I just wish it was consistent either give them all feasible weapons or just limit them to what the nation’s actually use pick one or the other
1 Like
“and the NATOPS manual (matching a reported ~12 degrees per second).”
NATOPS is an American source.
and iirc, there is something wrong with that source, but the fact that the Actual flight manual differs from those sources is wierd, and says that something isnt right here. Instead Gaijin just basically called that primary source a marketing lie and decided to ignore it
I have reasons not to believe that this chart was printed correctly:
That’s a first for a chart to be screwed up by that much.
So… I don’t know, because I’ve never seen a chart like that.
And NATOPS & Soviets seem to both have correct charts.
NATOPS is a primary source, BTW.
Soviet docs iirc, were deliberately inflated so that they could have a reason to build better aircraft, as the F-5E was comprable in performance to the Mig-21. But the soviet document is just a comparison between the Mig-21, Mig-23 and F-5E
But why a soviet document for a US aircraft is being used at all, but a US document is not, just doesnt make any sense. Already bad enough with things like Igla being used to nerf Stingers and primary docs being denied to buff L27A1 and DM53 because Gaijin’s modeling of a T-80U is considered superior
Here is another source courtesy of @MatrixRupture for the F-5E at 15k ft and mach 0.9.You’ll have to compare in-game as I dont have the aircraft to test myself, but it states 9°/sec STR and 17°/sec ITR
2 Likes
Software update
Funny way of saying ruski bias
Software update isn’t even needed. Mig-29 sees 27ERs as 27s still, cause it’s primarily an rocket motor change.
If that’s “Russian bias” then NATO bias exists on that alone. XD Of course, there is no bias.
Not earlier than SMT and not export versions according to google
Meenwhile f16s get 45, 60, 90, 180… pick a number of CMs
Realism when it suits is ruski bias
There you go implying NATO is Russia…
F-16s with CM counts is an identical situation to R-27ER on Mig-29s.
Capability + confirmation.
Because smt can get r27er- all mig 29s get r27er
F16C gets 90 CMs
F16A gets 45
If no bias why isnt the same standards applied?
Confirming NATO?
Il have half of what you are smoking
@tokerstar
Because R-27ER isn’t restrictive*
Mig-29SMT has nothing to do with it.
F-16A has 2 countermeasure buckets, you can’t fit more than 15 large caliber flares in one bucket.
Identical standards.
So how does the f16C get 90
F16a gets 45
F16 MLU 60
2 buckets of CMs = various ammounts
I like how this thread turned from F-5E – or F-5 in general – problem to “why F-16s/MiG-29s are so and not the other way”
2 Likes
F-16C has 4 buckets.
F-16 MLU has 3 buckets, and 60 countermeasures [30 are large caliber].
Either way, your posts are derailing this topic.
This is about the F-5E.
So adding 2 buckets for balance- same reason the 27s are on all migs is somehow different than adding missiles on jets that coulnt shoot them?
Yh its bias
The US inventoried them because despite being designed for export they were still more reliable than the aim 9J/N