3 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

I guess the difference is the the Koiogran turn is more intense?

The K-turn and the Immelman are both very stressful maneuvers. You’ll notice in the picture of the Immelmann that the aircraft rotated during the loop. This is because the G-forces involved are so intense that it is almost sure to Black you out, even in pressure suits. A lot of air show accidents come from pilots trying to do this maneuver without rotating the aircraft to deflect the G-forces.

It’s not impossible to do it mind you. I’ve seen it done once and I’m not totally sure I believe it to this day.

Edit: it’s almost sure to Black you out IF you don’t rotate. The rotation is what makes it possible.

I think that the F-16 deserves a Koiogran turn then. I will get strated on custom cards after I have pilot names and abilities.

@Mackaywarrior, I guess I was thinking that the Koiogran turn looked like a Pugachev's Cobra but the ship flips all the way over onto its back, and then would spin around with a simple green maneuver.

11 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

Edit: it’s almost sure to Black you out IF you don’t rotate. The rotation is what makes it possible.

I did one of those Combat Pilot For A Day things and got to experience GLOC. Heck of a thing, that is.

2 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

@Mackaywarrior, I guess I was thinking that the Koiogran turn looked like a Pugachev's Cobra but the ship flips all the way over onto its back, and then would spin around with a simple green maneuver.

Hmm. I have never seen that one before. Thanks for sharing! The Pugachev's Cobra still keeps the aircraft moving forward. Almost looks like a way to air brake without air-brakes. Verrrrry interesting.

7 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

I did one of those Combat Pilot For A Day things and got to experience GLOC. Heck of a thing, that is.

Well I for one am VERY jealous of you, sir or madam. I didn’t even know that was a thing. Lol

not that G-LOC sounds like fun but I’d happily take that as a trade off for the other cool stuff!

Yay, another fighter plane thread.

1 hour ago, Mackaywarrior said:

You are thinking too 2-dimensionally. Imagine a K-turn in 3-D. It is an Immelmann. There are very few ways to do a 180 turn in a dogfight.

So the J-Turn is a white K-Turn?

3 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

So the J-Turn is a white K-Turn?

Either that or a Talon roll with a boost lol

I always figured a white K-turn was a very slow Immelmen Where you make the loop bigger to cut down on the angular momentum.

I think an appropriate EPT could be:

"Ride into the danger zone"

When you reveal your dial you may instead discard this card to perform a white 2 S-Loop immediately followed by another white 2 S-Loop, followed by a white 5 K-turn, followed by a white 3 straight and come in for a landing to the wild applause of an amped-up crowd.

I'd halfway suggest a title that allows you an extra die at range 1, and the evade action.

But then the temptation to have one for the Thunderbirds that instead, say, allows them to ignore bumping and perform red maneuvers when stressed seems appropriate too

2 hours ago, RufusDaMan said:

Yay, another fighter plane thread.

Yeah, it was pretty poorly labeled. Sorry you got screwed into opening it.

Just now, Darth Meanie said:

Yeah, it was pretty poorly labeled. Sorry you got screwed into opening it.

I wouldn't mind it, if there was no mention of real life planes, wars, the air force, "muh service" or all that depressing crap anywhere else.

People being passionate about actual war machines is really getting to me, and I dislike seeing it everywhere. Sometimes it even devolves into glorifying war, or people who willingly went to invade others, which is in my opinion indefensible.

Frankly, I think caring about death machines is fine until they are made up, or technologically obsolete. Getting a hard-on for something that still kills people, or has done so until very recently, is questionable.

You don't know if there are people on this forum who have seen this particular craft used in action, directed at them. I think this is in bad taste.

But that, of course, is just my opinion. You are free to talk whatever. Carry on.

8 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

I wouldn't mind it, if there was no mention of real life planes, wars, the air force, "muh service" or all that depressing crap anywhere else.

People being passionate about actual war machines is really getting to me, and I dislike seeing it everywhere. Sometimes it even devolves into glorifying war, or people who willingly went to invade others, which is in my opinion indefensible.

Frankly, I think caring about death machines is fine until they are made up, or technologically obsolete. Getting a hard-on for something that still kills people, or has done so until very recently, is questionable.

You don't know if there are people on this forum who have seen this particular craft used in action, directed at them. I think this is in bad taste.

But that, of course, is just my opinion. You are free to talk whatever. Carry on.

That's an interesting perspective and one that I think more people should look at.

For me, Star Wars was what started my whole road down my engineering career. Aerospace as a whole is just so fascinating to me but I also recognize what much of the aerospace world is used for. After all, what pushed us from the Wright Flyer to Bi-Planes was WWI. However, there is still beauty in what is being made. Aircraft now borderlines just straight magic in my opinion. Even with that, it is always good to keep things in perspective. I have friends at NASA who love their jobs but are well aware of who we learned a lot of our rocket science from.

Even with all the suffering, they are just tools and they can do incredible things. I grew up near wild fires and I can tell you seeing the C-130 flying overhead was quite the site. A better one was the people operating those stopping the fires. WB-57F raced the sun for the solar eclipse and it was awesome!

Anyway, that is just my perspective on things. I don't regret the work I have done and I love when we talk aeronautics on these forums. I just wanted to add my two-cents to your comment. I felt like I owed you that since I have added so much to this discussion. Sorry to drag you back in.

Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate it!

5 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

That's an interesting perspective and one that I think more people should look at.

For me, Star Wars was what started my whole road down my engineering career. Aerospace as a whole is just so fascinating to me but I also recognize what much of the aerospace world is used for. After all, what pushed us from the Wright Flyer to Bi-Planes was WWI. However, there is still beauty in what is being made. Aircraft now borderlines just straight magic in my opinion. Even with that, it is always good to keep things in perspective. I have friends at NASA who love their jobs but are well aware of who we learned a lot of our rocket science from.

Even with all the suffering, they are just tools and they can do incredible things. I grew up near wild fires and I can tell you seeing the C-130 flying overhead was quite the site. A better one was the people operating those stopping the fires. WB-57F raced the sun for the solar eclipse and it was awesome!

Anyway, that is just my perspective on things. I don't regret the work I have done and I love when we talk aeronautics on these forums. I just wanted to add my two-cents to your comment. I felt like I owed you that since I have added so much to this discussion. Sorry to drag you back in.

Happy Thanksgiving if you celebrate it!

I totally understand if other people have different perspectives, and I'm not here to shut anyone up. People should be free to express their views, even if I disagree. (that is until my world domination plans succeed, but as things are going now, you are probably safe for a good while )

Thanks for telling me what do you think in a civilized manner. And cheers.

2 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

I totally understand if other people have different perspectives, and I'm not here to shut anyone up. People should be free to express their views, even if I disagree. (that is until my world domination plans succeed, but as things are going now, you are probably safe for a good while )

Thanks for telling me what do you think in a civilized manner. And cheers.

Imperial Scum....

3 hours ago, AwesomeJedi said:

I don't know, the Koiogran turn is like a snap roll performed "by pushing the throttle forward with one hand and twisting the control stick with the other, [so] the pilot would lose all forward momentum and loop-roll in another direction." The Immelman turn is more like a loop.

The Immelman is more like a figure eight when two are performed back to back.

Speed wise, the Falcon was the first fighter to accelerate in a vertical climb. A white or green 5 straight wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.

17 minutes ago, RufusDaMan said:

Fight terrorists with the F-16 Fighting Falcon!

File with cards here!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1oqbHHXHa8qg0W-QeZARJXPC7jDL1eOLo

Originally, I intended for Formation Flying to be a Thunderbirds stunt theme EPT, but I realized it would encourage for formation flying, so I gave it TIE Fighter art.

6 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

Not as far as I am avaible. There were some experimental crafts based on the F-16 with thrust vectoring for super maneuverability, but only the F-22 and some SUs got production runs.
No Pugachev's Cobra, no J-Turns, etc for standard F-16.

Technical I love those X-31 and X-32 experimentals as well. Alas no production runs for those.
The X-29 was super cool too, though it came with something quite different and does not really reach super maneuverability, just a very high aerodynamic maneuverability. Similar to the F-16 btw.
Stuff like the F-16 vista (experimental aircraft only) and some other super maneuverability jets still be controlled when literally flying backwards.

edit: Speaking of the X-29, now that would be a good candidate for green 1-turns. And green-2 turns. That thing was not fast, but it could turn like a king, even when compared to the vector thrusters of its time.

The X-29 was the test bed for FSW, correct? If it was, it enjoyed some unique flight characteristics. Stalls began at the wing root versus the wing tip. Control at lower speeds was possible because the control surfaces remained in "clean air" longer.

The forward swept wing, FSW, was not a new concept. Nazi Germany had a bomber with FSW but had to make the wings so thick it lost most if not all of the advantages. The problem was aeroelastic divergence. The tendency for one wing tip to rise and the other to drop. The aircraft would literally rip itself apart due to the violent oscillations. Part of the answer was the use of composites that were stiffer than titanium. The other part was the use of computers to make minute adjustments in the control surfaces to make the plane stable or at least flyable

I don't know...a ship with only a single engine, and a cockpit positioned far in front of the wings? Sounds a little unrealistic, to me.

Been trying to come up with something for it to fight, Like a Mig-29 or Su-27, but the problem with 4th gen jet fighters is there almost all the same (until you start looking at the fancy Delta wings.) I mean the Mig-29 has like, 15 mph on the F-16 at altitude, hardly enough to warrant a 5 speed. There all going to have barrel roll and boost, and pretty much the same upgrade bar(the Su-27 might get another missile slot or two but that's about it.). The only major difference would be hull, maybe (I'd argue with two engines the mig is potentially more survivable, by a factor of about 1 hull point.) and the dial (how do you even make it feel like a Mig when the F-16 has pretty much a T-70 dial without Ks? (I know some of you are ironing out K-turn becoming an immelman) )

Only noteable exceptions I can think of (for 4th gen fighters anyway)are the A-10 (5 die primary) which only really "dogfights" with Heli's and theoretically other fixed wing attack aircraft, The Growler (sensor upgrade slot traded out for missiles, jamming beam shenanigans) and although its not a 4th gen fighter, the Mig-25 "Foxbat" (Should really deserve a slot for burnout slam since you could redline the engines to accelerate into Mach 3 territory.) .

1 hour ago, RufusDaMan said:

I wouldn't mind it, if there was no mention of real life planes, wars, the air force, "muh service" or all that depressing crap anywhere else.

People being passionate about actual war machines is really getting to me, and I dislike seeing it everywhere. Sometimes it even devolves into glorifying war, or people who willingly went to invade others, which is in my opinion indefensible.

Frankly, I think caring about death machines is fine until they are made up, or technologically obsolete. Getting a hard-on for something that still kills people, or has done so until very recently, is questionable.

You don't know if there are people on this forum who have seen this particular craft used in action, directed at them. I think this is in bad taste.

But that, of course, is just my opinion. You are free to talk whatever. Carry on.

Don't think of it as glorifying war. And the passion for the machine may be for the engineering. Take for instance the Gatling Gun. The designer thought it was such a terrifying weapon that wars would become a thing of the past. Seldom used in the ACW because it was considered too cumbersome it's ghost was resurrected in the forms of the Vulcan, Minigun and the CIWS. A pretty amazing piece of old engineering.

There's a lot of great engineering examples from WW II. Not glorifying war, even though the examples are of war machines. If you delve deeper you can get a taste for how politics influenced some engineering decisions. Like the American General turned down information on the Munroe Effect (shaped charge) by saying "it is an interesting laboratory phenomena with no practical application". He was a little off base with that comment.

I never out grew the "Why" and "How come" stages of childhood. I still want to know how things work, who came up with the idea and what caused the light bulb to illuminate in the first place.

As for war, I fear that it will be with us until some lunatic pushes the Big Red Button and kills every living thing on this planet. The reason or reasons for the button push are irrelevant. Over the centuries, man has gotten smarter, but the old ways lie just below a thin verneer of respectability, sophistication and morality. It doesn't take much to scratch that facade an unleash the unthinking, uncaring brute.