Jump to content

A-7 by RAZBAM confirmed!


MrDieing

Recommended Posts

A question.

 

For instance, do you want a flyable Starlifter in DCS, or do you want a flyable Starfighter in DCS ?

 

it makes no sense to compare a large Unarmed 4 engine cargo plane to a single seat fighter jet. its a even totally different then comparing a lightweight attack aircraft or Combat trainer to a dedicated fighter or attack aircraft.

 

at this rate a comparison to a strategic bomber would have made more sense.


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 3 weeks later...
Are they even working on this module? I don't see any info on it.

 

I hope they still plan on making it, I was really looking forward to it.

 

It's probably on the backburner until other projects are done and until ED has a usable groundradar available. It has been repeatedly said that they are/will be making an A7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just think what this sim will be in 5 years...oh my

 

I had the same feeling 5 years ago, when I read about all those cool aircraft in development, like Apache, Hornet, F16.

 

Or was it 10 years ago....?

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C'mon. It's hard not to notice the great progress DCS has made through the years and how much the DCS has grew over that time. Yes, the modules do take more than quite often originally announced but looking on DCS we really are lucky to have a possibility to experience a great sim. This was hard to imagine 5 years ago when the sims were rather perceived as a niche and even foreseen as a dying market. Besides, still more is going to come and that's actually a great thing that the 3'rd party devs got an experience which creates a much bigger momentum and development potential for DCS than it was few years back.

DCS has come a long way, from quite a niche and often startup like environment to a leader with solid foundations for the future. We really should appreciate all the hard work ED and 3’rd party devs are doing and ease up a bit on more frequent “I’m a customer I demand approach” especially that it’s not exactly an easy market.

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actuallyk there is a huge difference... we have many modules right now... good ones!

 

We are there!!

 

Concur with you.

Progress might seems slow- and definitely at times it is.

But overall this is pretty great and I wish I had more time to actually fly!:pilotfly:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But overall this is pretty great and I wish I had more time to actually fly!:pilotfly:

Another point that is a good illustration about DCS at the moment. Some time ago I was mostly flying A-10C and wishing for much more aircrafts. Now there are still planes that are an instant buy for me but at the same time I have already so many modules that I could only wish more time to be able to properly learn them in all of the details.

This might actually be a challenge for ED in the future - with more modules coming people will shift probably more from getting every module more towards picking a selected aircrafts. I would love to support every developer but I have to admit that probably I'll have to skip a few future modules, including some that are now in development as I already have few planes that are only sitting on display in the hangar.

Anyway, going back to the topic A-7 is an instant buy for me :)

F/A-18, F-16, F-14, M-2000C, A-10C, AV-8B, AJS-37 Viggen, F-5E-3, F-86F, MiG-21bis, MiG-15bis, L-39 Albatros, C-101 Aviojet, P-51D, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 4-K, UH-1H, Mi-8, Ka-50, NTTR, Normandy, Persian Gulf... and not enough time to fully enjoy it all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actuallyk there is a huge difference... we have many modules right now... good ones!

 

We are there!!

 

I have them all, check my sig.

Three trainers, Four WWII fighters, three transport/utility helicopters. Still no multirole fighter, no western attack helicopter, two 4th gen airplanes are technically not Released (still in beta) and even not being updated recently thanks to ED "update schedule policy". DCS still has a long way to go and to me it's going sideways more often than not.

 

This might actually be a challenge for ED in the future - with more modules coming people will shift probably more from getting every module more towards picking a selected aircrafts.

 

Yes, that's a good point and something 3rd party devs have to consider when deciding their next modules. For example I would buy A-7 instantly when available, but Tucano is not something I'm very interested in. Maybe that's just me. Thankfully, other Razbam choices are quite interesting.


Edited by some1

Hardware: VPForce Rhino, FSSB R3 Ultra, Virpil T-50CM, Hotas Warthog, Winwing F15EX, Slaw Rudder, GVL224 Trio Throttle, Thrustmaster MFDs, Saitek Trim wheel, Trackir 5, Quest Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was young, I remember to see the Portuguese Air Force A-7P, crossing over the horizon, it was really a sight.

 

2259_21.jpg

 

50 units were acquired, 44 A-7P version, were refurbished from A-7A with the Pratt & Whitney TF30 P-408 engines and avionics similar to A-7E.

 

6 were ex USN A-7As that comprised the TA-7P.

 

I would be glad to have the A-7E version. :P

 

0884734.jpg?v=v40

 

acets-01z_112.jpg

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, did the A-7 suffer the same painful engine problems as the F-14A, since they both share power plant?

 

Regards

 

I own the RAZBAM A-7 for FSX and you have to carefully manage the engine temp to prevent engine failure.

 

The F-14 had stalls from the TF30 due to airflow issues.

 

So in their own ways, each aircraft suffered from that engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I own the RAZBAM A-7 for FSX and you have to carefully manage the engine temp to prevent engine failure.

 

The F-14 had stalls from the TF30 due to airflow issues.

 

So in their own ways, each aircraft suffered from that engine.

 

The version we are getting are the A-7E and hopefully the A-7D in the future. Both had the Allison TF41 engine. The earlier A-7's had the P&W TF30's. Which version were you flying in FSX?

Truly superior pilots are those that use their superior judgment to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills.

 

If you ever find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

 

"If at first you don't succeed, Carrier Landings are not for you!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, did the A-7 suffer the same painful engine problems as the F-14A, since they both share power plant?

 

Regards

 

 

I've never read about engine problems affecting the A7 to any notable degree.

 

Wasn't it AOA that caused issues on the F14? I'd imagine that such an issue would not be that noticeable on a subsonic attack plane in general, if it was present at all.

 

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CORSAIR_II/A_7_USN.htm

 

All navy losses of A7s, with commentary where available. No idea if the amount of losses due to engine problems is unusual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never read about engine problems affecting the A7 to any notable degree.

 

Wasn't it AOA that caused issues on the F14? I'd imagine that such an issue would not be that noticeable on a subsonic attack plane in general, if it was present at all.

 

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/CORSAIR_II/A_7_USN.htm

 

All navy losses of A7s, with commentary where available. No idea if the amount of losses due to engine problems is unusual.

 

A-7 engines live on the edge. You can over-rev them quite easily and thus risking engine failure due to high temps.

 

The A-7 NATOPS indicate all the Dos and Don'ts of engine handling.

 

You always have to watch engine RPM and temp.

 

The A-7 has its own AOA problems but not due to engine but to wings. In short at high AOA the wings act like a huge airbrake so it can easily enter into a stall. That is why on take-off it was recommended not to exceed 10º pitch up.

 

Also from your link: 9 crashes due to engine failure in 1969 alone.

"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."

"The three most dangerous things in the world are a programmer with a soldering iron, a hardware type with a program patch and a user with an idea."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, should make it interesting to fly. Always gives a bit of immersion to operating when you need to keep an eye on such things.

 

Maybe I just haven't read the right pilot accounts, I would expect poor reliability, or even the perception of poor reliability, to always be prominently featured. The most negative I've read is from maintenance personnel absolutely loathing working on them towards the end of their service life, as their equipment was constantly breaking down. Don't recall anything particularly negative from the guys doing the flying.

 

 

Anyways, are these documents on engine handling publically accessible somewhere? Would be nice to read up on that if possible.


Edited by iLOVEwindmills
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for that, should make it interesting to fly. Always gives a bit of immersion to operating when you need to keep an eye on such things.

 

Maybe I just haven't read the right pilot accounts, I would expect poor reliability, or even the perception of poor reliability, to always be prominently featured. The most negative I've read is from maintenance personnel absolutely loathing working on them towards the end of their service life, as their equipment was constantly breaking down. Don't recall anything particularly negative from the guys doing the flying.

 

 

Anyways, are these documents on engine handling publically accessible somewhere? Would be nice to read up on that if possible.

 

Im confused here, I thought it ths early TF30 engines that gave many engine reliability & overheating problems, whilst the TF41 based on Rolls Rpyce spey ( seems to have had a much better reputations)

 

So were getting early model A7D/E or the mainline production versions with TF41s?


Edited by Kev2go

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...