Canadair CF-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5

 

Is this different enough from the other F-5 variants to need its own entry? If not, is it an F-5A or an F-5E/F?

 

ANW

HUD 4 v1.1 b11

Canadair CF-5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadair_CF-5

 

Is this different enough from the other F-5 variants to need its own entry? If not, is it an F-5A or an F-5E/F?

 

ANW

HUD 4 v1.1 b11

 

CF-5 is a F-5A made in Canada. There are many detail changes but Harpoonwise it is identical to a stock F-5A. The Orenda made J-85 engines are reportedly more reliable than those of other engine manufactures but that is likely due to handling of the engines and not due to the manufacturing process itself.

 

The CF-5D and CF-5B are two seat versions. The CF-5D having more advanced instruments (again no need for a different variant in game.

I think some confussion and perhaps justification for another entry is the Dutch-built NF-5, with apparently more maneouvrability and range:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_22.html

Technically, the NF-5 was the most advanced Freedom Fighter to date. It differed from the CF-5 primarily in having maneuvering leading-edge flaps incorporated into a stronger wing structure. When set for high-speed maneuvering, the electrically-operated leading and trailing edge flaps are synchronized by a control box and are controlled by a thumb-operated switch on the starboard throttle lever. These maneuvering flaps are claimed to give a 50-percent increase in the instantaneous turning rate. The NF-5A/B also had increased external fuel capacity, and the stronger wing enabled more ordnance to be carried. Provision was made for larger external fuel tanks and for the use of ejector bomb racks.

 

Many of the avionics systems fitted to the CF-5 (such as the UHF D/F, Sperry navigation system, ISIS sight and camera system) were deleted from the NF-5. The Dutch NF-5As had the standard Northrop non-computing gunsight, but replaced the Sperry gyro heading and reference system with a Bendix attitude and heading reference system. The NF-5 was equipped with a Canadian Marconi Type 668 Doppler navigation system and 703 navigation system with a roller map. It was equipped with an attitude heading and reference system, emergency UHF radio, and a radio altimeter.

I think some confussion and perhaps justification for another entry is the Dutch-built NF-5, with apparently more maneouvrability and range:

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f5_22.html

Technically, the NF-5 was the most advanced Freedom Fighter to date. It differed from the CF-5 primarily in having maneuvering leading-edge flaps incorporated into a stronger wing structure. When set for high-speed maneuvering, the electrically-operated leading and trailing edge flaps are synchronized by a control box and are controlled by a thumb-operated switch on the starboard throttle lever. These maneuvering flaps are claimed to give a 50-percent increase in the instantaneous turning rate. The NF-5A/B also had increased external fuel capacity, and the stronger wing enabled more ordnance to be carried. Provision was made for larger external fuel tanks and for the use of ejector bomb racks.

 

Many of the avionics systems fitted to the CF-5 (such as the UHF D/F, Sperry navigation system, ISIS sight and camera system) were deleted from the NF-5. The Dutch NF-5As had the standard Northrop non-computing gunsight, but replaced the Sperry gyro heading and reference system with a Bendix attitude and heading reference system. The NF-5 was equipped with a Canadian Marconi Type 668 Doppler navigation system and 703 navigation system with a roller map. It was equipped with an attitude heading and reference system, emergency UHF radio, and a radio altimeter.

 

Most all CF-5/F-5As were updated to that standard in the 70s/80s (Re the new wing.) Likewise the USAF T-38 rebuild program has integrated the new wing into the Talons. However in Game terms there is not enough difference in the handling between the CF-5A/the F-5A and the NF-5A to need special versions. HOWEVER that does not mean it does not need to be done for load-out reasons.

 

Just my two cents