AV-8b or F-16C

F-16 is an investment, miss tons of stuff, if you wanna play now then it's Harrier

While I'd like to also fly Harrier, I don't want to bounce back and forth between aircraft so will just focus on F-16C for now.[/Quote]

 

 

That is great decision/plan.

 

I would think that minimum 15-20 hours per plane before switching is good amount so that you can learn some habits and learn new things to do something. And if possible, like 100 hours would be great thing such a way.

 

Regarding fuel, the F-16C seems to be very fuel efficient so long as you don't use afterburner but it's good to know it's there if needed.[/Quote]

 

I broke that minimum hour time when I got F-16C, as ai was jumping back and worth it and Hornet. And it hurted the Viper experience, but it had at the time very terrible fuel consumption, almost none. You had about 8000 PPH with full afterburner. In a month after release it got fixed to current one, where you really need to manage the consumption. Similar is with JF-17 that in a heated session avoiding SAM's after avoiding CAPs and trying to get the one bomb on the defended bridge, and it is super easy to find out that you are bingo and just few minutes away from release point.

 

The funny thing is that with a Viggen and Harrier I don't have such a problems as I have learn to control fuel better by feel. And hornet has nicely the AB limiter that I don't even accidentally waste fuel.

 

 

Razbam had said they were going to relook at the Harrier fuel burn rate as it seems to not be very fuel-efficient.

 

Well, Razbam has said many things, and they have a lot to deliver. They do good job when they get it done, but it seems to take time.

I do recall something about the harrier fuel consumption while I was flying it today, as I am still amazed how far and fast one can get with it when well managing it.

But the Pegasus engine is very powerful, why Harrier can climb faster than even F-15C and holds the record for 9000ft climb, after that Eagle starts climbing faster for higher altitude.

But considering that when you fly semi-fast (~400-500kts) and you do lots of lo-hi-lo maneuvers, that climbing performance really comes huge benefit. And using engine in maneuvers helps a lot fight against ground units like AAA in ways that hornet and viper can't.

 

At this current rate, I think I get back to Viper in next month. As I started today fly JF-17 and oh boy does it feel to bleed fuel with speed. It is almost like you have two settings, Thirsty and Very Thirsty.

I hit my head maybe an 20 minutes to wall as I couldn't remember the procedure for BRM release, continually had just all crossed.

Until it just came to me, it was a quick mission for CAS, and while the mission has rockets loaded, they malfunction for some reason. So made a quick action for another map and they work just like learned in first free two days.

Need to check is there need to make bug report for that...

 

But in that time at 13000ft and autopilot at nice large 30nmi diameter turn at 290 kts the JF-17 was just burning fuel like nothing, even when FF was green. Don't yet know about it's engine management as JF-17 feels super simple compared to hornet and viper, it is like having just couple pages in MFCDS and that's all.

 

So it seems very effective for it's purpose.

Something that even viper doesn't have.

In viper I stare maybe too much the FF values, but it is easy to notice that having that mind set "Now I go slow" and you get it go further.

 

The funny thing for me as well is that in Soviet aircrafts like Su-25, MiG-29 etc I am far more in touch with the time and range I have by fuel. I don't need to think about it and calculate the values. But it comes with understanding that what is possibilities and go with the flow. Maybe it is that since birth everything has been in SI table and anyways twiddle lot of different values from various forces etc that it is easy. Or that I have maybe a 500 hours on Su-25 alone so it is easy to even visually gather what I can do with all these aircrafts.

 

The fuel flow in various modules is challenging. As in one discussion here it was stated in the Su-27S manual that the fuel dump speed was IIRC about 20 minutes from full to empty, and that is special mode when all pumps are pumping at maximum speed fuel out. But if you put afterburner on... It is much faster rate regardless that you had less pumps active and so on lower fuel flow. So in theory you should have over 20 minutes full afterburner time as you can't pump fuel to engines faster than directly out.

 

But I recommend to listen the Nick Grey interview about P-47 and future damage modeling, as that might explain many things....

With such configuration you wouldn't be flying much CAS really as 120 nmi for Harrier is very long flight range and closer to what it is for Hornet from the carrier. So you would be flying closer to 20-50 nmi (40-100 km) if even that. As just like example with the original design with the Gripen, the Harrier was designed to perform very close range attacks on the troops. Why example original Gripen (A/B) didn't have Air-to-Air refueling capabilities as doctrine was to fly from various different roads between strikes, just few tens of kilometers from the enemy. Constantly having ground grews moving to other road between landings etc and not to land to same position twice in row.

 

And looking the real weapons loadouts from even first Gulf War, Harrier was not carrying less than Hornet or Viper, but it was closer to friendlies and delivering support faster. But incapable to fight against enemies fighters why F-16C and F/A-18C are far better suited for tasking.

 

 

 

Harrier downside really is that it is strictly to ground pounding in N/A variance. While those two opens up far nicer mission options and so on better choice. For me when I want to do the ground pounding, I take Harrier over Viper as the Viper seems to burn fuel much faster than Harrier with similar flight patterns and speeds and loadouts, requiring far more often to get refueling.

Any player can adjust fuel based on thier mission, but part of CAS isn't jut flying a to b to drop ordinance, but be able to loiter around ahead on standby to provide cover for the troops on the ground as new threats emerge. Anything less than max internal fuel is a joke.

I set my F-16C to not go into afterburner unless I toggle a switch. Then it can go into afterburner mode but I'll then untoggle the switch to prevent it from wasting fuel.

The F-16C is fairly easy to land as well and I've landed all shot-up or using the short landing circuit in the manual. Only squirrelly thing with landing the F-16C is to use the airframe to slow the plane until your nose drops when you can pump the brakes.

The AV-8B is really hard for me to land...not sure why but my angle is always too steep with that plane. It seems like it wants to land faster than the F-16C so I need to practice that more but that's the only negative about AV-8B.

Did you buy the TM Warthog? If so, you have an AB detent you can use for the Viper.

Did you buy the TM Warthog? If so, you have an AB detent you can use for the Viper.

No, the Warthog is hard to find under $500. Waiting and watching but I mapped AB detent to a button.

No, the Warthog is hard to find under $500. Waiting and watching but I mapped AB detent to a button.

Newbie's question: How to do that and how does it work? I.e. I push throttle fully forward and I am at max power and then I press button it jumps to max afterburner?

the software version of the afterburner detent is a way to keep you from going in afterburner until you click the button. So in effect, yes it puts you into afterburner. It also depends on your throttle range.

the software version of the afterburner detent is a way to keep you from going in afterburner until you click the button. So in effect, yes it puts you into afterburner. It also depends on your throttle range.

Yeah. I have it off by default and can press throttle to 100% and fly around with fuel burn <10,000 PPH. If I press the afterburner detent button I need to lower the throttle then press it back forward and I blast off with afterburners going. When done with AB, I press afterburner detent button and lower throttle and back to flying without afterburner. Makes much easier to conserve fuel.

I keep going back to the Harrier, only for the VTOL. Have not even fired the gun. landing on taxi ways, roads, boat! Great fun.

I keep going back to the Harrier, only for the VTOL. Have not even fired the gun. landing on taxi ways, roads, boat! Great fun.

I just started STOL and some VTOL and it's fun but I find the AV-8B does little else to make me buy, however, there's something compelling in the AV-8B that forces me to keep looking for a reason to buy it.

I just started STOL and some VTOL and it's fun but I find the AV-8B does little else to make me buy, however, there's something compelling in the AV-8B that forces me to keep looking for a reason to buy it.

Its very fun to fly. Also one of the harder aircraft to do aerial refueling in as unlike in the F-15/16 you dont really have anything to help guide you into position, and if you try to watch the basket and the probe connect youll never connect. Took me a long time to figure out how to do it right every time. Probably one of the easier aircraft to master too if you give it enough time.

I made a bombing mission to depart at 0700 expecting it to be just getting light outside but it was pitch black. I flew it anyways in the F-16C and really struggled to get bombs on target (didn't know NVGs were available). Anyways, landed fine using ILS but I looked at what made the AV-8B a "night attack" plane and the NAVFLIR really interests me...too bad AV-8B doesn't have ILS but we can just land near vertically and not worry about it.