because I'm new to it.

Ahah, in France we have Air Sarko One X)) Kiddin..we have an A330.

Yeah it can be good, for sea rescue I think we'll have aircrant and helicopter to be able to rescue

Do we have a resident heli expert? If not I'll ask mike26 - He's probably the best FG heli pilot...

Haha call him, need an heli expert :]

Yes, I'll definitely ask him for heli recommendations. EC-135 was the one he recommended to me. I'm still not great at them but I kind of like the Chinook as well.

Also I want to put panel quality out there alongside model. Also I support use of the F-14 in a carrier only niche roll. I don't love the model either but it has a role.

I haven't heard anyone else comment on choppers so I'll go on some experience and say I like the Chinook. I'll go through the rest so I get an idea... Will post soon.

So how do we finalize our aircraft (and adopt new ones as new FG models/pilot requests come along)?

We already have a good established list but lets get it done; from what I see we have:

Fighter: T-2C, F-4E, T-50, Mirage 2000-5 C, Mig 29 + F-14 for carriers

Recon: SR-71A (B for training) and Vostok 1 *got another one - Malolo - its R/C so definitely a great drone

Rescue: DHC 2, DCH 3, Catalina, Supermarine 2.6B

Transport: 747, A330, Others TBD

Helicopter: Chinook, EC135, TBD

Bomber: B-1, (maybe XB-70 - I'm starting to hate it), B-2, Others?

Training: ?? - Redneck has fighters down, others seem to have to be the exact model but visual training is way easier - no crazy maneuvers involved

I'm sure I missed planes so remember its preliminary.

Josh

Roger that, I posted that on facebook.