F-86A

[86Cheese]

8 hours ago, Senor_Jefe said:

Don't think the platform matters (making the assumption based on modern airframes).  IAS should realistically the same regardless of pitot system or hardware.  It's strictly a velocity vs environment issue.  There are calculators online you can mess with to change temp from ISA, altitude and other variables to see how it impacts IAS, CAS, TAS and Mach.

Cool, I just said there were charts in the handbooks. Never said any of that^

[Senor_Jefe]

9 hours ago, 86Cheese said:

Cool, I just said there were charts in the handbooks. Never said any of that^

Lol oh, my. Although, the poster asking may have confused that for something aircraft specific.

[Variable]

Having trouble with fuel management with the F-86. Flew a sortie on combat box with the big drop tanks and was nearly empty landing 40 minutes later. Didn’t even get in an engagement. Just navigating around. 
 

had my RPMs mostly at 80 and only firewalled it at takeoff. 
 

what am I doing wrong?

 

Edit: ok figured it out. When you have drop tanks you will also pull from the internal tanks until your internal gauge hits 300. Then your internal gauge won’t move until the drop tanks are empty. 
 

I was dropping the external tanks way too early because I was seeing the internal gauge drop and figured they were empty. 

Edited July 5 by Variable
More info

[bsones]

The roll rate of the Sabre seems low. It rolls faster than the MiG but is still pretty sluggish. At 400 knots IAS, Mach ~.6, I can do a 360-degree roll in 3.5 seconds in a clean Sabre. That's about 102 degrees per second. Here is footage of a real Sabre doing a roll in 2.8 seconds, at just over 300 knots IAS and slightly under Mach .6. That's about 128 degrees per second. 

So, that's already faster, but on top of that, the Sabre in the video is an F-86F with the revised 6-3 wing. So, its roll rate should actually be a little bit slower than the F-86A's. And he has drop tanks.

Edited July 5 by bsones

[JendaJND]

1 hour ago, bsones said:

The roll rate of the Sabre seems low. It rolls faster than the MiG but is still pretty sluggish. At 400 knots IAS, Mach ~.6, I can do a 360-degree roll in 3.5 seconds in a clean Sabre. That's about 102 degrees per second. Here is footage of a real Sabre doing a roll in 2.8 seconds, at just over 300 knots IAS and slightly under Mach .6. That's about 128 degrees per second. 

So, that's already faster, but on top of that, the Sabre in the video is an F-86F with the revised 6-3 wing. So, its roll rate should actually be a little bit slower than the F-86A's. And he has drop tanks.

6-3 wing, different ailerons and different booster system on E-F sabres helped with roll actually. 
But it might still be too low and probably is according to new video. Logically hes correct. On the other hand there are mentions in documents where they compare sabre and mig-15 and allegedly they are similar in roll. No info about speed though and given the fact mig has smaller ailerons taking less wing space, it simply cant roll same way at high speeds as 86 and they most likely talked about low speed roll where in fact sabre was comparable. With speed its roll rate actually increased till certain point.

There were also short chord ailerons on late A5s which is something we should have in game if not yet. As they appeared on deliveries of late 86A5s during 49-50, they improved roll quite a bit as it was easier to fully deflect them unlike long chord ones. 
These short chord ailerons should be fully or nearly fully deflectable till critical mach and sabre should roll like crazy. 
Lucky nice video about this issue just released from the FM guy. 

 

[Czech693]

As Dash,Polder stated, you can get the TAS indicated on your HUD (Also your AGL) if you don't feel like pulling out the charts in mid-flight.  Planes use pitot tubes to measure airspeed.  So, if the air is thinner you're going to get less air mass pushing into the pitot tube.  Thus your IAS will be lower than your TAS at higher altitudes.  I believe the F-4 Phantom was the first to have a TAS gauge computer which used your pitot tube ram air and your altitude (and probably the outside air temperature) to calculate TAS.  But, it also had a IAS gauge.

[Huetz]

Despite my best efforts, I am absolutely unable to push the Sabre past Mach .95 in a shallow dive. From what I gather (and I am far from an SME on the Korean war), even the prototype Xp-86 could break the sound barrier. So why not our production Sabre? 

[bsones]

5 hours ago, JendaJND said:

6-3 wing, different ailerons and different booster system on E-F sabres helped with roll actually. 

My understanding is that the F's enhanced maneuverability was felt only at higher speeds. The F-86F flight manual seems to corroborate this; it says that "in the cruise Mach number region, the ailerons provide considerably greater roll ability" (page 6-8, "Ailerons") and clarifies that this does not apply to low-speed ranges. The cruise Mach number range is .7 to .8; the Sabre in the video I linked was doing rolls below .6. 

The anecdotal information from pilots seems to indicate that the F was a bit less maneuverable than the A at lower speeds (the loss of the leading-edge slats probably contributed to that as well), but more maneuverable at higher speeds, and also faster thanks to the new engine. 

[Senor_Jefe]

9 hours ago, Variable said:

Having trouble with fuel management with the F-86. Flew a sortie on combat box with the big drop tanks and was nearly empty landing 40 minutes later. Didn’t even get in an engagement. Just navigating around. 
 

had my RPMs mostly at 80 and only firewalled it at takeoff. 
 

what am I doing wrong?

 

Edit: ok figured it out. When you have drop tanks you will also pull from the internal tanks until your internal gauge hits 300. Then your internal gauge won’t move until the drop tanks are empty. 
 

I was dropping the external tanks way too early because I was seeing the internal gauge drop and figured they were empty. 

Please tell me this wasn't how it was actually designed/implemented.  No shot they didn't have a tank feed switch/dial to pick which tanks to use first....

 

Edit:  Yep, confirmed external tanks were to be depleted first, and internal tanks should not lose anything until switched to by the pilot. 

This makes drop tanks in MP effectively useless.  And even just conceptually backwards...

Edited July 6 by Senor_Jefe

[Stonehouse]

FYI - Seems like all fuel to the engine goes through the center wing tank. So all other fuel must go through this tank to make it to the engine. Drop tanks feed to the forward fuel tank and then to the center tank. The engine draws from the center tank and so fuel in this tank must be consumed before more fuel can be added. Bit different but to show even now it can be different to what you expect I've heard of similar strange things with F16s and the max fuel flow rate of the transfer pumps between drop tanks and the center fuel tank and the max fuel flow rate from the center tank to the engine. Again, it is a case of the fuel to the engine comes from the center tank. From memory the fuel flow from the center is max 18000lbs per hr and the drop tanks to the center is only 15000lbs per hr. So, if you run your thrust high enough that you exceed the flow rate of the drop tank pumps you can actually run out of fuel in the center tank and starve the engine out. 

Edited July 6 by Stonehouse

[Gavrick]

You are right, there is a problem. We will revise the fuel consumption algorithm accordingly.

[Dash,Polder]

There are no pumps in drop tanks, not even F-16's.  On a fighter they're emptied by pressure and vacuum.  If the fighter is equipped with an empty light, it comes on because of manifold pressure drop on the aircraft's own interior drop tank transfer manifold pump, there generally is no drop tank electrical connections, not even for a fuel quantity gauge.    

You can't transfer what you don't have room for.  Every fuel manifold has an over pressure/ over flow dump relief on it, or the thing would rupture parked on a hot sun shine ramp with full tanks after being fully refueled on a cold night.  It will also vent airborne if fuel is forced at too much volume and pressure through the manifold in flight with no where to go.  A well designed fuel manifold pumping system will pump excess fuel back into one of the reserve tanks if it has the capacity, not sure if these early jets if they had such a feature.

Why nobody fuels up a jet unless it's scheduled to fly that day or is actively sitting on alert.  Also why nobody ever tops a drop tank off all the way to the top.

[Senor_Jefe]

2 hours ago, Dash,Polder said:

There are no pumps in drop tanks, not even F-16's.  On a fighter they're emptied by pressure and vacuum.  If the fighter is equipped with an empty light, it comes on because of manifold pressure drop on the aircraft's own interior drop tank transfer manifold pump, there generally is no drop tank electrical connections, not even for a fuel quantity gauge.    

You can't transfer what you don't have room for.  Every fuel manifold has an over pressure/ over flow dump relief on it, or the thing would rupture parked on a hot sun shine ramp with full tanks after being fully refueled on a cold night.  It will also vent airborne if fuel is forced at too much volume and pressure through the manifold in flight with no where to go.  A well designed fuel manifold pumping system will pump excess fuel back into one of the reserve tanks if it has the capacity, not sure if these early jets if they had such a feature.

Why nobody fuels up a jet unless it's scheduled to fly that day or is actively sitting on alert.  Also why nobody ever tops a drop tank off all the way to the top.

While everything you say is factual, it's completely outside of the point of the fuel management discussion.  The above statements stand; external tanks should deplete first because the system utilizes external tanks first (yes, as you mentioned, via pressure in the tank; which was never argued against).  It should be fixed, which @Gavrick already confirmed would happen.  Think we can put this one to bed.

[iflyflightsims]

On 7/5/2026 at 4:22 PM, Huetz said:

Despite my best efforts, I am absolutely unable to push the Sabre past Mach .95 in a shallow dive. From what I gather (and I am far from an SME on the Korean war), even the prototype Xp-86 could break the sound barrier. So why not our production Sabre? 

I also could not exceed this Mach number in a steep dive. Is that the correct max dive speed that this aircraft is capable of?

[JendaJND]

10 hours ago, iflyflightsims said:

I also could not exceed this Mach number in a steep dive. Is that the correct max dive speed that this aircraft is capable of?

No its not. F-86A had limit of 0.95 up to 25 000 feet. or 580kts IAS as structural limit. 
It was mach capable in dive. Manual also talks about higher mach flight characteristics. 
There is no mention of plane jerking up and down, stalling engine, slowing down rapidly because of it or outright breaking apart like it happend to me few times at 0,95 trying to push above 0,96.
Also manual states that stability and CONTROL of the plane are unaffected by compressibility till 0,95. AFAIK it starts to compress especially in roll departments below even 0.9 which is again, incorrect besides its speed of roll. The only stick heaviness manual talks about, is elevator due to is significantly lower boost ratio than ailerons. Also only mention of high speed instability i could find outside of maneuvering, was the nose up tendency, no sudden nose drop in split second after passing 0,95-0,96. 



Basically speed limits are

580kts IAS structural limit
0,95 mach below 25 000ft 
If you cross it (0,95 mach below 25000ft), it shouldnt jerk around but it should do the same thig mig-15 does 0,04-0,07 mach later than its critical mach limit and its barely noticeable for some reason (roll to one side thats worse and worse with speed increasing to the point it cant be countered with ailerons or rudder).
I guess realism for thee but not for me case of russian planes in russian game strikes again. - not up to mach 0,92... 
sometimes it doesnt show up even at 0,97 and that text is about modified wing already. 

Would be nice if sabre and 15 were made to same standards... 

It should be possible to get through nose up with trim OR stick push, not both combined atleast till very high speeds of most likely mach and above. 
I managed to do it once to 0,97 with a lot of effort using full down trim and then pushing onto the stick. At 0,97 the plane jerked over and instantly slowed down to mach 0,75.

Spoiler

 

Spoiler

Red limit should be disregarded... funny how the up and down jerking happens exactly at that red limit... Even though it means absolutely nothing above 25 000ft and on top of that shouldnt mean the plane loses vertical stability even if its crossed below 25 000ft.... 

NOT A SINGLE MENTION of nose going up and then suddenly dropping down like crazy,... only mention of nose up that continues to speeds ABOVE!!!!! MACH 1!
Nor does it mention you need full trim down and almost full stick forward to push above 0,95. 
Its talking about increasing push force... not slam it forward with full trim down to get even above 0,95 and then it drops nose and rolls you vertically over.
Its push stick OR trim it... full trim down is NOT enough to go above 0,95

Its hard to read but it in case of above 25 000ft, it certainly doesnt mention speed limit. Considering they chose to make mig roll at nearly mach 1 in most cases, then this thing shouldnt start till mach one as its critical mach speed is 0,3 higher than migs. 
Also the limit of 25 000ft doesnt mean it flips up and down, it means it starts rolling like mig should. Should be harder to control than above 25 000feet where its easier to control and you can push it more.


Above 25K feet. Chart goes up to 1,2 mach limit. 


This is also concerning. As F-86A in IL2 does NOT have extremely powerful roll control. And it certainly as hell aint extremely high. 
I couldnt find any chart showing stick forces or limits for roll. ONLY for elevator. That already tells in combination with text below that sabres roll was very high across its whole flight envelope. 

Spoiler

We have late A-5s, we should have short chord ailerons aswell as our A5 was "marketed" as late one. 

For example, boost ratio of elevator is 15 : 1
Aileron ratio is up to 50! : 1... thats 50 pounds of force on ailerons for 1 pound on stick. There is no way that ailerons are restricted by force till critical speed and above it. 

 

Edited July 9 by JendaJND

[iflyflightsims]

8 hours ago, JendaJND said:

No its not. F-86A had limit of 0.95 up to 25 000 feet. or 580kts IAS as structural limit. 
It was mach capable in dive. Manual also talks about higher mach flight characteristics. 
There is no mention of plane jerking up and down, stalling engine, slowing down rapidly because of it or outright breaking apart like it happend to me few times at 0,95 trying to push above 0,96.
Also manual states that stability and CONTROL of the plane are unaffected by compressibility till 0,95. AFAIK it starts to compress especially in roll departments below even 0.9 which is again, incorrect besides its speed of roll. The only stick heaviness manual talks about, is elevator due to is significantly lower boost ratio than ailerons. Also only mention of high speed instability i could find outside of maneuvering, was the nose up tendency, no sudden nose drop in split second after passing 0,95-0,96. 



Basically speed limits are

580kts IAS structural limit
0,95 mach below 25 000ft 
If you cross it (0,95 mach below 25000ft), it shouldnt jerk around but it should do the same thig mig-15 does 0,04-0,07 mach later than its critical mach limit and its barely noticeable for some reason (roll to one side thats worse and worse with speed increasing to the point it cant be countered with ailerons or rudder).
I guess realism for thee but not for me case of russian planes in russian game strikes again. - not up to mach 0,92... 
sometimes it doesnt show up even at 0,97 and that text is about modified wing already. 

Would be nice if sabre and 15 were made to same standards... 

It should be possible to get through nose up with trim OR stick push, not both combined atleast till very high speeds of most likely mach and above. 
I managed to do it once to 0,97 with a lot of effort using full down trim and then pushing onto the stick. At 0,97 the plane jerked over and instantly slowed down to mach 0,75.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

  Reveal hidden contents

Red limit should be disregarded... funny how the up and down jerking happens exactly at that red limit... Even though it means absolutely nothing above 25 000ft and on top of that shouldnt mean the plane loses vertical stability even if its crossed below 25 000ft.... 

NOT A SINGLE MENTION of nose going up and then suddenly dropping down like crazy,... only mention of nose up that continues to speeds ABOVE!!!!! MACH 1!
Nor does it mention you need full trim down and almost full stick forward to push above 0,95. 
Its talking about increasing push force... not slam it forward with full trim down to get even above 0,95 and then it drops nose and rolls you vertically over.
Its push stick OR trim it... full trim down is NOT enough to go above 0,95

Its hard to read but it in case of above 25 000ft, it certainly doesnt mention speed limit. Considering they chose to make mig roll at nearly mach 1 in most cases, then this thing shouldnt start till mach one as its critical mach speed is 0,3 higher than migs. 
Also the limit of 25 000ft doesnt mean it flips up and down, it means it starts rolling like mig should. Should be harder to control than above 25 000feet where its easier to control and you can push it more.


Above 25K feet. Chart goes up to 1,2 mach limit. 


This is also concerning. As F-86A in IL2 does NOT have extremely powerful roll control. And it certainly as hell aint extremely high. 
I couldnt find any chart showing stick forces or limits for roll. ONLY for elevator. That already tells in combination with text below that sabres roll was very high across its whole flight envelope. 

  Reveal hidden contents

We have late A-5s, we should have short chord ailerons aswell as our A5 was "marketed" as late one. 

For example, boost ratio of elevator is 15 : 1
Aileron ratio is up to 50! : 1... thats 50 pounds of force on ailerons for 1 pound on stick. There is no way that ailerons are restricted by force till critical speed and above it. 

 

Perfect! I had thought it should still be capable of just above Mach 1.0 in a dive even with the increased drag from the “sound barrier.” Glad you have the technical sources, too! 😀

[Lymark]

Is it just me or is F-86's final exam an impossible mission?

My friendly AI flight is doing a pretty bad job at following the attack air target order. Not to mention the altitude disadvantage means that migs are outperforming me in all aspects. Then, all it takes is a pass or two for them to shoot down a B-29.

I feel like beating the exam requires nothing but pure RNG? 

[JendaJND]

This NACA doc also supports ability of sabre to penetrate mach 1 in wings level dive at around 35 000 feet. 
Not only that but it doesnt even show any erratic vertical movement at 0.95 like we experience. 
What it does show is roll tendency that increases and then decreases with mach number and it is in fact fully counterable by ailerons. 
 

Spoiler

There is also no sign of pitch instability that cant be properly controlled via trim and stick. No sudden drops passing mach 0,95. In fact the flight was stable till pull-up. 

Spoiler

 

Edited July 13 by JendaJND

[Uriah]

Listed here are some statements and assumptions about what controls the Sabre has and does not have.  If there is anything I don’t have correct please let me know.  As an example, I just assume that the Sabre does not have RPM control and water and oil radiator controls. 

 

Engine RPM: no?

RPM Limiter: no?

Mixture control: no?

Supercharger:  no?

Boost/WEP: ?  (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

Radiator water: no

Radiator oil: no

Cowl shutters Inlet: no

Cowl shutters Outlet: no

 

Flaps: 4 positions: I am guessing IL-2 Korea just uses button for extend and retract.

    Up = Retract

    2^nd=Netural

    3^rd=20 degrees

    4^th=55 degrees

 

Trim pitch(elevator): yes, button

Trim yaw(rudder): no

Trim roll(aileron): yes, button

 

Breaks: left and right, use toe brakes on rudder peddle.

Tailwheel lock: no

Nose wheel brake(steering): yes, use button

Parking brake: yes

Wheel chuck:  no (does any aircraft in IL-2 Korea have this?)

Tail hook: no (will any future aircraft in IL-2 Korea have this?)

Airbrakes(speedbrakes): yes, use buttons

 

Canopy open/close: yes, use buttons

Canopy jettison: yes? (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

 

Gun Safety Cover: no (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

Weapon Release: no (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

Machine gun (fire gun groups 1?): yes, button

Cannon (fire gun groups 1?): yes. button

Bombs: yes

Rockets: yes

[von_Tom]

 

Are there any guides for how the radar sight actually works?  Mine just seems to keep rotating thoruhg various ranges even when tracking an enemy.

Also, when I set the gunsight range the numbers do not appear to match the range,  What do the numbers on the left hand dial represent - yards?  If so I am setting it at just above 6 (60?) and the wingspan at around 35 to get what seems to be the right setting for convergence of 200 yards.

Also, no matter which US jet I'm in, the gyro gunsight does not appear to match the rounds trajectory (and sometimes just the reticule just wanders off and sulks).  Is it broken or is it a skill issue?

von Tom

[JendaJND]

In case of roll. It seems to be slow in test at altitude of slightly below 22 000ft and slightly above 300mph indicated. 
NACA report gives approx 2,5 radians = approx 143° per second which should result in 360° roll in 2,5 seconds with right aileron deflection at 10,5° up. As of now, full roll takes 3 seconds with FULL aileron deflection (time for second roll, first one from level flight is 3,02 seconds). Which results in roll rate of 119°/s which is 24° slower than roll with about 4,5° less aileron deflection. 
With full aileron deflection, the roll rate should be higher than what was achieved in naca report. The speeds are relatively "low" speeds. Be it mach speed or indicated so full deflection of 15° shouldnt be an issue. 
Based on real data.
1 radian of roll under these conditions needs 4,2° of one aileron deflection of already accelerated roll (or 8,4 combined). 
Full 15° of deflection in these conditions should result in approx 3,57 radians of roll = 204°/sec of roll... we have 119°... We have nearly half of the roll we should achieve. 
Plane was flown at 13 200lb of weight, which is +- few pounds same weight as in the naca report. 

Spoiler

Ingame roll of 3 seconds. Second roll from already accelerated state. 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 11 by JendaJND

[Civilprotection]

1 hour ago, von_Tom said:

 

Are there any guides for how the radar sight actually works?  Mine just seems to keep rotating thoruhg various ranges even when tracking an enemy.

Also, when I set the gunsight range the numbers do not appear to match the range,  What do the numbers on the left hand dial represent - yards?  If so I am setting it at just above 6 (60?) and the wingspan at around 35 to get what seems to be the right setting for convergence of 200 yards.

Also, no matter which US jet I'm in, the gyro gunsight does not appear to match the rounds trajectory (and sometimes just the reticule just wanders off and sulks).  Is it broken or is it a skill issue?

von Tom

The A-1CM gunsight is extremely accurate, but it has limitations. It just takes a little practice. The range is in feet, not yards, and the minimum range is 600 feet-- (this is reflected on the game HUD). The K-14 gun sight (F-51, F-80) is ranged in yards.

If you are using radar ranging, then setting the wingspan is not required. If you're using manual mode, the wingspan of a Mig is just north of 33ft. To activate the radar ranging, make sure the manual range is set to the minimum distance (600ft).

The gyro sight takes a little time to adjust and prefers smooth and consistent control inputs. It's best in a constant turn that lasts for 2 or more seconds. If you are making constant micro corrections, this will throw off the gyro. The gyro is at it's best at extremely high speeds where heavy controls make it difficult for both planes to perform erratic movements or at high altitude where thin air does the same. The gyro is at it's worst at low altitude and medium speeds where the direction of a fight might change dramatically in half a second or less. In this situation, you might consider caging the gunsight or switching back to the fixed reticle.

Don't expect too much from it. it's not going to let you get a snap shot from 2200 feet. Fly for position, close the distance, and shoot when you are closer than 1200ft.

Best of luck with the practice, I hope this helps

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Uriah said:

Listed here are some statements and assumptions about what controls the Sabre has and does not have.  If there is anything I don’t have correct please let me know.  As an example, I just assume that the Sabre does not have RPM control and water and oil radiator controls. 

 

 

 

Engine RPM: no?

 

RPM Limiter: no?

 

Mixture control: no?

 

Supercharger:  no?

 

Boost/WEP: ?  (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

 

Radiator water: no

 

Radiator oil: no

 

Cowl shutters Inlet: no

 

Cowl shutters Outlet: no

 

 

 

Flaps: 4 positions: I am guessing IL-2 Korea just uses button for extend and retract.

 

    Up = Retract

 

    2^nd=Netural

 

    3^rd=20 degrees

 

    4^th=55 degrees

 

 

 

Trim pitch(elevator): yes, button

 

Trim yaw(rudder): no

 

Trim roll(aileron): yes, button

 

 

 

Breaks: left and right, use toe brakes on rudder peddle.

 

Tailwheel lock: no

 

Nose wheel brake(steering): yes, use button

 

Parking brake: yes

 

Wheel chuck:  no (does any aircraft in IL-2 Korea have this?)

 

Tail hook: no (will any future aircraft in IL-2 Korea have this?)

 

Airbrakes(speedbrakes): yes, use buttons

 

 

 

Canopy open/close: yes, use buttons

 

Canopy jettison: yes? (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

 

 

 

Gun Safety Cover: no (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

 

Weapon Release: no (is this even a thing in IL-2 Korea?)

 

Machine gun (fire gun groups 1?): yes, button

 

Cannon (fire gun groups 1?): yes. button

 

Bombs: yes

 

Rockets: yes

 

The in-game aircraft manual will tell you what controls you need. 

[Valis]

On 7/5/2026 at 5:01 PM, Variable said:

Edit: ok figured it out. When you have drop tanks you will also pull from the internal tanks until your internal gauge hits 300. Then your internal gauge won’t move until the drop tanks are empty. 
 

I was dropping the external tanks way too early because I was seeing the internal gauge drop and figured they were empty. 

I'm currently in Combat Box right now feverishly typing after wondering what the hell was going on with my tanks 🙂

[Huetz]

On 7/9/2026 at 2:21 PM, JendaJND said:

Would be nice if sabre and 15 were made to same standards... 
 

  Hide contents

 

 

QFE. I appreciate the insights and find it quite concerning that they go this wrong.