Dear J.D, I want to address the subject of weapons pylons and their effects on aircraft performance. This first came tomind when I asked a VX-4 jock which aircraft he would rather fly in a dogfight. This pilot was experienced in several types, and in reflection, I think I asked the question expecting the obvious answer; the FA-18. The VX-4 guy surprised me when he said that he'd take the F- 14 anyday. I then asked him if he understood the question concerned a "dogfight". He replied that the F-14, and expecially the A+ or D, is a much better dogfighter than the FA-18.1 gave him a look of disbelief. "But I heard..." HE cut me off. He explained that a clean FA-18 is a beautiful tangler, but he said they are really slugs with pylons on them. Now you have to consider what kind of aviator is making these statements. This is an officer from VX-4; "The Evaluators:. The name speaks for itself. Since then I've done a bit of research on the subject. My efforts confirmed the VX-4 dude's statements, and brought out some interesting thins concerning weapons drag and aircraft performance. Externally mounted weapons and their pylons exact a high toll on aircraft performance. Unless the weapon is mounted on a wingtip, where it reduces vorticity, or in a conformal mounting, ala F-4 AIM-7 stations, it exacts an extreme penalty in interference, skin friction, and form drag. Consider this: A clean F- 15A can do Mach 2.5 (limited by engine stagnation temp.) or 800 KCAS. Hang four AIM-7s in their kinda-conformal mounts and you're limited to Mach 2.3 (thrust limited). Hang two wing pylons, and mount four AIM9s on them and you are limited to Mach 1.8. (What's that Joe? Oh, just an F-16 going past at Mach "w" with its's wingtip AMRAAMs). The point is this: Air Superiority takes weapons drag into account but ignores pylon drag. The drag for TERs, MERs, and MDRs is included but the gonzo wing pylons of the Hornet is not. Here's my proposal: On the allowed loads section of the ADCs, print a * or ** next to stations that require weapons pylons to be added before weapons can be hung. A * designates a 1 load point pylon and a ** designates a 2 load point pylon. Both pylon types will have a weight associated with them and this will be counted against an aircraft's total load, but not against that station's load. What do you think? I know this will require some re-rating of ADCs, but I think it is well worth the effort. It will show the difference between an F-8E loaded for ground attack and one loaded for MiG hunting. It will show the difference between an FA-18 with gonzo pylons and bombs and a CF-18 loaded for air to air. Lest you think that I will notbe affected by this rule, consider the fact that F-104s are slugs when hanging pylons although they pioneered the wingtip mounted missile. I think this rule is worth inclusion. It doesn't complicate play because it comes into consideration before play, when loads are being calculated! Please let me know what you think! --Later, Mark "Top Wop" Bovankovich What do I think? (Aaaiieeee! Burn the Witch!!) What do the rest of you think. Is the trouble to do this worth the increase in realism? Sincerely, J.D. Webster Dear J.D. and Tony I was at the Gateway Con in LA on Labor day weekend. Tsuyoshi "Psycho" Kawahito ran an unofficial Air Sup. tourney there. My memory being lousy, the only other call sign I can remember is the man using Tin Eagle. The first scenario was intended to familiarize new players with the game. It was a turkey shoot of fleeing Iraqi A/C by F15C Eagles. It used the rules for radar and spotting, and was long enough to attack with Sparrows, Sidewinders, and guns. (I was the only one to attack with guns though, heh heh!). It has promise as a solitaire scenario. Sorry, I forgot to pick up copies of it. The second scenario was an interesting 2V2 between Pakistani F-16s and Indian MiG-29s. The MiGs set up first within 2 or 3 hexes of each other and the F-16s had to set up within 8 hexes of the MiGs such that no enemy planes were in the other's 150+ arcs. This gave the F-16s a slight angular advantage. Altitude was determined by die roll. (maybe D10+7?). At my table, my side won as the MiGs. We started at altitude 9, descended to 7 and used sustained BT turns (first edition charts). The opposition stayed high and we outturned them. After some lousy die rolling for decoys, they were both flamed by AA-10s. Psycho and Tin Eagle played at the other table, and as far as I know everyone survived the hard turning missile battle. The tourney drew 8 people total, maybe that's enough to get it reinstated next year. Well, I've nattered on enough. --Until next time, Roger "Woof" Taylor Roger and Psycho, glad to see others putting on tourneys, keep it up! Psycho, how about sending those scenarios in for publication. Regards, J.D. Webster Dear Sir, You seem to be getting a few requests for some WW2 aircraft. Air Superiority is a jet combat game. You would be well aware that the game system is designed around modern fighters, and becomes a bit coarse for earlier jets, much less piston engined fighters. And of course, where do you stop. The Germans put four types of manned jets and rockets into service. And then you need opponents, and targets, and ... (ad infinitum). I think an arbitraty cut off at the start of the Korean War is appropriate. There are other games better set up for WW2 (or you could write one, hint, hint). I would not complain about seeing Mustangs, Corsairs and B-29s for use in Korea though. --Yours Faithfully, Evan Powles, Victoria, Australia I agree about Korea as a cutoff, and you will be happy to know that a WW2 game is in the works. Regards, J.D. Webster. Back to Table of Contents -- Air Power # 18 Back to Air Power List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1991 by J.D. Webster This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com