Depending on BR, a missile only F-101 could unironically be a very fun missile slinger.
I don’t know , when i flied the 106 half of the games i played i tried to play with missiles. That resulted no kills and because they block the gun and i wasn’t used to it and because i tryharded to shoot someone down with missiles (practically messing my gameplay) i took only deaths…
Then i started playing as guns only fighter and went well.
It was just impossible with the AIM-4s.
And about how much they pull …they are laughable. Maximum overload 27G… if the target pulls more than 4G the missile guranteed misses.
The advertised 3 mach … yeah good luck with that. They hardstick to 1,5 around 3000m and at 15000m mach 2. Not that anyone would play at 15km.
The problem is that they want it to be low BR , so they hit it with the nerfbat on the missiles.
If it had good missiles it could be a 10.0 … better than F-4C. It’s faster and more agile and it would have better missiles if they were according to data.
Now a 101B , with missiles only - AIM-4s only - THOSE AIM-4s only - with no guns …yeah in game that would be a failure. Sure niche and maybe fun (i had a lot of fun in the 106 failing with AIM-4s, i laughed a lot to be fair) , but it won’t be good unless they make them according to data.
And i don’t think the proxy would be too much of an issue if the missile could go according to specifications.
I mean you could said that for literally plane that you introduce nowadays that is not end of the line, you cant add all of the planes that us have and can have at 9.0/9.3 when they where top of the line vehicles, also this is a thing for the ussr as well.
This kind of mentality is what makes them to only focus on top of the line vehicles because anything other than they add allways recived a “too late” or “DOA” label
The problem is compression and the fact that they have no dead zones or “soft” deadzones in BRs.
For example. Even if you go with Tier/Rank= deadzone , the BRs they have they could work WAY better.
It would be a 2 dimensional MM instead of 1. Ofc rearrangement would be needed , but ok.
Now , as soon as you can’t protect those vehicles , without making them play in an area that they would be OP , ofc you’ll have DOA vehicles occasionally if theya re not Tip Top of Tiers.
The thing is that the Falcon is far more effective than the USAF series sidewinders at higher altitudes.
It would also really help if their PID was working, considering they lack a proximity fuse entirely.
Missiles missing target because they aim at empty space
2 Likes
+1 for I just want more aim4 in addition to guns for fun
1 Like
I think the main difference is if it would be functionally useless at the BR it would be added to. Going back to my aforementioned F-86H. It would be useless since it would share the same BR as the F-101—assuming the F-86H shares the same BR as the cl-13.
It’s also an issue of compression as well.
Even if they share the same br it wouldnt be funtionally useless, afteral they are not similar planes to begin with, the f101 is a very different plane than the f86h and it also has enough of a difference from the f86f from the tt to actually warrant its adition.
The F101C could carry bombs
https://www.key.aero/forum/historic-aviation/91689-f-101a-c-voodoo?page=2
The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of The World’s Modern Military Aircraft is quite old and should not be considered as a reliable source.
I’d love to know where the author got that claim, but the book contained no referenced sources. Not even flight manuals for F-101A and F-101C make any mention of the conventional bombs.
So, no. Only obscure photos or reports of Voodoo carrying bombs for experimental purposes, if discovered, could change the story, though.
1 Like
Bill Gunston was the writer, he was an RAF flight instructor.
It’s an appeal to authority, I understand.
But the F-101C was considered a fighter bomber.
Here is the F101A flight manual the image below shows that the F101c has both the M1 and M2 bombing systems
an RAF flight instructor I want you to think real hard on this
1 Like
I want you to read that flight manual and tell me that a fighter bomber didn’t have bombs
I have a flight manual with the latest revision year, which I used to help other bug reporters fix F-101C on the dev server. I am 100% certain that no conventional bombs are being mentioned at all. Only special stores (nuclear bombs) are mentioned, associated with the MA-2 bombing system.
Here is a relevant excerpt from the manual.
You can argue for technical compatibility to allow the F-101C to use the conventional bombs that are known to be mounted on this bomb rack, but that was bug-reported and rejected by the developers.
1 Like
so in a manner the 101C is correct on the Live server?
It’s generally accurate, but it’s still missing its emergency tail hook.
fair
What buff? I haven’t heard of this.
Possibly he means the general missile changes, but I think they only changed the AIM-54s, AIM-7s and R-27s this update.
I swear some of these people must check under their bed for Russian bias before going to sleep, yes there is undeniably some issues, but some of the things I have seen people invent to justify their bias claims are ridiculous.
5 Likes
The difference is the Aim-54 was due for a buff. The R-77 wasn’t.
2 Likes