Here's an idea: research your planes first!

[peeps 0]

i find that the AMX fly almost exactly the same as Kegetys Hawk and i find them both pretty easy. As long as u don't try a stupidly sharp turn u won't end up spinning helplessly at the ground. The only thing i find hard with the AMX is boming, i can't seem to hit anything with them, im probably just crap and rely on the LGBombs the lovely A10 has. Also i've never had any trouble getting AI to land any plane.

[Sadico 1]

The f-22 has is a VERY advanced aircraft. It has extremely powerful engines, with thrust vectoring, and advanced fly by wire controls. That alone will make it turn better than almost any plane at any speed, and can reach angles of attack in excess of 60 degrees, and by almost any plane i mean, only aircraft such as x-29, x-31 or su-37 (the first with forward swept wings and the others with 3d thrust vectoring engines) can outmaneuver a raptor. About the a-10 vs mig-29, well, you are right, a-10 at 300 knots can surely turn tighter than a mig-29 at 900, but common sense says any decent fighter pilot in a modern fighter as the mig-29 should be able to rape a C.A.S. aircraft from the 70's... Guess iraqui pilots are a bit incompetent. Till aircraft such as the su-27 appeared, the f-16 was defined by most pilots as the most maneuverable fighter in the world.

[peeps 0]

a eurofighter is more agile and simple to fly then an F22. It has its agility toned down so pilots can react in time to fly it. And the best thing, its got that voice that says 'pull up' again and again when u get low. Actually come to think of it i think the F22 has that as well

[Stag 0]

So has an F16. And speaking as a Falcon4 with a particular affection for Wild Weasel, believe me, it's not the best feature.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a eurofighter is more agile and simple to fly then an F22.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so. I don't know if it's easier to fly, i haven't piloted any of'em , but it almost certainly is not as agile. Maybe you think it is because the eurofighter is smaller? Wrong. The Su-37 for example is a very big fighter (35+ tons max takeoff weight) but it can outmaneuver any other jet (except maybe the x-31 or some other experimental aircraft).

What other sims do you like, wardog? i like Falcon 4 (with superpak 2), f-22 ADF, and CFS2 and i'm gonna buy Flanker 2.5

[Stag 0]

Just Falcon4 SP2 for my High tech, CFS2 for my WW2 fix. Used to play EF2000, and I played EAW a lot, but despite being IMHO a better sim than CFS2, the graphics are definitely dated.

What can I say? I'm shallow

[peeps 0]

the eurofighter the simplest fighter jet to fly on the planet, the computer does it all for u. I thought it was more agile then the F22 but perhaps i was mistaken

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (MHSJROTTCADET @ May 21 2002,21:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually an A-10 can and will Outturn a F-16, it can also outturn a Mig-29. There is a documented story that A-10's were patrolling the NFZ in northern Irag, when they had a Mig-29 pop up behind them, the A-10's were turned around so fast the Iraqi Pilot ejected before he had even begun to engage.

I also have a real life A-10 pilot with 2,000 hours in the A-10, 500 of them over the NFZ who will validate the claim.<span id='postcolor'>

LOL ! I love it when new wave of folks tries to impress the rest with their magnificent careers they've had. Nothing better than watching someone make a fool out themselvef.

Another LOL goes to "A-10 can easily outrun F-16".

By "outrun" you obviouisly mean who will get away faster. Saying the A-10 will outrun the F-16 is like saying a stock Honda Civic will outrun a Corvette. C'mon folks, get real. It has nothing to do with what role the aircraft was designed for.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"F-16 is fast, but it was designed for high speed manuvers, so A-10 will outrun it in the slower speeds"<span id='postcolor'>

Whoever your physics teacher was he/she needs to get their head examined. I'll tell you this much, A-10 is more than twice as heavy as the F-16, its engines are far weaker, and the overall drag coefficient causes the A-10 to be far less aerodynamic than the F-16. Now let's look at the statistics:

A-10:

18,130 pounds of thrust (total of 2 engines)

gross weight: 47,000 lb

F-16:

27,000 pounds of thrust

gross weight: 21,585 lbs

See my point ? Thank you. Now go and rent a $50K Corvette and pit it against a 14K Civic, see which one "gets away" faster off a green light.

[MHSJROTTCADET 0]

I said outturn not outrun. Read my post. And lets see your credentials. Look it up at janes sometimes. Man I just love it when these know-it-all-but-have-no-proof types show up. I have proof, and I'm more then happy to supply it. And believe it or not the A-10 can outturn a F-16, thrust is not everything kiddie. Just because it was designed in the 1970's doesn't mean shit. So was the F-14 and it can still take on anything the air, and have a chance at winning.

[advocatexxx 0]

... my mistake, must have read the word wrong.

... and you say you flew the A-10 in the NFZ ? As far as I know Air Force pilots have to have a 4 year degree before they even attend the Academy. One would think with all the training and education your writing skills would surpass that of a pre-schooler.

[JustinCase 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ May 21 2002,22:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... and you say you flew the A-10 in the NFZ ?  As far as I know Air Force pilots have to have a 4 year degree before they even attend the Academy.  One would think with all the training and education your writing skills would surpass that of a pre-schooler.  <span id='postcolor'>

Advocatexxx:

I suggest you actually read this forum. This is what the guy said: "I also have a real life A-10 pilot with 2,000 hours in the A-10, 500 of them over the NFZ who will validate the claim. "

now, if you can't figure out what he said in that sentence then don't bother posting a reply to it in the way you just did. Actually, never bother to reply in such a way...

[MDRZulu 0]

That sentence actaully confused me at first too and now I get it and it makes perfect sense, the whole word have threw me off. I get it now you are saying have as you have evidence of a pilot that flew that many hours. He probably read the sentence wrong like me too because it did look like bad grammar but if you read it right its fine. However an A-10 will still make a sharper turn than an F-16 but think about this too an F-14 is more agile in lower speed combat with the wings out right? becuase it can go slower and use that more wingspan for more lift or whatever it would be in a turn. Same with an A-10 just that they can sweep their wings. Anyhow the topic is planes not being realistc not A-10's out turing F-16's. I think the hawk was a little overdone with how fast it could spin, ie ( 5000 airlieon rolls in about 1 second, well thats an exaggeration but you get the point) other than that I think the hawks flying characteristics were pretty well done and worked fine for ofp and the fast spins were avoidible if you didnt push your stick too far. People also have to realise that planes are not going to fly correctly in flashpoint unless some drastic changes were made in the engine or something.

[Darkhawk 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peeps @ May 22 2002,19:34)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">the eurofighter the simplest fighter jet to fly on the planet, the computer does it all for u. I thought it was more agile then the F22 but perhaps i was mistaken<span id='postcolor'>

Until the bluescreen of death pop's up and you have to reboot the fighter

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (JustinCase @ May 22 2002,16:41)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ May 21 2002,22:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">... and you say you flew the A-10 in the NFZ ?  As far as I know Air Force pilots have to have a 4 year degree before they even attend the Academy.  One would think with all the training and education your writing skills would surpass that of a pre-schooler.  <span id='postcolor'>

Advocatexxx:

I suggest you actually read this forum. This is what the guy said: "I also have a real life A-10 pilot with 2,000 hours in the A-10, 500 of them over the NFZ who will validate the claim. "

now, if you can't figure out what he said in that sentence then don't bother posting a reply to it in the way you just did. Actually, never bother to reply in such a way...<span id='postcolor'>

LOL !

Riiight. Maybe he should write in the English language the proper way, perhaps there would be no such confusions ey ? No need to take it out on me, as from what he has written it sounded like he claims to have been a real life pilot.

BTW, the word "outturn" as he so bluntly put it doesn't even mean to turn faster or in a smaller radius. It means something completely different.

But I understand that people on these forums come from many different backgrounds, and thus are not completely fluent in the English language. Perhaps they should use only the words which they know the meaning of huh ?

[JustinCase 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ May 22 2002,07:24)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But I understand that people on these forums come from many different backgrounds, and thus are not completely fluent in the English language.<span id='postcolor'>

If you understand that, why don't you take it into account and read posts more carefully. Maybe a bit of reading between the lines would do you good as well... I'm not native english but at least i don't jump to conclusions and start reacting like a chicken without a head...

Anyway, like MDRZulu said: back to the topic... doing research on your addon before you finish it... what do you think advocatexxx, is it a good thing?

[Airdude2 0]

i always thought low speed planes had better turning circles, like those stunt planes at airshows.

also aren't the new su's and the x-29 supposed to be ultra manuverable because of thier forwards swept wings?

[peeps 0]

you guys will have to take into consideration that advocatexxx is a little grumpy sometimes

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until the bluescreen of death pop's up and you have to reboot the fighter <span id='postcolor'>

nah they don't use windows

[CPL.Chesh 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sadico @ May 22 2002,15:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">a eurofighter is more agile and simple to fly then an F22.<span id='postcolor'>

I don't think so. I don't know if it's easier to fly, i haven't piloted any of'em , but it almost certainly is not as agile. Maybe you think it is because the eurofighter is smaller? Wrong. The Su-37 for example is a very big fighter (35+ tons max takeoff weight) but it can outmaneuver any other jet (except maybe the x-31 or some other experimental aircraft).

What other sims do you like, wardog? i like Falcon 4 (with superpak 2), f-22 ADF, and CFS2 and i'm gonna buy Flanker 2.5<span id='postcolor'>

wrong the eurofighter is so agile and so manoverable it is impossible to fly without a computer helping you if you are trying to take off aolong a runway which isnt just that perfect without the computer you are basically dead thats not exactly a good thing but its the truth

[Stag 0]

I believe the F22 only has 2 dimensional thrust vectoring, as opposed to the SU and Typhoon's 3.

However; Nobody really knows. We are all just stating opinions on each aircraft's merits, no matter how sarcastically we type.

The maneouverability of the aircraft Vs. each other is all but irrellevant; the question you've got to ask is how well they can outmaneouver BVR missiles.

If it did turn into a knife fight, I think I'd still put my money on the Hawk at least surviving unscathed, while the larger more powerful aircraft expend all their ammo trying to hit it. After which they would have to bug out most ricky-tick; a 30mm ADEN pack will solve most airbourne problems.

[Sadico 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">wrong the eurofighter is so agile and so manoverable it is impossible to fly without a computer helping you if you are trying to take off aolong a runway which isnt just that perfect without the computer you are basically dead thats not exactly a good thing but its the truth <span id='postcolor'>

No, you are wrong. Modern fighters are unstable and that's why the computer pilots them. The computer moves the control surfaces constantly to mantain your course and when you move the stick, instead of moving directly the control surfaces, the computer reads your command and moves the control surfaces. The Ef is not the first fighter to be controled by computers, i think the f-16 was the first.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">also aren't the new su's and the x-29 supposed to be ultra manuverable because of thier forwards swept wings?<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah, the sukhoi s-37 (not su-37) and the x-29 have forward swept wings.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I believe the F22 only has 2 dimensional thrust vectoring, as opposed to the SU and Typhoon's 3.

<span id='postcolor'>

The typhoon has no thrust vectoring. You are right about the other 2, f-22 has 2d and su-37 has 3d.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If it did turn into a knife fight, I think I'd still put my money on the Hawk at least surviving unscathed, while the larger more powerful aircraft expend all their ammo trying to hit it. After which they would have to bug out most ricky-tick; a 30mm ADEN pack will solve most airbourne problems.<span id='postcolor'>

*sigh* Modern fighters will rape the hawks ass in both bvr (the hawk has no bvr weapons) and close range. Search the internet for info on the maneuvers that the most modern fighters can do. Even more, check this out. Some videos from a su-37 at an airshow:

http://aeroweb.lucia.it/~agretch/Movies/su37.12.13.14.MPG

[advocatexxx 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (peeps @ May 23 2002,04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you guys will have to take into consideration that advocatexxx is a little grumpy sometimes  

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Until the bluescreen of death pop's up and you have to reboot the fighter <span id='postcolor'>

nah they don't use windows  <span id='postcolor'>

I am grumpy because I am 21, single and umemployed. (not being sarcastic).

Just look at my resume and you'll know why I'm so stuck.

Anyone wanna suggest a career change ?

[Stag 0]

Damn, Right about tiffie not having thrust vectoring; so much for listening to air show commentators.

I know the Hawk doesn't have BVR capability; I never said it did, but despite that impressive somersault, you'll notice the Flanker never actually changed vector; unless its missiles can scan through a very wide arc in a fraction of a second, then lock on and fire, what actual use is that maneouver?

[Tovarish 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wardog @ May 23 2002,18:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">unless its missiles can scan through a very wide arc in a fraction of a second, then lock on and fire, what actual use is that maneouver?<span id='postcolor'>

Have you heard of the Russian Helmet-mounted missile sight and the A-11, which itself has 3d thrust vectoring and a very wide angle seeker? Russian pilots actually fly with the trigger depressed when using this missile in a dogfight, so all they need to do is let go of the trigger button when they get a lock on an enemy plane.

[JustinCase 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (advocatexxx @ May 22 2002,16:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Anyone wanna suggest a career change ?<span id='postcolor'>

what about teaching english?

[Tovarish 0]

Here's another video of an Su-37 (in russian) this one's a bit bigger, 1.8 megs, and if you look closely you can see it performing some maneuvers where it uses it's side to side thrust vectoring capability.

Su-37 demonstration in Russian