Jump to content

F-100D Super Sabre ( PLus F100D "Late")


Kev2go

F-100D Super Sabre ( PLus F100D "Late")  

173 members have voted

  1. 1. F-100D Super Sabre ( PLus F100D "Late")

    • Yes, F100D please
      36
    • Only F100D Super sabre "late" with An/APR 25 RWR
      32
    • Both F-100D and F100D "late"
      72
    • No
      33


Recommended Posts

To decrease the workload and make things faster. Its simply better to opt for just the LATE F-100 version only.

 

 

 

It seems most want BOTH...

 

 

It already takes 2-3 years for a single module to formulate and people voted for that needs even more extra work!:huh:

 

Depends on which version is most produced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Hun absolutely belongs in DCS. I'd by happy with any variant. The dream for me would be having both the -D as a regular fighter bomber, and the modified -F as a Wild Weasel, but that's probably wishful thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on which version is most produced.

 

F100D "late"

 

isn't really a new production, but a culmination of post production refits that occurred around past a certain time frame.

 

Its nice to get different versions although late model i would think is the best option because who doesn't want a hun with an RWR?

 

I also take consideration for capabilities that will make it more appealing.

 

 

BUt ideally it since to get multiple version of the F-100D because not much is changing apart from come internal avionics like addition RWR, coupled with some rearrangement and replacement of a fewpanels pertaining to armament and such. Nothing that will impact flight model.

 

Its not just 3rd parties like HB that are making multiple versions of a an aircraft family. Even ED has don so. I mean look at the L39. We got two version C and ZA and those were more significantly different, and for the P47 ED is making 3 versions of it. D30 Early, D30 late ( what we have now in EA) and D40.


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

F100D "late"

 

isn't really a new production, but a culmination of post production refits that occurred around past a certain time frame.

 

Its nice to get different versions although late model i would think is the best option because who doesn't want a hun with an RWR?

 

I also take consideration for capabilities that will make it more appealing.

 

 

BUt ideally it since to get multiple version of the F-100D because not much is changing apart from come internal avionics like addition RWR, coupled with some rearrangement and replacement of a fewpanels pertaining to armament and such. Nothing that will impact flight model.

 

Its not just 3rd parties like HB that are making multiple versions of a an aircraft family. Even ED has don so. I mean look at the L39. We got two version C and ZA and those were more significantly different, and for the P47 ED is making 3 versions of it. D30 Early, D30 late ( what we have now in EA) and D40.

 

 

 

 

Why do we need to multiple of the same with meager differences? Heatblur is already taxed with the F-14A, and aside from engines, there isn't much significant difference between with the B model. It would be much better they work on some other fresh jet...instead of getting too taxed with the another almost similar.

 

 

It already takes quite long to build those modules even if there is similarities between some jets. The F-14A is clear sign that we dont want the devs to work on 2 F-100 with very meager differences.

 

 

I would much prefer the later model F-100 that can fit in with the Vietnam war era.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do we need to multiple of the same with meager differences? Heatblur is already taxed with the F-14A, and aside from engines, there isn't much significant difference between with the B model. It would be much better they work on some other fresh jet...instead of getting too taxed with the another almost similar.

 

 

It already takes quite long to build those modules even if there is similarities between some jets. The F-14A is clear sign that we dont want the devs to work on 2 F-100 with very meager differences.

 

 

I would much prefer the later model F-100 that can fit in with the Vietnam war era.

 

NO one said any particular developer had to do this ( like HB) . Besides there are less differences between the two F100D's than there are between the F14A and F14B.

 

The most effort between the A and B are the engines which will use up the most time because besides adjusting the FM for having lesser power, the TF30's are more temperamental engines. However its the right step for HB to take because although F14B is the more capable version, the F14A is just too historically iconic to ignore, especially as it was most numerous version. HB is making alot more people happy by including the F14A, but also not disappointing others by not omitting the B for those who value capabilities over historical relevance.

 

 

ID rather have a couple iterations of a same F100D rather than get 1 franken jet. Especially as the F100 doesnt have anywhere near the levels of avionics complexity as the F14, let alone digitally oriented aircraft like F18 or F16.

 

Remember that F100D late looses out on external fuel tank gauges indicator in the upper left corner of the panel where the RWR control panel and scope are placed . also due to some left hand side panel changes pertaining to armament in changers late in life which happens to get AGm12 bullpup panel removed.

 

So to satisfy different time periods and still offer various capabilities its best to have a couple versions.

 

This is the ideal road to take. You might not care for multiple sub versions but some of us do wish for them in idealy, and both ED and other 3rd parties do so for some modules. And rightfully so.


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

NO one said any particular developer had to do this ( like HB) . Besides there are less differences between the two F100D's than there are between the F14A and F14B.

 

The most effort between the A and B are the engines which will use up the most time because besides adjusting the FM for having lesser power, the TF30's are more temperamental engines. However its the right step for HB to take because although F14B is the more capable version, the F14A is just too historically iconic to ignore, especially as it was most numerous version. HB is making alot more people happy by including the F14A, but also not disappointing others by not omitting the B for those who value capabilities over historical relevance.

 

 

ID rather have a couple iterations of a same F100D rather than get 1 franken jet. Especially as the F100 doesnt have anywhere near the levels of avionics complexity as the F14, let alone digitally oriented aircraft like F18 or F16.

 

Remember that F100D late looses out on external fuel tank gauges indicator in the upper left corner of the panel where the RWR control panel and scope are placed . also due to some left hand side panel changes pertaining to armament in changers late in life which happens to get AGm12 bullpup panel removed.

 

So to satisfy different time periods and still offer various capabilities its best to have a couple versions.

 

This is the ideal road to take. You might not care for multiple sub versions but some of us do wish for them in idealy, and both ED and other 3rd parties do so for some modules. And rightfully so.

 

 

That was very informative and well said. I will also like to add that I have also seen several other people questioning as to why HB decided to do the older A model instead of the more advanced D model. And I have had to explain that the A model was more widely used than even the B model. There were only 37 F-14D ever built new, plus 18 more that were F-14A conversions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was very informative and well said. I will also like to add that I have also seen several other people questioning as to why HB decided to do the older A model instead of the more advanced D model. And I have had to explain that the A model was more widely used than even the B model. There were only 37 F-14D ever built new, plus 18 more that were F-14A conversions.

 

Heatblur themselves would have wanted to the F14D as a seperate follow on module, they considered it.

 

The real reason is simply because there is not enough information on the weapons employment procedures and thier related avionics to accurately model it. ITs theorized by some to still be classified in fear that somehow IRan would learn how to "digitize" thier Tomcats purely from a instructional manual.

 

But its certainly not because there isn't any demand or popularity for it. Hell there are quite a few who would have at least wanted a more defintive F14B ( IE one with Digital flight control, and PTID for lantirn) to differentiate it even more from the F14A, particularily since most lantirn equipped F14B's had PTID and the "fishbowl" was only a temporary interim solution of displaying Lantirn employed for short period of time. I recall at some point someone from HB commented that they did not feel they had enough info on PTID to model all of the sub pages.


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

Heatblur themselves would have wanted to the F14D as a seperate follow on module, they considered it.

 

The real reason is simply because there is not enough information on the weapons employment procedures and thier related avionics to accurately model it. ITs theorized by some to still be classified in fear that somehow IRan would learn how to "digitize" thier Tomcats purely from a instructional manual.

 

But its certainly not because there isn't any demand or popularity for it. Hell there are quite a few who would have at least wanted a more defintive F14B ( IE one with Digital flight control, and PTID for lantirn) to differentiate it even more from the F14A, particularily since most lantirn equipped F14B's had PTID and the "fishbowl" was only a temporary interim solution of displaying Lantirn employed for short period of time. I recall at some point someone from HB commented that they did not feel they had enough info on PTID to model all of the sub pages.

 

All of Iran's Tomcats were retrofitted w/ Digital Computers over the last 5 or so years. (supposedly)

 

Whether or not they work is another story, they seem to be using their Tomcats more as an AWACS than fighter / Interceptor.


Edited by SkateZilla

Windows 10 Pro, Ryzen 2700X @ 4.6Ghz, 32GB DDR4-3200 GSkill (F4-3200C16D-16GTZR x2),

ASRock X470 Taichi Ultimate, XFX RX6800XT Merc 310 (RX-68XTALFD9)

3x ASUS VS248HP + Oculus HMD, Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS + MFDs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO one said any particular developer had to do this ( like HB) . Besides there are less differences between the two F100D's than there are between the F14A and F14B.

 

The most effort between the A and B are the engines which will use up the most time because besides adjusting the FM for having lesser power, the TF30's are more temperamental engines. However its the right step for HB to take because although F14B is the more capable version, the F14A is just too historically iconic to ignore, especially as it was most numerous version. HB is making alot more people happy by including the F14A, but also not disappointing others by not omitting the B for those who value capabilities over historical relevance.

 

 

ID rather have a couple iterations of a same F100D rather than get 1 franken jet. Especially as the F100 doesnt have anywhere near the levels of avionics complexity as the F14, let alone digitally oriented aircraft like F18 or F16.

 

Remember that F100D late looses out on external fuel tank gauges indicator in the upper left corner of the panel where the RWR control panel and scope are placed . also due to some left hand side panel changes pertaining to armament in changers late in life which happens to get AGm12 bullpup panel removed.

 

So to satisfy different time periods and still offer various capabilities its best to have a couple versions.

 

This is the ideal road to take. You might not care for multiple sub versions but some of us do wish for them in idealy, and both ED and other 3rd parties do so for some modules. And rightfully so.

 

 

Hmm...well, I'd much prefer whichever version saw the most action. And a single Aircraft at that.

 

 

 

 

 

Its already taking the F-14A a year or so from the B version. So...how long do you think would take with both F-100 versions? Especially with minuscule differences and seems pointless. Its like asking for both the F-15E model with early having the analog UFC and the late versions with different digital UFC. Also, late F-15E having different engines with slightly uprated thrusts. Still, two planes version with minuscule differences does not seem worth much.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We'll most possibly see the F-14A model in maybe late 2020 or mids.


Edited by jojyrocks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its already taking the F-14A a year or so from the B version. So...how long do you think would take with both F-100 versions? Especially with minuscule differences and seems pointless. Its like asking for both the F-15E model with early having the analog UFC and the late versions with different digital UFC. Also, late F-15E having different engines with slightly uprated thrusts. Still, two planes version with minuscule differences does not seem worth much.

We'll most possibly see the F-14A model in maybe late 2020 or mids.

 

Look at the Gazelle, C-101CC/EB and L-39C/ZA. Even the P-47D-30, D-30 Late and D-40... The differences between an F-14A and an F-14B are far larger than that of the F-100D and F-100D Late (namely different, more fiddly engines). It's more to the tune of the Gazelle and P-47D-30 and D-40. Heck, even the MiG-19 is going to have 2 variants...

 

Personally, I like historical accuracy, so I like having historically accurate variants instead of hybrids which combine variants into one semi-fictional aircraft, and sometimes it's the minuscule details that matter.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, there's a big difference between modelling a whole new engine and FM and adding a relatively primitive RWR to the cockpit. The difference really is more comparable to e.g. the L39 or C101 for example.

 

 

A two-seater Wild Weasel is a whole other story of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

heres a video on APR25/26. edited OP to inlude it. along with collection of documentation.

 

 

 

 

 

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

It does have a tail hook for emergency landings, just not suitable IRL for carrier operations. (Kinda like the F5E) , but it also has aerial refueling and Autopilot as standardized features.

 

 

And despite being the First of the Century Series it hasan extremely long Sevice History. After 1971 it was removed from active duty service but last ANG Hun was not retired until 1979.

 

 

Plus It also had export service with France, Denmark, Taiwan, and Turkey. So Such a module for DCS also has the potential for foreign Skins to represent other nations. :thumbup:

This is a key point. The more a plane is used by more countries, the more buyers DCS will have to support the module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link not working

 

might not be as easy to fly like the F86 or F5, but it cant be too bad. Flew this thing is SF and P3D. as long as you didnt go below 250 knots or down pitch up too fast ( or prematurely) during take off or pull high AOA's in general you should be A0A OK ( pun intended), it was only really bad when you pulled too much AOA at the lower speed region.

 

Most of bad rep came from the F100A and C models, the worst of the bad handling characteristics had been ironed with the D model F100D was redesigned to incorporate longer wingspan by 26 inches, and a longer vertical tail area increased to be 27% larger.

 

With regard to the engine, if you get a flameout, then its not the end of the world in any way as it can automatically restarted in mid air with a single switch similar to a Mig21. Compressor stalls generally only happened if you Pushed the throttle up much to fast. YOu just have to know the Do's and Dont's of the aircraft's operational limitations.

Late Huns in ANg service also had F102 AB reffited. So AB nont engaging because you moved the thorttle too fast shouldn't occur with those burners

 

Mig21Bis was not without its quirks too. Most notably getting used to the Delta wings characteristics. high speed landings, and lack thereof ( resulting in dropping like a rock and cracking the Landing gear, and driving around wobbly on crooked gear), and avoiding heavy AOA under 500 KMH to avoid entering into an aggressive stall spin.

Was the low speed controllability really resolved with extended wing span? My understanding was that the cause of the SabreDance was because they swept wings were so long they went past the centre of lift or gravity, and that it did not have wing fences like the MiG-19, or LERX like the later F-5.

Not fighting with you :). Just curious if you know something I haven’t come across yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I would like to see this plane as well. It fills out the evolutionary line of NA Aviation in DCS, from P-51, F-86, F-100, F-5, F-18.

 

yep, since we have F-5 in game and I heard that F-4 and F-8 are in the making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-5 Yes, F/A-18 was McDonnell Douglas and Northrop

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aren't F-5 and F-18 designed by Northrop?

 

Yes you are correct.

However, from the F-5 wiki article:

 

"The design effort was led by Northrop vice president of engineering and aircraft designer Edgar Schmued,[8] who previously at North American Aviation had been the chief designer of the successful North American P-51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre fighters."

 

You can see some similarities between the F-100 and the F-5, like the attempt to make the side profile of the fuselage shaped like the cross section of a wing (lifting body), the low mounted wings coupled with the all moving tail, for more unstable but maneuverable flight, the leading edge slats, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the low speed controllability really resolved with extended wing span? My understanding was that the cause of the SabreDance was because they swept wings were so long they went past the centre of lift or gravity, and that it did not have wing fences like the MiG-19, or LERX like the later F-5.

Not fighting with you :). Just curious if you know something I haven’t come across yet.

 

Not really. FWIW, years ago I worked with a retired commandant of USAF Test Pilot School who got his start in Huns. His description of what it was like to fly the plane was, "You grew eyes on the back of your head and when the slats came down the stick stayed centered." The jet had bad adverse yaw and early jet engines weren't know for their rapid throttle response. Get on the backside of the power curve and things go downhill really fast.

 

Piston engine planes and T-33's really didn't prepare guys for to fly it in the left had side of the envelope. By the 60's you had better training in a better trainer (T-38 which requires care and attention to land well) which in turn lowered the accident rate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really. FWIW, years ago I worked with a retired commandant of USAF Test Pilot School who got his start in Huns. His description of what it was like to fly the plane was, "You grew eyes on the back of your head and when the slats came down the stick stayed centered." The jet had bad adverse yaw and early jet engines weren't know for their rapid throttle response. Get on the backside of the power curve and things go downhill really fast.

 

Piston engine planes and T-33's really didn't prepare guys for to fly it in the left had side of the envelope. By the 60's you had better training in a better trainer (T-38 which requires care and attention to land well) which in turn lowered the accident rate.

 

How "Not really"?

 

From the wiki article:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch-up

 

"

As the primary causes of the pitch-up problem are due to spanwise flow and more loading at the tips, measures to address these issues can eliminate the problem. In early designs these were typically "add-ons" to an otherwise conventional wing planform, but in modern designs this is part of the overall wing design and normally controlled via the existing high-lift devices.

...

More common solutions to the problem of spanwise flow is the use of a wing fence or the related dogtooth notch on the leading edge of the wing. This disrupts the flow and re-directs it rearward, while also causing the buildup of stagnant air inboard to lower the stall point. This does have an effect on overall airflow on the wing, and is generally not used where the sweep is mild.

To address the problems with spanwise loading, a wider variety of techniques have been used, including dedicated slats or flaps,

...

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS has focused mainly on the LOMAC time frame / plane set and rightfully so as so many people want the current fighters like the US "teen" series and their MiG-29/Su-27 opponents.

 

But the real fun is from Korea into the 1970s, before everything was digitized, before AMRAAM and the all-aspect IRMs like the legendary AIM-9L.

 

The F-100D would be a great match for the MiG-19 and more importantly a great addition for a future Vietnam oriented plane set. I would love to see it in this game.

 

I love Third Wire's Strike Fighters series of games. The plane set was exactly what I would want out of any flight sim with so many great aircraft including so many minor variants of them, especially the F-4 and MiG-21. With addons, you can fly almost every significant aircraft from 1950 to 1980, including the entire century series. I can only hope that DCS World will eventually have a somewhat comparable flyable plane set with at least one variant of each aircraft that saw significant production numbers and/or actual combat.

 

The upcoming F-8 Crusader is a great step in this direction. The MiG-23MLA is a bit more toward the LOMAC plane set, but still a great addition. With the MiG-21bis having been long available, the absence of the F-4 is my biggest complaint, especially since it is my favorite aircraft of all time.

 

In the mean time, the F-86F/MiG-15bis and F-5E/Mig-21bis are great cold war matchups I love to fly.

 

I would also love to see the early "teen" fighters". The F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A are far more interesting to me than the much more capable F-15C, F-16C, and F/A-18C that we have. I enjoy flying the F-14B, but the F-14A should be coming very soon, which is what I would prefer to fly.

 

If DCS can only afford to provide one variant, either the best F-100D that served in Vietnam or the variant that was flying escort missions at the very start would be my choices.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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