So was it flight data or based on foreign literature / calculation?
Can’t know more than written. Probably both.
1 Like
The devs are using Russian sources once again in favor of actual NATOPS / primary sources;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eeBuF0R63vma?comment=ZNyVvXkmsvtf9ldF95xtz6P5
This doesn’t make any sense… and the claimed performance they state doesn’t match my testing @InterFleet …
The Russian source uses foreign materials and public data to calculate the performance of these fighters. It is the same one that published the Mirage F1 / M2K data …which isn’t accurate. The Russian source should not be used when the full NATOPS data is available. Primary source > secondary.
2 Likes
Y’all making me want to buy the f20
2 Likes
I think its performing fine. Though I do not have it. I did like and appreciate interfleet’s note of the following I am glad the devs are on it.
F-20 has improved leading edge root extensions and increased wing area + higher TWR, these all should make more lift than F-5E and achieve almost same turn performance even with increased weight, but FWS data shows that it should be even worse that f-5e (lower Cl), this doesn’t make sense. It was decided to not use FWS as reference, f-20 wing lift was tuned closer to F-5E with ~7% higher lift value for clean wing due effect of increased LERX and wing area.’
They integrated aerodynamically integral design in the nose as well as a wider fuselage tail section for improved lift. Of course, to top off its higher TTW & larger elevators.
I really want to get this jet now. Have to see for myself.
1 Like
I am home briefly, I checked the sources. They do not reference any sources for the flight performance post-1975… which means that none of the data is real test data. It is all assumed performance given by TsAGI. The source should be entirely discarded and they should go with the NATOPS data only… which is in line with what I suggested earlier. Their Mirage F1 / Mirage 2000 data is similarly erroneous.
I’ll correct myself, it is not even assumed flight performance. It is less. The TsAGI documents referenced are data obtained from foreign press materials only. This makes the USSR descriptions book a tertiary source that is taking precedence over primary country-of-origin sources…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eeBuF0R63vma?comment=P4rYQRPLolpZscHMKhUeO4h8
The USSR source should be discarded, aircraft performance aligned with NATOPS. Additionally, the UK documentations for Tornado have comparative analysis of other fighters sustained turns… of which one was the F-5E… and it matches the expected performance from NATOPS.
As Gaijin stated, their F-20 flight model is extrapolated from the in-game F-5E’s… and this is completely erroneous.
2 Likes
With the recent update adding at least 150 gallon drop tanks to the F-20, I ended up doing quite a bit of bug-reporting in regards in inaccuracies of the cockpit (primarily SMS/MFDs).
I also bug-reported the F-20 missing an option for 1x Sidewinder on stations 2 and 6 each (outermost underwing hardpoints), seeing as it cannot carry the dual 'winder racks with underwing drop tanks. I also reported it missing additional external tank options (for both 275 and 330 gallon). All have been acknowledged, and/or passed to the devs, so now we just wait…
Edit: there are at least two other reports that have been passed and should cause changes, one regarding incorrect cannon ammo and another regarding missing TWS mode. Hopefully soon…
2 Likes
That’s awesome. Hopefully it gets Aim-120s as well. Or maybe an event vehicle version comes out with Aim-120s. Because it is literally advertised that it gets them. If you watch the advertisement for the F-20 it clearly states that it is capable of carrying 4 Aim-120s. So that would be very cool to see in the future.
F-20 is overtiered and borderline useless at 12.7 compared to what it faces, it should be moved down to 12.3 with the Mirage 2ks which have in my opinion superior weapons load out. I honestly fail to see how this vehicle got moved to 12.7.
Still waiting for the missing TWS radar mode, id also like for them to implement the missing AN/ALE countermeasures dispenser on the wing pylons .
45 countermeasures at 12.7 is a joke, that is barely enough to dodge a single 9m being launched at you in matches where you face planes that get 4-6 aim9m’s /equivalent missiles.
1 Like
F-20A was never to get AIM-120s.
It wasn’t advertised with them either.
Future F-20s would’ve, but they’re not made nor in War Thunder.
1 Like
It was an intended ordnance upgrade for the aircraft down the road.
Seeing as it DID fly with the AIM-7, there is no reason it couldn’t also be equipped with AIM-120 with some simple modifications. As you saw, it could dual mount them.
1 Like
False, it was advertised on more then one occasion during its development that it was to be 120 launch capable.
Id much rather they give us the ability to carry 4xaim7s with the dual launchers then the 120s, fox3 gameplay is garbage and deserves its own MM.
3 Likes
The dual mount were dummy weapons intended for testing/demonstration.
Especially with the lack of countermeasures of the existing aircraft, you’d have to honestly add BOL pods to the next F-20 to make it even “okay” with AIM-120s.
The F-20 we have is of the completed models, thus falls under the rules of entirely completed XP-38G, F2G1, A2D-1, Su-9, Su-11, Ki-83, VB10C-1, and so forth. Allegedly Mirage 4000 is one of them as well, I can’t fully remember.
AKA, it’s not a Kikka or Ho 229.
@sugarstudd
That is an AIM-7 being launched, not an AIM-120.
1 Like
I know that’s a aim7 which is why I said id rather they give the plane the ability to carry 4 aim7s instead of 120s. FYI the f-20should have the AN/ALE countermeasure dispenser on the wing pylons. If you look at any of the picture of the plane it does not carry the standard F-5 CM mounting on the underside of the plane .
I hope this is easier to read
1 Like
Those are very specifically mockups
By the time the F-20 was intended to enter the export market and actually equip AMRAAM, there was an entirely different production aircraft compared to prototypes 2 and 3 that had been conceptualized, that being prototype 4.
Proto 4 would’ve had a larger 200 square foot wing, larger LERXs, 18,000 lbf rated F404-100A, re-designed nose with an extended range APG-67, and fully digital flight control system (as well as a wide-angle HUD).
This 4th prototype which was likely going to be the one with proper wiring/Integration of AMRAAM was never finished, and was scrapped by the program’s cancellation in 1986. There isn’t even any info on whether or not the proposed “Extended Range” APG-67 nor uprated F404-100A were actually built or even finished, all we have info on is in regards to the general idea.
The F-20 we have in-game represents Prototypes 2 and 3 (due to having not only the original HUD, but also AIM-7F and AGM-65B), primarily what it was actually tested with from 1983 to 1986. The only thing added on by Gaijin was the AIM-9L, due to the fact that the F-20 likely never actually tested it during the program (notice how all pictures of the F-20 with Sidewinders only ever shows it with AIM-9J/N/P).
The F-20 would’ve had the same CM dispenser as the F-5E, which it currently does in-game.
As for what I am assuming you mean to be the ALE-37 CM pods:
There is an image of an F-5E with one of those pods equipped on the centerline, but there’s nothing that can actually benefit a bug report to enable to the F-20 nor F-5E to get them (due to them not being mentioned in any of the flight manuals)
Obviously, so was the ordnance on the Yak-141.
The Yak-141 also has the distinction of being in the TT, as well as not having all of its ordnance either.
Along with that, there’s also BR placement: if the F-20 gets AMRAAMs, it is gonna move up to face F-16Cs and F-15Cs, probably being at least 13.3. That’s putting this thing far above its capabilities, especially if the flight performance finally gets nerfed in the future.
The F-20 should not get AMRAAMs, simple as
Opinions are fun aren’t they… no point in continuing this discourse.