Decided to buy the F5

Played around with it last night doing some ground attack. Man, you forget how nice CCIP/CCRP are until you fly this plane.

Has a pretty respectable A/G loadout - but I still wish it had two more missiles.

Taken plenty of damage flying it so far - had a couple engines go out and blew a few tires landing thus far.

And it's just a dead-gorgeous plane - always loved the lines of the F5.

It does indeed put you back in time, comming from all the fancy 4th gen jets :D

In the -1, after all the dive angles, airspeeds, depression angles etc, it is written:

“Use the Force, Luke”

It does indeed put you back in time, comming from all the fancy 4th gen jets :D

I'm with you though - I would LOVE to have a Tornado module with Terrain Following Radar. Set it to 100ft, get some retarded bombs and just blast over a target at 500kts at night. Wheeeeeeeeee!!! (Especially if they could implement the JP223 for airbase strikes.

After the F-16, I think the Tornado would be my #2 want.

In the -1, after all the dive angles, airspeeds, depression angles etc, it is written:

 

 

“Use the Force, Luke”

Ain't that the truth! I'm a fan of low-level/high-speed bomb runs: takes out some of the guesswork as you just drop when you're close and hope it works. lol

The airplane is nice but it is dedicated to the AA and much less to the AG where it is very deficient, no dedicated avionics, no HUDs, etc ..

:thumbup:

The airplane is nice but it is dedicated to the AA and much less to the AG where it is very deficient, no dedicated avionics, no HUDs, etc ..

I dont agree. I use it almost exclusively for AG. I only throw down the gloves and turn to fight, if there really is no other way. For AA I find it just as limited as for AG. Its just not suited at all for loitering around and picking out single units, or clearing an airfield of air defences etc. Its much better suited for strikes and interdiction, and thats what I use it for. Great fun :thumbup:.

End of the day though, its a great little plane / module, that is very rewarding.

I dont agree. I use it almost exclusively for AG. I only throw down the gloves and turn to fight, if there really is no other way. For AA I find it just as limited as for AG. Its just not suited at all for loitering around and picking out single units, or clearing an airfield of air defences etc. Its much better suited for strikes and interdiction, and thats what I use it for. Great fun :thumbup:.

 

End of the day though, its a great little plane / module, that is very rewarding.

I agree with you - I think it's AA capability is far less than it's AG. It has two 20mm cannons and two missiles. You can't engage BVR, your radar is of limited usefulness...

However, in the AG role you can carry 5x 500lb centerline, 2x 1000lb bombs on pylons and 2x rocket pods with 7 rockets each.

This is why in it's time they had dedicated bombers and Attack planes. The fancy electronics were too big to wedge into a fighter back then so it's just a faster sexier P-51.

It would be nice if you could carry a few more sidewinders though...but that wasn't the way they did things in the late 50's early 60's. Like the F-104 this was a gun platform first.

I just hopped back in tonight for the first time since going VR.

What a roomy little office the F-5 has! The pilot is practically manspreading in the seat. Coming from the F-18, the F-5's engines are incredibly responsive (maybe unrealistically so?), yet they're also anemic, wheezy little things. I was doing a climbing turn from takeoff at full mil, 1500fpm, 180kts...and losing speed! I've flown real life GA airplanes with better climb performance!

I'd forgotten you can't see how much fuel is in the external bags, and as soon as the "Ext Tanks Empty" caution light illuminates extreme range anxiety sets in. Range anxiety sets in immediately after wheels-up if you're flying without bags.

Maneuvering she bleeds energy like a stuck pig and it's hell gaining it back unless you're in a controls-neutral dive. You can't just power your way out of trouble. I also decided to play around doing some low altitude, high AOA work. Mistake.

And I honestly believe it's harder to set up a good, stable, textbook approach and landing in the F-5 than it is to do a carrier trap in the F-18.

In short, I missed this old bird! Time to go get in some fights!!

Enjoy your purchase, CybrSlydr!

I've spent most hours on this bird. The hiking of nosewheel feature is what really attracted me. Shes a beauty.

Your comments on this airplane are all positive, probably I was wrong so I decided to take it :)

:thumbup:

Your comments on this airplane are all positive, probably I was wrong so I decided to take it :) :thumbup:

Strong survival instincts. I admire that! (c.) Riddick

:-)))

Coming from the F-18, the F-5's engines are incredibly responsive (maybe unrealistically so?), yet they're also anemic, wheezy little things. I was doing a climbing turn from takeoff at full mil, 1500fpm, 180kts...and losing speed! I've flown real life GA airplanes with better climb performance!

I don't think anyone who has spent any time in the F5 would ever call it overpowered, but GA comparisons might be selling it a little short haha. I would ask what your weight/drag index was in that climb, however, and why you needed to go so slow? No climb profiles are provided for a mil power climb at less than 285 KIAS in TO 1F-5E-1, and in fact it recommends "a minimum of 300 KIAS should be maintained except for instrument approaches, maximum range descents, landings, and tactical maneuvering."

On a typical Caucus MP mission my loadout puts me at 20,000 pounds/130 drag index. I accelerate to 300 before turning and climb at max power to 10,000 feet, then transition to a mil climb to the mid teens, and I usually see 4000 FPM or greater in the max power phase.

We're clearly both fans of the plane, and I'm not doubting your experience at 180 KIAS at all. I just think that excessive AOA/drag/ect at that speed (especially in a turn) are really keeping you down. Pure turbojet = "the faster it goes, the faster it goes faster" and all that.

Anyway, cheers all, and I hope the OP enjoys the purchase.

 

Anyway, cheers all, and I hope the OP enjoys the purchase.

So far I am enjoying it.

Strong survival instincts. I admire that! (c.) Riddick

:-)))

I followed my survival instinct so much that I bought the F-18 :)

Best wishes and have fun with the F-5 :)

:thumbup:

I would like to fly the F-104 Starfighter... A dream...

I would like to fly the F-104 Starfighter... A dream...

... and Im hoping we have F-105 Thunderchief one day :)

Reading threads like this makes me wanna hop back into F-5. I bought it while back but Viggen & Mig-15 have been more interesting to me. I think it's the lack of story driven campaign thats F-5 seems to be missing - or is there something you can recommend?

I don't think anyone who has spent any time in the F5 would ever call it overpowered, but GA comparisons might be selling it a little short haha. I would ask what your weight/drag index was in that climb, however, and why you needed to go so slow? No climb profiles are provided for a mil power climb at less than 285 KIAS in TO 1F-5E-1, and in fact it recommends "a minimum of 300 KIAS should be maintained except for instrument approaches, maximum range descents, landings, and tactical maneuvering."

 

On a typical Caucus MP mission my loadout puts me at 20,000 pounds/130 drag index. I accelerate to 300 before turning and climb at max power to 10,000 feet, then transition to a mil climb to the mid teens, and I usually see 4000 FPM or greater in the max power phase.

 

We're clearly both fans of the plane, and I'm not doubting your experience at 180 KIAS at all. I just think that excessive AOA/drag/ect at that speed (especially in a turn) are really keeping you down. Pure turbojet = "the faster it goes, the faster it goes faster" and all that.

 

Anyway, cheers all, and I hope the OP enjoys the purchase.

Forgetting to close the airbrakes after a cold start is the only thing that gives me such bad performance, every damn time :doh:

Forgetting to close the airbrakes after a cold start is the only thing that gives me such bad performance, every damn time :doh:

What do you do with all that dead time after Eng1 is up and the ground tech applying the air to Eng2? That's the moment for me where I bring the brakes up, set-up the flaps and the dampers.

Forgetting to close the airbrakes after a cold start is the only thing that gives me such bad performance, every damn time :doh:

Yes! This has happend to me so many times that I never ever will forget to do an F2 controls check before taxi again!;)

The good thing is it does not have much on its HUD so you will be forced to learn flying by instruments including navigation etc.

And I honestly believe it's harder to set up a good, stable, textbook approach and landing in the F-5 than it is to do a carrier trap in the F-18.

Lack of a fly-by-wire that trims itself to on-speed AOA will do that.

I was perplexed for a while at how difficult it is to fly a 3-degree glideslope in the F-5. I'd cross the runway threshold with amber donut, pull the power at roughly 20 feet, try to flare, and land hard every time. Then I actually read Chuck's Guide (RTFM...imagine that) and learned that's not how you fly an F-5 on final approach. Instead it's a 1000 fpm descent from the abeam turn until short final, then 400 fpm (basically a 2 degree glideslope) until 20 feet when you go idle and flare.

That was much easier to get down after a fair bit of practice. Not that much more difficult than, say, an F/A-18 with the HUD off, but definitely different.

I dont agree. I use it almost exclusively for AG. I only throw down the gloves and turn to fight, if there really is no other way. For AA I find it just as limited as for AG. Its just not suited at all for loitering around and picking out single units, or clearing an airfield of air defences etc. Its much better suited for strikes and interdiction, and thats what I use it for. Great fun :thumbup:.

 

End of the day though, its a great little plane / module, that is very rewarding.

and many aircraft were designed around 2 missiles. in earlier times./

Mirage 3 only carried 2 Heatseakers. Mig21's initially only had 2 IR seekers. With later models like Mig21bis had up to 4 hardpoints allowing 4 Missiles, eventually in its life rising to 6 ( if using R60s) however 6 missiles makes for quite a draggy Mig21, and is quite a hindrance to performance. I almost never carry more than 4.

Mig21 might have radar guided option but the R3R's have short range, they are not medium range BVR missiles like the Aim7.

Seriously for a lightweight fighter/interceptor ( expecially considering its meant to be inexpensive export plane) of an older generation its A2A potential isn't that limited if you consider you get All aspect seekers.

IN A/G F5 carries lots of ordinance especially considering its size, far more than a Mig21 or Mirage 3, but it entirely based on manual gunsight bombing/strafing. Mig21 has some advantage in A/G as it has automated pipper mode , which albeit is no CCIP comparative to 4th gen modern fighters, the automatic mode nonetheless helps with in dive bombing.

In terms of Combat radius Migs and Mirages weren't known for their combat endurance either.

I love the F-5 - it's all manual, seat-of-the-pants, and has two, beautiful, reheated turbojets.

She also forces you to FLY HER RIGHT. If you don't, you won't get the expected performance.

No unlimited thrust to get you out of trouble.

I do think she has more drag than expected, but I'm lacking flight test data to compare against.

Any real F-5 drivers able to comment?