Eh, I dogfight with FG1 from time to time, less so these days cause Sea Vixen made me research the entire tech tree accidentally & I’d like to get all the tech trees completed before I consistently play jets purely for pleasure.
1 Like
I finally got Skyflashes so I need to run it in Sim
1 Like
?
F-14/MiG-23MLD were god mode for a good while
1 Like
Sea Vixen is good, shame about the current state of red tops though…
Maybe, I still found the best tactic in SB with the FGR2/FG1 is the same as the F3, max thurst, PD, fire off BVRs, if you are turning fighting or using IRs you are either lucky or screwed.
Back when players didn’t know about notching, terrain following, and so forth they were good.
However, and this is a big however, they were never a threat to anyone that knew how to do those from the start.
F-14A was never a threat to me since its introduction.
People over-relied on its radar missiles, and that made them easy prey to even Mirage 3Cs.
*NEVER gets to max speed
Source: The AIM-54 Phoenix missile - Technology, History and Performance - #388 by MythicPi
Under M2.0 12000m altitude launch conditions, the AIM-54C peaks out at ~M4.42.
There is never a situation in WT where the AIM-54C will reach M5.0+.
You’d actually be lucky to ever get it much above M3.0 ingame, after which it will rapidly start losing speed following motor burnout.
The only people that die to AIM-54’s in WT are people who managed to fly right into a missile despite a vast expense of sky devoid of them.
At any range the R-27ER can be launched in WT, it will outspeed the AIM-54 and hit its target first if launch conditions were nearly identical.
If it helps ive got a couple suggestions pending for the P.1154 in both JS and RN versions
2 Likes
ngl it is pretty easy to die to phoenixes in aircraft with extremely weak RWRs like the MiG-21. Also, they can be quite hard to deal with if you get a map like Rocky Pillars with extreme fog
Easiest way to defeat pheonixes is just positionnally. We know about when they’ll be fired since theyre literal dead weight sub 20km in-game, so just adjusting position to defend against them prior to even getting an RWR warning.
I recommend learning to do this before scariwr fox 3’s that arent modelled so fking terribly are added in-game, cuz atm the AIM-54’s are the baby mode tutorial section of ARH’s. You can take 30sec-1min per game for a positional adjustment that doubles as defending AIM-54’s and you’ll never be hit by one.
I know how to avoid Phoenixes in general gameplay. However when I’m flying the Lazur-M there is no real way to tell what exactly is locking me and where it’s coming from.
Both that and the Rocky Pillars situation are most likely not gonna be a problem in the future top tier, as the planes in that BR range will all have sufficiently capable RWRs
1 Like
Like I said, RWR is mostly irrelevant imo, i just defend regardless if theres america on the enemy team. Takes 30 sec of my time and stops me from dying to AIM-54’s ever.
Signed by the authors, I’m about to have a really, really good time…
So far confirmed the EAP also uses the Tornado ADV’s radome with the very tip redesigned, for the express reason that the UK had selected the ADV radar for use on ACA, FEFA and P.110. Forward ballast and flight control computers were used to simulate the weight of the FOXHUNTER. This means FOXHUNTER could be fitted and was capable of interacting with the cockpit MFD.
Regardless of if I find what I want, this will still probably be the best book i’ve ever read.
9 Likes
Awesome, so thats 1/3 objections to the EAP shot down. Just need weapons and CMs
Well BAE refer to the aircraft interchangeable as the Agile Combat Aircraft and the EAP. Furthermore they also say its directly developed from it in the book. In fact, they say that the forward fuselage is essentially that of the P.110 (I think, I need to double-check).
EDIT: ACA not P.110…
Also the assertion that the EAP never had any considerations to be armed is now unequivocally false because BAE literally have some designs in here for an armed production ACA/EAP.
7 Likes
So we rephrase the suggestion from EAP being a precursor Typhoon, to the EAP being its own independent aircraft and its own theoretical loadout like the Yak-141 got in game
3 Likes
Well ACA was one of of the precursor concepts for Eurofighter so that tracks. The front fusalage being from P.110 is interesting as that was the jag replacement and looks nothing like the EAP front end
(Some pictures of ACA and P.110)
ACA
P.110
9 Likes
Yeah i got the P.110 and ACA confused, which is why I mentioned in brackets, its been a very good read so far and I’m only an ⅛ into it.
It also helps that I can ask any questions directly to people who have worked on it. But theres so many anograms.
Im just gonna communicate anything I find in pictures make sure I don’t make mistakes.
2 Likes
Oh yes engineers like acronyms and abbreviations of things especially having two things with the same acornym
5 Likes
After another 100 pages, i’ve got some new finds, gonna keep it to the facts and leave out any arguements for or against:
-
The EAP was originally fitted with a Tornado fin with the heat exchanger removed and the air intake for the APU removed also, however complete with RWR housing. This was only changed after an ACX engineer from Dassault visited, realised it was a Tornado fin, and remarked that it was noticeable, leading to its removal in haste prior to official unveiling so the public wouldn’t know the full extent of the recycling.
-
The EAP originally had provisions for at least carriage of RWR (the same as Tornado, and extra space in the avionics bay -presumably for recycled Tornado avionics)
-
The EAP had an MFD inspired from the F-16 (which had its MFD made by BAE), it had several combat specific modes.
-
There are a number of other aerodynamic provisions made for the use of weapons (all BAE products for marketing reasons) in order to reassure the UK Gov, for example, the ASRAAM’s were moved from wingtip mounting such as seen on the F-16, to underneath the wingtip in accordance with the ASRAAM thickness and to provide space for the fins, this also resulted in a ‘French’ wingtip.
-
BAE also experimented with dropping the ASRAAM’s in the wind-tunnel to see if it would cause harm to the aerodynamics but due to revised wingtips, this wasn’t an issue, asymmetric carriage was also not an issue.
Those are some of the key points.
Oh and a little bonus fact. The wings on Gripen are made using essentially a plastic moulding similar to blowing glass, developed and experimented on by BAE, Gripen Prototype (and I think production wings) therefore were made by BAE, a proxy of this is that BAE offered to make a set of EAP style, cranked delta wings, for the Gripen of which there are some designs. For several reasons, including domestic industry, Sweden went with the standard swept delta and not the crank.
8 Likes