|
F-105 But I really wish you could fly a Canberra.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Leif. posted:But I really wish you could fly a Canberra. That would be great. Depending on how dumb the mission tasking is, it'd probably satisfy any collective sadistic urges on our part. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:...At this rate, it feels like the only victory screen we're ever going to see is that one with the fireworks and F-4s. ... Actually, the screens could've probably been screwed up by the second expansion (the 1956 Red Tide). XP2 and SF2: North Atlantic were the only new, non-remake, releases in the SF2 series, and the testing must've missed that. SelenicMartian fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Nov 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
You make this game look way easier than it actually is. I hope that changes when you have to fly the F-105D Thunderchief against MiG-19s  e: Veloxyll posted:Also, is it possible to get hit by cannon and NOT die now? Because most of the kills seemed to be basically 1-hit jobs. Definitely.  He went on to shoot down a pair of Hunters that were covering my rear end as I bravely ran away. Makrond fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 21, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
RESULTSpre:Hunter Lightning ==== F-100 ======== F-105 ============= So, in order of increasing complexity the videos will go in the sequence of Hunter, F-100, Lightning and the F-105 campaign. The Hunter episode will start uploading soon-ish, because it's done already 
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
Sub-Season 4A. Red Thunder - 5 O'Clock Charlie (Hunter FGA.9) quote:Dear Mum, The B-reel  In which bombs get complicated The list of things we can use against ground targets keeps growing. 
SelenicMartian fucked around with this message at 17:37 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
Man, when you're far away, that napalm effect doesn't look half bad. It's a shame it's useless for actual combat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:19
|
|
|
That squadron emblem on the FGA.9 is pretty cool looking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:37
|
|
|
brozozo posted:That squadron emblem on the FGA.9 is pretty cool looking. No. 4 Squadron, RAF. They're still operational as a training unit. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
brozozo posted:That squadron emblem on the FGA.9 is pretty cool looking. Or change the paint job before the campaign missions. Some Hunters and other planes have very dopey "shark mouth" skins, but there's no way to chose them outside single missions. By the way, we have no suggested names for the F-105D pilot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 08:50
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:By the way, we have no suggested names for the F-105D pilot. Johnny Storm. or Flash Thompson.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
Lionel Oh. I don't even care that it doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
Sub-Season 4B. Red Thunder - Cooking With Gas (F-100D Super Sabre)quote:Dear Mum, The (AIM-9)B-reel  In which you might start having doubts about our new weapon The loadout options are rather average, the entire Mk.80 series are on display. SF2 also has a couple of later modifications of F-100D, but none of them support AGM-12 Bullpup. In fact, Bullpup is completely absent from the sim. Probably, because the developer found manual guidance too hardcore.  P.S. Makrond posted:The 'strange fins' on the wings of the Super Sabre are wing fences. They're basically omnipresent on early Cold War-era jets, partly because swept wings have a tendency to stall in horrible ways, and partly because designing planes right the first time is hard. The short version is, wing fences make the plane more predictable when it stalls and makes it less likely to do something that makes the stall worse, such as pitch up hard and enter an unrecoverable spin. SelenicMartian fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
[REDACTED] Sidewinders!  Sorry 
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 20:14 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 20:03
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Sidewinders!
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
I for one look forward to seeing these missiles in action in War Thunder 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
In War Thunder they'd probably not have many of the faults they do in this, especially in Arcade. Though have they even said they'd introduce missiles in the Korean War era stuff?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
Nope, but I wish they'd go up to at least the MiG-19 and similar aircraft. Having missiles with like, 5% kill rate (As historical) would balance it out pretty nicely, along with "have to be behind the enemy" and the various "bugs".
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
The 'strange fins' on the wings of the Super Sabre are wing fences. They're basically omnipresent on early Cold War-era jets, partly because swept wings have a tendency to stall in horrible ways, and partly because designing planes right the first time is hard. The short version is, wing fences make the plane more predictable when it stalls and makes it less likely to do something that makes the stall worse, such as pitch up hard and enter an unrecoverable spin. The longer version: Vortices on the top of the wing increase drag and reduce effective lift, which makes the wing very likely to stall. These vortices can be caused by, among other things, boundary layer separation at high angles of attack (ie, a plane pitching up sharply). In the F-100D's case they placed the wing fences near the ends of the wings, preventing the vortices from spreading to the wingtips (well, unless you really gently caress up) and stopping the airflow from turning too far spanwise ('sideways' from the perspective of the wing) at low speeds. This prevents the sudden pitch-up that the F-100A and other early Century-series fighters suffered from when entering both high-speed and low-speed stall states, which would generally then result in a flat spin, a very dangerous type of spin that is difficult to recover from. The other side of this however is that because the rest of the wing will still have vortices on top, the plane will still drop one wing and enter a spin in a high-speed stall (pitching up too sharply at speed). Fortunately, it will likely be a steep spin with the nose already pointing below the horizon, making recovery easier. The F-100D is also better balanced and has a slightly lower wing loading than its predecessors, giving it a much better chance of recovery from a steep spin. The A-6 Intruder (as well as plenty of Russian jets such as the MiG-17) also has wing fences near the wingtips, but has a second set closer to the fuselage, near the wing roots. The closer set of wing fences prevents vortices from spreading along the length of the wing in the first place, which effectively reduces the stall speed of the plane and makes it very gradually enter a stall state as the vortices take time to spread over/around the fences. This is a nice feature in a subsonic attacker that has to land on a carrier - catching the tailhook on the arrestor wires requires deliberately increasing the angle of attack at low speeds, which will very quickly cause all kinds of problems, especially with swept wings. 
Makrond fucked around with this message at 21:54 on Nov 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
Yay! Now this LP's alive! Added to the update.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Aw thanks. Mostly I just have a passable knowledge of aeroplane physics gleaned from reading countless books and online resources about aviation. Korean War and early Cold War jets are really interesting because most of the stuff that's now just common knowledge about stalls, spins and other departures from controlled flight was discovered then, through a lot of trial and error (and many, many horrific accidents). In particular numerous aircraft manufacturers learned a lot about wing, nose cone and fuselage designs. The Super Saber for example is kind of amusing because the flat-bottomed fuselage really reminds me of English WW2 bombers such as the Wellington or Blenheim, which used the flat base as a partial, extremely inefficient lifting body long before lifting bodies had entered the realm of scientific knowledge. Take careful note of the phrase 'extremely inefficient'; the Wellington had 100 square feet less wing area than the He-111 and was heavier fully loaded (though its maximum takeoff weight was lower), but had a fairly comparable wing loading. It was also considerably slower to accelerate and had a lower top speed despite there being less wing to create drag. Not the kind of feature you'd want on a high-powered supersonic fighter.
Makrond fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
This campaign is set in 1962 right? Trivia: Prior to 1963 the AIM-9B Sidewinder was designated the AAM-N-7 Sidewinder IA. Yea that's a mouthful. The 9B was, as demonstrated in the video, a very limited weapon system. It used a non-cooled, non-slewing IR seeker that frequently decided to shoot for the sun or the sun's ground reflection. And it was really only able to hit non-manoeuvring targets from within about 5 kilometres, if you were lucky (unlike SelenicMartian). Despite all that, the 9B actually has some confirmed kills against MiG-15s back in 1958. (I hope this isn't what the [REDACTED] above was saying as well.) VKing fucked around with this message at 12:33 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 12:31
|
|
|
Gotta feel pretty embarrassed to get shot down in a MiG-15 by one of those missiles. Like "Flying on Autopilot" embarrassed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 16:36
|
|
|
VKing posted:(I hope this isn't what the [REDACTED] above was saying as well.) No, it was the origin story of the KS-13/AA-2 Atoll.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
We'll be seeing it in the Lightning episode  It'll take a while. One recording failed, because the bombers I was supposed to kill were both brought down by a Dutch Hunter, which decided to ram them instead of even trying to use its Sidewinders. All three went down in flames.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
You know you're too interested in aviation when you get faintly excited by the presence of the Sidewinder's growl. Then again, as a kid I always thought it was cool that there was a missile that growled.  I can't remember where I heard this, but here's a fun fact for you: apparently, the pitch of the Sidewinder's growling indicates the quality of the lock. The higher the pitch, the better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
SelenicMartian posted:We'll be seeing it in the Lightning episode You call that a failure? I call that a great success.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:You know you're too interested in aviation when you get faintly excited by the presence of the Sidewinder's growl. Then again, as a kid I always thought it was cool that there was a missile that growled. This is true. I think the AIM-9's growl comes from the way they originally did the feedback mechanism for it - one of the electrical signals indicating the intensity of the IR signature in the AIM-9's seeker was directed to the pilot's headset. As the IR signature became more intense, the frequency of the signal would increase, giving a higher-pitched sound. Unfortunately this isn't modelled in SF2 at all, at least not without a mod.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Makrond posted:This is true. I think the AIM-9's growl comes from the way they originally did the feedback mechanism for it - one of the electrical signals indicating the intensity of the IR signature in the AIM-9's seeker was directed to the pilot's headset. As the IR signature became more intense, the frequency of the signal would increase, giving a higher-pitched sound. Unfortunately this isn't modelled in SF2 at all, at least not without a mod. That sounds about right, yeah. At the very least it aligns with how I assumed the Sidewinder's feedback system worked. Like Selenic Martian, though, I'm utterly bewildered by how people thought that missiles were the Wave of the FutureTM and that the age of the aircraft mounted cannon was over on the back of such abysmal performance. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:That sounds about right, yeah. At the very least it aligns with how I assumed the Sidewinder's feedback system worked. I guess the same reason they thought that turreted bombers would be unassailable by fighter aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 08:32
|
|
|
Veloxyll posted:I guess the same reason they thought that turreted bombers would be unassailable by fighter aircraft. It's covered in guns! How could this NOT work?! (Proceeds to not work) It's working a bit! We're in a transitional phase. Get your tiny flying bicycles out of here, I have a war to win! With giant munitions and hubris! (continues to not work) HUBRIIISSS
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
Suspect Bucket posted:It's covered in guns! How could this NOT work?! Then they would've worked fine without escorts. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
To be fair, Old 666 also had a crew of legitimate misfits, and also the pilot had balls of freaking STEEL. Most bomber crews were not like that. (That said, Old 666 is one of my favourite WW2 stories)
|
|
#
?
Nov 25, 2013 11:37
|
|
|
Sub-Season 4C. Red Thunder - Thorsday (Lightning F.1) The theme of this update is quote:Dear Mum, The B-reel #1  In which our plane has teething issues The B-reel #2  In which both of our missiles track and guide The B-reel #3  In which the action goes beyond stupid and embarrassing That was literally all it has to show.  P.S. YouTube kept suggesting tagging the videos with "Lightning (Cause of Death)" SelenicMartian fucked around with this message at 17:38 on Aug 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
The Lightning is a great jet. Awesome speed and decent missiles, shame about those snap rolls. Also, you didn't show the best part of the Lightning, you had no drop tanks! 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:24
|
|
|
Rolling round and round and roung again. Funny that the AIM can't even lock on the massive (hot) rear end of the Lightning 
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
It locked, it even tracked a bit, its just really not that agile. Plus even if it gets close, there is a chance it might not detonate! Those early sidewinders were good stuff. By the way, is the AIM-4 Falcon in the game? [edit] If it is, I should probably not talk about it
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 07:40 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:38
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Also, you didn't show the best part of the Lightning, you had no drop tanks! Galaga Galaxian posted:[edit] If it is, I should probably not talk about it Pimpmust posted:Funny that the AIM can't even lock on the massive (hot) rear end of the Lightning SelenicMartian fucked around with this message at 07:46 on Nov 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:43
|
|
|
I see, I didn't realize that about the drop tanks. How is the fuel load on those early Lightnings? Also, do you plan on showing off the AIM-4 or can I post a choice quote from a big fan of theirs in the 8th TFW?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:05 |
|
|
Oh, I'll show the Falcons. The developer specifically added them in SF2 just for one plane type, it would be a shame not to show a weapon less useful in combat, than a rock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2013 07:53
|
|