IRIAF | News and Discussions

[Hack-Hook]

You are making a major mistake the J85 installed on the F-5s are equipped with afterburning, the Kosar does not have it.
If you want to make a comparison, there is the Saab 105Ö in the Austrian version and the Cesena A-37 light attack aircraft.

the afterburner affect maximum speed and supersonic capabilities of the airplane , it never affect the maximum payload (in fact it reduce the maximum payload) or ferry range (Again it reduce that ferry range , In Case of F-5 its 3700km with only external tanks and the speed not exceeding 800km and if you drop empty tanks)
and are you sure they use afterburner to reach maximum altitude ?

 

[hussainb72]

the afterburner affect maximum speed and supersonic capabilities of the airplane , it never affect the maximum payload (in fact it reduce the maximum payload) or ferry range (Again it reduce that ferry range , In Case of F-5 its 3700km with only external tanks and the speed not exceeding 800km and if you drop empty tanks)
and are you sure they use afterburner to reach maximum altitude ?

Afterburner is used for lots of different stuff, one of them is when taking off with a heavy payload, and the afterburner provides lots of extra thrust which means that the plane will be able to go faster with a heavy payload. Even if the plane carries a heavy payload, it will be able to fly, but at a very low speed, so the afterburner is needed if the plane has to move to a close location and deliver the payload very fast. And it's normal for the plane's range to reduce when using afterburners, as it burns more fuel in less time.

 

[Hack-Hook]

Afterburner is used for lots of different stuff, one of them is when taking off with a heavy payload, and the afterburner provides lots of extra thrust which means that the plane will be able to go faster with a heavy payload. Even if the plane carries a heavy payload, it will be able to fly, but at a very low speed, so the afterburner is needed if the plane has to move to a close location and deliver the payload very fast. And it's normal for the plane's range to reduce when using afterburners, as it burns more fuel in less time.

the first time i hear such things , by the way i'm certain you cant find an airplane that need afterburner for flying , and be assured f-5 don't need afterburner for take of

 

[aryobarzan]

shorter than f-5 but wider and having a higher height
being lighter of f-5 y one ton these are are noy important but what worry me is that f-5 maximum take of weight is more than 11t and this one is 6.6t

Please look at my post in "Chill Thread" regarding the move.

 

[hussainb72]

the first time i hear such things , by the way i'm certain you cant find an airplane that need afterburner for flying , and be assured f-5 don't need afterburner for take of

You dont need an afterburner to fly at all, but let's say if you have a heavy payload and full fuel, you will be able to fly, but you will be slow.
And the afterburner is usually used whenever the plane is heavy to make the takeoff easier, but ofc it has other uses as well.

 

[PeeD]

Afterburner can be used to allow takeoff with a heavy load which otherwise would not be possible with a non-afterburning engine on a given runway.

Afterburner simply adds another ~30% thrust at very bad fuel economy --> you get a stronger engine for a short period.

 

[gambit]

You do not need afterburner for takeoff, even when fully loaded. To compensate for less thrust, you must have runway length.

When I was active duty, my first jet was the F-111, which was nearly 48,000 lbs, and my second jet was the F-16 which was nearly 21,000 lbs.

F-16 max takeoff weight: 48,000 lbs
F-111 max takeoff weight: 100,000 lbs

Runway length RAF Upper Heyford: 8300 ft
Runway length MacDill AFB: 11,400 ft

There is a technical skill set involving calculating takeoff weight, baro, elevation, and runway length that resulted in how much and how long to apply afterburner, and am not going to the details here. Suffice to say that if the mission requires a certain amount of fuel, the F-16 pilot will use as much of that MacDill's 11,400 ft length as possible, and that mean judicious use of AB on takeoff. On the other hand, the Heyford F-111 pilot, with his jet fully loaded with two external fuel tanks and two nukes, will use full AB from start to fully airborne and then air refuel shortly in order to make the flight to Moscow. Usable runway length is more important than load when it comes to AB calculation.

With extreme combat conditions, as in the base is actually under bombardment, a pilot can hold brakes with AB but this is nearly as dangerous as getting hit by enemy weapons. The brakes cannot hold the jet even at %70 power, let alone at full AB, so do that long enough and the brakes will catastrophically fail. There is no 'rolling' takeoff here. The intention is to get as fast airflow speed over the wings as possible, so once the brakes are released after X seconds of AB, the jet will literally lurch/jump forward and the takeoff speed will be twice or greater than normal.

 

[AmirPatriot]

With extreme combat conditions, as in the base is actually under bombardment, a pilot can hold brakes with AB but this is nearly as dangerous as getting hit by enemy weapons. The brakes cannot hold the jet even at %70 power, let alone at full AB

DCS pilots do this all the time - I guess it looks cool. Invariably when I go full AB in the Flanker or the Eagle, it always starts rolling forward despite the brakes. It does lurch a bit when I release them though. Luckily with the Flanker or an Eagle with drop tanks, fuel isn't too much of an issue on a standard Fighter Sweep mission.

A real example of a loaded plane needing AB to take off was the F-14A, needing to light up the TF-30s for a carrier takeoff. The F-14B/D removed this need with the GE F110s.

 

[hussainb72]

DCS pilots do this all the time - I guess it looks cool. Invariably when I go full AB in the Flanker or the Eagle, it always starts rolling forward despite the brakes. It does lurch a bit when I release them though. Luckily with the Flanker or an Eagle with drop tanks, fuel isn't too much of an issue on a standard Fighter Sweep mission.

A real example of a loaded plane needing AB to take off was the F-14A, needing to light up the TF-30s for a carrier takeoff. The F-14B/D removed this need with the GE F110s.

I dont think the braking mechanism is correctly modules for FC-3 aircrafts in dcs, but yea it's still fun to do.

 

[AmirPatriot]

I dont think the braking mechanism is correctly modules for FC-3 aircrafts in dcs, but yea it's still fun to do.

Well, I haven't tried the other modules yet.

 

[hussainb72]

Well, I haven't tried the other modules yet.

You should try them, most of them are fun, especially the A-10C, it's easy to learn, but hard to master.

 

[AmirPatriot]

You should try them, most of them are fun, especially the A-10C.

The dream is the F-14, but I've already sunk so much cash into this sim. I need to get flying more regularly to justify it to myself...

 

[hussainb72]

The dream is the F-14, but I've already sunk so much cash into this sim. I need to get flying more regularly to justify it to myself...

Yea that's the problem with such sims, you have to pay to have fun.

 

[Mithridates]

is it free to play with F-5E in DCS??

 

[AmirPatriot]

is it free to play with F-5E in DCS??

Nope. Only the Su-25T and TF-51D are free. I've heard the F-5 is very good though.