So, I recently acquired a very new book on the F-20, written by Paul Metz, a former Tigershark test pilot.
Lots of interesting stuff in there, which also provides more than enough info to know what this thing DEFINITELY would get in-game, depending on the incarnation
Will try and post pictures when possible
(Edit: did not mean to reply, my apologies lol)
Apologies for the poorer quality of photos, I intend on finding a way of getting this book scanned in the near-ish future, so that it can be used in a re-done suggestion
That’s pretty cool, two sources showing almost identical sustained turn charts for the F-20A Tigershark.
Fighter Weapons Symposium maximum sustained G loading chart
No idea if you’re being genuine about me finding another source that matches yours or what (apologies lol)
I am being genuine, I was hoping to find a second source somewhere for the sustained turn rate. This means that we have two secondary sources for bug reporting purposes (that match). If they add it to the game and it doesn’t perform according to these charts it’s an easy fix.
It also pretty much guarantees the F-5A/E in-game are both overperforming. They shouldn’t perform on par with the F-20 in sustained turn rate.
Oh dang, awesome! And yeah, there’s more stuff in this book I may post as well (I just need to get more and better pictures)
Also, that doesn’t surprise me too much lol
Also, interestingly, this book ended up proving the idea of the F-20 having the M39s removed to fit the longer-range radar false. Turns out Northrop had already produced the larger nose meant for the APG-67(V), and designed it as to fit both M39s (albeit with reduced ammo count)
Most interesting thing to me though are those LERX-pylons, which could carry Pave Penny, LANTIRN, Sparrows, and AMRAAMs supposedly
A better look at the cockpit layouts for each variant, including the test/evaluation variants and production variants:
(F-5G-1, 1979)
(F-20A #1 flight testing, 1982)
(F-20A #2 and #3 production cockpit config, 1983-1984)
(F-20A #2 and #3 flight testing cockpit configuration, 1983-1984)
(F-20A #4 production cockpit configuration)
(F-20A Air Defense Fighter cockpit configuration)
Good finds. We need to somehow move this so that Gaijin can see it so it can actually be considered. I really think this could make a great addition to the game. What is the name of that book? I would really like to possibly get it myself
I plan on making a multi-tiered suggestion, possibly with 2-3 variants of the Tigershark, once I can learn or figure out how to do it properly.
Gonna include a lot of this stuff in it.
I’ll help as much as I can. just let me know
@MiG_23M : F-20A Tigershark would be a good premium aircraft for when aircrafts would reach a close up Rafale F.3 or F-16V
That’s my POV, since it have access to ordonnance the F-5 don’t.
Regardless, they’re gonna add it and when it performs worse than the F-5E the devs gonna have to make a decision…
Perfomances are worse yet, it is far more well equipped, which is the reson why it performs less.
So overall, the kill capability is improved and that’s what matters the most for modern aircraft, that’s always why now aircraft accross the globe do not reach mach 2 → Rafale / F-35
Speed for aircraft is no longer a thing, only weapons systems matters ^^"
I was referring to the fact that the F-5E in-game sustains a higher turn rate than the F-20A’s charts.
You guys seen the Interview with F-20 Tigershark test pilot Paul Metz?
I’m all in for the Tigershark haha
I know.
As much as I hate to say this, the Tigershark doesn’t seem too much like premium material, due to the fact that it’s sorta niche in terms of interest within the WT community. I imagine something like the F-16XL, or maybe even the F-16 AFTI (it was capable of being armed IIRC) would generate not only more interest, but also be more popular (seeing as they are F-16s). To most people, the F-20 is just a souped up F-5E, whereas the XL and AFTI do fairly radically change the performance of the F-16 in general.
That’s not to say a premium F-20 isn’t possible, however…
I agree. I can not see the F-20 being a premium plane even with it’s earlier variant (F-5C) being a premium. I do, however, see it as a tech tree vehicle or event vehicle. I’m not sure how popular it would be as an even vehicle but I do know many people would grind for it anyways. I feel the F-20 would be a good addition to the tech tree just not completely sure where it would fit based on the other vehicles in the tree. I could see this plane most likely being an event vehicle but I would love to see it as an addition to the tree.
The only real way I could see a TT F-20 is in its earliest form: the F-5G-1 or F-20 (1979), where it’s got the earliest YF404 (16,000 lbf), standard F-5E radar, RWR, and CM dispenser, and only up to 6x AIM-9Js tops (as well as the same stuff from the F-5E that proceeds it, such as AGM-65Bs, GPU-5/A 30mm gunpod, etc). Even then, it’d be between the F-5E and F-16A-10, probably at 11.3-11.7 tops (seeing as the current F-5E is 10.7).
Every other variant seems more fair as an event counterpart to the F-16C-50.
Apologies for yet another edit, but this is another major point: When it comes to the F-20, there’s a lot of stuff for it that was proposed (for the production model) such as the slightly larger wing, increased fuel load, 18,000 lbf engine, wide-angle HUD, ALQ-171 ECM pod (whole new can of worms on that one lol), the possible capability of carrying LANTIRNs, Sparrows, and AMRAAMs on under-LERX pylons, AMRAAM-capability in general, etc, but not actually tested before the program was canned. What should be considered fair game for implementation, and NOT fair game? This isn’t as clear-cut as the Yak-141, seeing as that aircraft was actually nearly production-ready, and the production systems were all pretty much ready to go (just needing installation).
With the F-20, a lot of this stuff only ever made it to the mockup or blueprint stage, but never beyond that.
