Franken Sabre

All I was trying to convey is no matter how seriously we take this "sim". There will always be compromises. Sometimes it is accuracy of the module itself, sometimes it's the map, objects, AI...

which shouldn't exist in modules when its entirely unnecessary. Again moral equivalency just because X 3rd party made compromises in some marginnal manner in some totally different reason doesn't mean the other should for something totally different.

all modules should be as authentic to their real life counterpart as possible. if someone finds information that something is incorrect it should be fixed

BY you logic none of the developers would even bother to look at community reports to fix inaccuracies. The F86F windscreen 3d modelling for example was fixed way back when. But sure i guess that would have been ok to rationalize the inaccuracy because " compromises" and "plausibly believable"

I'm with you brother. Glad to have the current F-86, then none at all. ;) Understood, try to keep it as close as possible, (where possible), to history.

as i have presented it would have been ( and still is) more than possible with the F86F35. when this A/C was first produced in 1953 it had the 6/3 wing, but no sidewinders. and thus no missile panel, left of the gun sight or no Guns - Missile selector switch in the center panel so ( see earlier image with center pedestal). the F40 wing upgrade was already being applied as early as 1954, so if 1956+ is when sidewinder upgrades become available ( but not implemented into USAF sabres intil 1962), then a aim9 capable F86F35 should have the F40 wing.

FYI. I did several posts with pictures on that windscreen issue. Probably a thread or two aswell.

To my knowledge this Franken Sabre is based on a real life airframe? Maybe a bit obscure and uncommon... If you say it is a total fantasy aircraft, that has 0% chance of being real - like a modded airframe in a warehouse somewhere, then I understand your frustration. For me it is plausible. Maybe if BST had this info during development, they would have made different choices and sprung towards something a bit more common.

Still BST (now ED) will probably not touch the Sabre again. It’s been released for some time now. That windshield thing took years to fix. Gunsight / guns are still a bit whacky and where is my tactical nuke for the labs system?

FYI. I did several posts with pictures on that windscreen issue. Probably a thread or two aswell.

 

To my knowledge this Franken Sabre is based on a real life airframe? Maybe a bit obscure and uncommon... If you say it is a total fantasy aircraft, that has 0% chance of being real - like a modded airframe in a warehouse somewhere, then I understand your frustration. For me it is plausible. Maybe if BST had this info during development, they would have made different choices and sprung towards something a bit more common.

 

Still BST (now ED) will probably not touch the Sabre again. It’s been released for some time now. That windshield thing took years to fix. Gunsight / guns are still a bit whacky and where is my tactical nuke for the labs system?

Yeah I understand what you mean.

Again it's impossible to be 100% sure. The easiest would be if developers had communicated which exact f86f35 they had used as a model ( ie which museum can it be found in, what's its exact production #.

However yeah its perplexing why block 35 if they never would have bothered with adding nukes for the labs. Block 25- 30 could also be missile moded, or have f40 wing refit.

Besides that not to mention sabre has lots of bomb options missing. Like an m65 1000 lb bombs or the an/m64a1 and an/m65a1 which are ww2 bombs that have box find refitted with conical fine.

It also took a while to get them to add m117 ( which was already a present asset in dcs like an m64, which probably came from the p51)

All the while mig15bis is not some Franken plane. Mig15bis is essentially not only in typical configuration but is in time appropriate for the Korean war and pilots dont have g suits. In post Korea Soviets would have had g suits.

From what I know BST had crazy good access to a MiG-15bis. Also it is a classic icon and probably an aircraft close to heart for many Eastern Europeans. It is clearly a labour of love and the finest details, like blown lamps by the UV Rheostat. I have heard some rumors that they might sort of revisit the MiG-15bis module and develop it further to a MiG-17...

I did not know about the m65 1000 lb bombs or the other missing variants. Maybe even some Matra 68mm rocket pods? I agree that they could have given more info about the aircraft that the module is based on. Besides I love behind the scenes stuff, It would be really neat to get some history behind it. Was it modified in field? Did it see any service? Did it see any combat? Where was it stationed? etc.

Is it possible that it was a testbed of some sorts and therefore never got the F40 wing but all the other goodies?

From what I know BST had crazy good access to a MiG-15bis. Also it is a classic icon and probably an aircraft close to heart for many Eastern Europeans. It is clearly a labour of love and the finest details, like blown lamps by the UV Rheostat. I have heard some rumors that they might sort of revisit the MiG-15bis module and develop it further to a MiG-17...

 

I did not know about the m65 1000 lb bombs or the other missing variants. Maybe even some Matra 68mm rocket pods? I agree that they could have given more info about the aircraft that the module is based on. Besides I love behind the scenes stuff, It would be really neat to get some history behind it. Was it modified in field? Did it see any service? Did it see any combat? Where was it stationed? etc.

 

Is it possible that it was a testbed of some sorts and therefore never got the F40 wing but all the other goodies?

not to go OT but this was what i filed with regards to missing ordinance ( focused on M117 simply because it was already an asset in DCS)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=161614

No mantra pods by official manual.

Also having a Mig17 module would be pretty great. id be interested , well least if its the MIg17F with After-burning engine.

I'm totally with you here Kev2go, this is really an unecessary inaccuracy in realism and should be changed! Thanks for bringing this up. :thumbup:

Nice! I agree but here's another question: does the MiG AI have g-suits? I wonder sometimes when dog fighting. You really should be able to out load a MiG-15 in a high speed turn, watch the cannon rounds fall behind you like lead balloons and thank Gen "Boots" every time. Or when you blackout, so do they, and even before you do.

F-86F35 has incorrect features ( Anachronism from 2 timeframes)

We have a F86F block 35 , clearly a post Korean modification given the Aim9B sidewinder missiles and associated addition of the Missile avionics panel which indicated to me with was at least 1956-1957 sabre at earliest given when the AIm9B was introduced. BUt accrding to the USAF series manual, thes Aim9b's and related avionics were not applied to Air forces sabres until 1962.

Yet this still has the 6/3 wing with Wing fencing. By end of 1956 all remaining USAF/ANG F86F series of sabres would have been retrofitted post production with F40 slatted wing, the modification of which began as early as 1954.

Therefore it is Anachronistic feature to have 1962 Sidewinder modified F86F35 sabre when by 1956 these sabres would have already have had the 6/3 wing swapped out for the F40 leading edge slatted wing types, however they do not.

So what we have is a franken sabre due to unrealistic features for its time frame (not to mention block 35 never saw use in Korea), although in its 6/3 wing configuration is basically like a Korean F-86F30 in terms of

flight model performance.

For historical Authenticity I would suggest

A) Removal the gar8 /aim9b Missile panel and ability to arm them, to have a 1954 (or earlier) era F86F35 Sabre.

B) Change the wing to the F40 Slatted wing as F86F35 should have for a 1956+ era.

C) add 2 variations of the F86F block 35. IE one without sidewinders capability, and representative of korean war era style 6/3 wing, along with the circa 1962 F86F 35 that has F40 type wing and Aim9's for correct uuthenticity for the version(s) being simulated.

List of Constructed sabres and thier production #'s.

http://www.forgottenjets.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/F-86.html

manuals as well as standard aircraft characteristics sheets from 1956 and later no longer show performance charts for 6/3 wing, but for the "F40 type" Wing slatted version.

http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/item/56117.html

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3806

http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs-documentviewer.php?id=3807

Source for OP's images 2, 3 and 4 are from the F-86F Maintenance handbook pages 4-27 (pdf 153), 4-31 (pdf 157) and 4-41 (pdf 167).

The USAF serial numbers from the F-86F Illustrated Parts Breakdown handbook.

Page 1-1 (pdf 13) explains the "Usable Code" for every component listing in the book and also contains the serial numbers.

The F-86F-35 USAF serial numbers highlighted. F-86-40 USAF serial numbers immediately below.

I didn't mean he was wrong either. I just added sources.

Just a bit of constructive criticism, these people don't work for you. It sounds like you're ordering the Eagle Dynamics team to do things for you in your post. In the future, it might be wiser if you use language similar to:

 

"Can you please take a look at this?"

 

"I found a possible discrepancy, can someone from the Eagle Dynamics team check on this?"

 

I'm not saying this to attack you, just constructive criticism. I'm not ordering you around either. You can talk however you want to talk. However, people respond better when you treat them with the respect they deserve though. These people aren't our slaves.

 

Also, a couple of things:

 

1. Your sources might be wrong. Just because one or two publications say something, doesn't mean it is correct. There is plenty of aircraft publications that have been published over the years that have incorrect information.

 

2. Even if you're right, and you very well could be, this is obviously something that will take a bit of research to confirm. It is not an open and shut case based on just this alone. They may have modeled a particular aircraft that was just like it is featured in the sim. Honestly, we don't know what the story is here.

 

3. We don't have the Korean theater in-game so I don't see why that is a factor all. I wish we did, but we don't unfortunately.

1)Then you greatly misconstrued what i was communicating. Its not a a demand. Its suggestion of options, No ones ordering anything. The difference between a critic and a reformer, is that the latter goes beyond by proposing suggestions to fix a problem. The reason why i suggest splitting 2 version is becuase A) adversary is Mig15bis, B) So people arent pissed off they get a downgraded sabre, and can still fly the F86F with Aim9's, but at the same time get a appropriate features IE modified with F40 wing.]

Its up to ED to choose how they approach this problem, however I as a consumer i am in a postion to voice concerns over inaccuracies, especially since have provided evidence to my claims. IF thats not oK what is the point of even posting in the bug reports section? IF its only going to get told off by community members, or god forbid, the actual developers. ED has a high standard of simulation and compared to the level of authenticity we have on a F/A18C hornet, or WIP F16C blk 50CM, the F86F as i pointed out does not live up to such standards, so i full believe that F86F aught to be remodeled at some point for corrective purposes. It would be no different if those other modules had anachronistic features, or worse yet mixed in features from export users. This is not a blame game. Its ED's product originaly These are modules inherited from BST, but they now provide support to these products.

IF P51D got a remodel and spilt into 2 versions ( P51D25 and D30) to correct for unhistorical mish mash of features in the original P51D, The F86F is in a similar position, and i see a similar solution would be ideal, but of course its all up to ED to decide how to address this problem.

2) My sources arent just mere publications. Don't downplay their significance. They are USAF series F86 Flight manuals, SAC sheet,s and technical stuff. What forum user 0303 has posted are a source from a technical manual. Which means pertaining to US air force operated Sabres.

3) Its true we dont have a Korean environment.Even more reason to have properly correct post korean sabre and change it to the appropriate wing type, however i suggest splitting the variant into two types because the Sabre is also facing a Korean era Mig15Bis, so having 1 version with 6/3 wing would still be acceptable.

My question is, where all the F-30's actually retrofitted with leading edge flaps?

 

Just because it says they were in the process or wanted to do that in the manual, doesn't mean it actually happened in real life. After all, things change sometimes.

 

I'm not saying this to be difficult, this just needs to be explored. I'm not an expert on the F-86 as much as I do like the aircraft, so I'm just erring on the side of caution.

 

It's also of interest in this case to know if the DCS module was developed from a real F-86 example, because in real life aircraft can receive a hodge podge of different upgrades. That would be relevant to this issue.

Yes, F86F standard aircraft characteristics sheet states F86F25- F35 were retroffited post Korea with new wing type.

But it should be notec what we have in DCS is F86F35 not F30. Both F86F30 and F86F35 had 6/3 wings at initial production, but contiued to retain a different cockpit layout to the F86F35, even when both types received new wing retrofit, and AIm9 upgrades

To compare

F86F1- F30 frontcockpit panel layout

F86F35 and later front cockpit panel

Yes the F86 did receive modfications of the course of its life, hence the manual also notes the changes and revisions made previously, as you can see the notes in changes made in some of the excerpts.

Really interesting data you found =) Sounds like you have the reasonable options outlined. Probably be a while before it gets done, though

What about export Sabres (e.g. the Taiwanese ones)? Would those have both AIM-9 capability and the 6-3 wing?

@Kev2Go, nice research, this is interesting information, I'm quite surprised ED didn't exactly model a RL F-86 since they are so anal about features and weapons in their other modules (e.g. the F-5 loadout / avionics are very limited because they chose to model an very rare and specific lot)...

Kev2go, good researches, this and about F-5!

Removing missile is a bad choice, and the other choice is very long. Also, this makes mavericks on F-5 nearly impossible, I assume.

I think that the choice of certain features was a kind of a compromise between opportunity and desire.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, could you explain this idiom?

haha, sure! In English (especially American English) is a way of describing someone who pays extreme attention to details, so nothing offensive despite word "anal" in it ;)

I think a possible solution of this is to update the module at some point and split it into a few variants. If there are significant enough changes they could do something like they are doing with the KA50 of offering a free upgrade to folks that already bought it, and having an add on version or two for some additional cost. I.e. a correct Korean war version, and a later upgraded version, perhaps aim-9 upgraded versions as used by Taiwan or Pakistan that also saw "action". I'm not sure how much the aerodynamics would change with the different wings, but I'm sure that would require some additional work.

I'm not sure how much the aerodynamics would change with the different wings, but I'm sure that would require some additional work.

Considerable work, since the whole high AoA and stall characteristics would need to be redesigned. Furthermore the approach speed with the slatted wing is 10kts lower.

@meti140; what's a 'runaway stall'? Never heard or read about such a stall.

F-86F and F-5E-3 both had Mid-Life Updates/Changes that did not make it to the entire fleet.

Some F-86F's got New wings, other's didnt.

F-5E's Case, the USAF F-5E-3's of the Period Modelled did not have AGM-65.

If this was a real Sabre, I wouldn’t be allowed to fly it. At least not an armed one. And if I were to do it anyway, and shoot some sod down with it, I’d be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

But this is a simulator, so I pretend I can do it anyway...

I wonder if anyone understood what I meant by that? ;)

F-86F and F-5E-3 both had Mid-Life Updates/Changes that did not make it to the entire fleet.

 

Some F-86F's got New wings, other's didnt.

The others that didnt , are older than block 25's, F86FF25- F35 did, this is relevant because we have a F-86F35.

In USAF versions its very much noted that all eventually got this upgrade..

IF anything it would be far easier to argue that not all F86F's with new wing got Aim9 upgrade.

After a certain point the revised SAC's for F86F25 and upwards totally negate listing the performance charts and stats pertaining to 6/3 winged F86F sabre or even the older Wing slatted versions. They only list the performance charts which are valid for sabres reffited with leading edge F40 type wing slats. Hmm i wonder why? Answer is pretty obvious.

So basically these aught to go bye bye. I dont know what BST reasoning was for the block 35 ( Guess they really wanted LABS with no tactical nuke + bombing computer?) , but if they really wanted a Korean war era version to fight Mig15bis, it should have been the F86F block 30. That was the last version to see use in korea, and that too eventually got F40 type wing configuration, as well as Aim9B upgrades for some. However the simplest fix solution, to otherwsie make F86F block 35 authentic for the time period it still has the 6/3 wing is to remove Aim9B and its related avionics. Which means.

otherwise F86F35 would require a F40 Slatted wing modification, for the aim9 feature to not be anachronistic.

 

 

F-5E's Case, the USAF F-5E-3's of the Period Modelled did not have AGM-65.

Thats true no AGM65

But neither did they have AN/ALE40 CM nor AN/ALR 87 RWR, and yet....

Although not related to the main crux of the argument.

IIl also throws in that DCS F86F is missing loads of ordinance types that were never added. Irregardless the other stuff, all F86F25 and later could use the ordinace types.

We most notably lack ( AN/M57) 250 pound ( AN/M65) 1000 pound bombs, both ww2 box fin type and upgraded with conical fins, which was an interim solution to addressing older bomb design limitations until MK80 series was designed and put into service for later aircraft.

Obviously Napalm isn't feasible atm due to lack of fire modeling effects, but could be added when ready.

example of AN/M65 reffited with conical fin

ALL F-35's ARE BEING

Which means it was in progress as the time of the manual printing,

The Transition was never finished, and was optional to allies/export variants.

I'm also pretty sure that the Block and Modelling was done based on a restored F-86F and Manual Data Available.

The production run of the F-86F Sabre finally ended with the delivery of the last F-86F-35-NA in August of 1954. At that time, it was assumed that this would be the end of the line for the day-fighter Sabre, as plans were already being made for the F-86F Sabre to be replaced in service by supersonic types such as the F-100. However, the USAF was finding that it was impossible to meet its commitments to Asian allies such as Nationalist China and Japan by using the surplus F-86Fs already available from USAF stocks. Consequently, the F-86F was put back into production to meet this demand.

 

The new model was known as the NA-227 to the company and as the F-86F-40-NA on USAF rolls. A contract for 215 was formally approved on June 27, 1955. USAF serials were 55-3816/4030. 65 more -40s were added to the contract on March 27, 1956, with USAF serials being 55-4983/5047. USAF serials were assigned to these planes because they were purchased with MDAP funds, even though they were not intended for USAF service.

 

The first F-86F-40-NA (serial number 55-3816) rolled out of the factory in October of 1955. The new F-86F was basically similar to the earlier F-86F Sabres and was powered by the same J47-GE-27 of the earlier Fs and had the fuselage, weapons system, and flight controls of the standard F, but had a different wing. It had the "6-3" extended wing leading edge of the earlier Fs, but leading edge slats were once again fitted in an attempt to improve the low speed handling properties. In addition, the wing tips were extended, increasing the wing area from 302.3 square feet to 313.4 square feet and the wing span from 37.12 feet to 39.11 feet. The original F-86F aileron was part of the wingtip, while the F-40 aileron was separate.

 

The wing slats and the increased wing area markedly improved the handling, especially at low speeds. The low-speed roll-and-yaw problem which had plagued the "6-3" F-86F Sabres was largely eliminated. Stalling speed was reduced from 144 mph to 124 mph, and 800 feet were shaved from the takeoff ground run. The slat actuators and wingtip extensions added about 250 pounds to the weight, but performance was almost identical to that of a standard F-86F.

 

These improvements in handling and turning ability led the USAF to decide to upgrade many of their existing F-86F-25 and F-86F-30 Sabres to F-86F-40 standards. North American supplied the Air Force with modification kits containing the new wing leading edge, slat assemblies, wingtip extensions, and new ailerons. Many Sabre-equipped foreign air forces also upgraded their Sabres to F-40 standards through use of these kits. Only the Canadair and Commonwealth Sabres were not equipped with F-40 wing kits, although both types could accept the installation if needed.