303_Kermit

Yes, that is the most common opinion, and it's wrong. However heavier, "bis" poses thrust to weight ratio of ~1 (below 13200ft, and about Ma1) far better than any plane of '60 era. Second -it has maneuver flaps -self retractable from it's T-O position. Bigger wingload and weight comes from bigger amount of internal fuel and better internal cannon (the one on F-13 has only 45 shells). If you consider that, even PF with extra gunpod (not present in Vietnam anyway) would be heavier than bis. -It's able to reach 1 G more (8,5-7,5G vs 6,5-7,5G) than F-13 and PF, also has more internal fuel, which is very important. -actually PF possessed better thrust to weight ratio than F-13 There is no more maneuverable MiG-21 as bis. lower weight won't compensate 3 300 KG thrust less of F-13. TRT of F-13 is worse than TRT of Bis. bis has slightly bigger turn radius, but it's far less than F-4E anyway.

I hope for F-4D tbh. I dream about GDB besides SUU-16 and SUU-23 would be fun

Exactly. DCS F-4E will have more advantage over F-6 (MiG-19S), but MiG-21bis is clearly far superior compared to F-13, PF, FL, and even MF.

The truth is that from Vietnam Era we have in DCS ... nothing. F-4B/C/D F-105 F-100 F-104 A-1 A-4 B (one VA)/C/E/F A-7 A-5 A-6 E-121 MiG-21 F-13/PF/FL/MF MiG-19S (F-6) MiG-17F so... we have to use a bit imagination anyway...

I hope that you're right, and I'm wrong. I be glad to. DCS Needs MiG-21... Every F-4 fan needs it as proper well made module. It's best duell of all times (hoewer it was a duel against MiG-21 MF/PF/PFM/F-13 and F-4). bis fought against F-15, F-16, and F-14A. Afghanistan , Iran Iraq war, 1991 Desert storm, Balkan War.

It's not assumption. It's a quote.

and SAU, and ARU, and Radar, and fantasy Weapon setup, and aiming sight sci-fi functions, and RSBN which currently is FC3 alike, and engine shutting down because of overspeed (it's totally made up, there are materials about it. MiG-21 shall lose stability not engine, by overspeed), and elevator not working on high speed and high altitudes.... wishful thinking. Navigation and radar need completely new algorithm. It must be first implemented to F-8, then if it works - you will find it in (new) MiG-21. Other way makes no sense. Nobody will implement new algorithm into old module. It would make no sense. They said a lot about it, and it's on YT. A complete interview was made about ... 1,5 year ago ...? I think.

Are there any chances for it to come? ED?

That all after F-4U Corsair and F-8 Crusader. Taking current speed of work into account it's expected in about 16 years. (assuming that F-8 isn't much complicated than F-4U)

Actually if we compare T/W ratio of various MiG-21, the best of course is bis, but... If we're interested in flying bit higher than 4000m ( 13 200ft) then the best T/W ratio poses PF /PFM. bis actually saw quite a little combat. Most conflicts of '65-'73 (Vietnam, 6 day war, war of attrition, India -Pakistan) - used F-13, PF,PFM, FL (in huge numbers) and my personal favourite MF. Bis was actually more a plane of '80. His conflict is Afghanistan. When he showed up in Middle east Israel had F-15 already (december 1976 is a start of receiving F-15A/B). It's actually a beginning of the end of "MiG-21 era". Clash against 4th Gen US fighters ended up very badly for a little delta. Sooo... no. bis is not the "Standard contemporary" to F-4E. for that we need MF (mainly), or PFM, SMT, FL...

I know it's not F-4, but it's sooo pretty. I have these wallpaper at work and at home:

tbh, There's a training video available on YT about F-4J and AiM-7, shoot from various aspects. There are given F-Pole ranges and Detection ranges. It's not most impressive. F-5E-3 From DCS has amazing radar. Over Syria I was able to detect 2x Mi-24 flying at 10ft from 18 000ft altitude, and 12nm.

Most fighters Is very limited during flight with the tanks. Even more limitations are from that reason by dropping tanks. And actually... It is exactly Rocket - Science it's called these way not without a reason. Anything what points in front of a wing changes Shockwave geometry of F-104's supersonic airfoil. Affects stability. "Shockwave physics" is non intuitive and requires understanding of fluid mechanics and thermodynamics, to start explaining something. To "Figure out " something one requires to redesign wing. F-104S wasn't quality choice - it was economy choice. Phantom was simply much better, but F-104 provided workplaces for italian industry. for start I'll suggest these movie: source of information: "Lockheed F-104 Starfighter: A History" by Martin W. Bowman My best regards.

really?? F-104S were delivered from 1969 to 1973 and were equipped with AiM-7E, AiM-9B/F missiles. NASARR R-21G/H monopulse, non doppler radar. 29nm range for target size TU-95. For something MiG-21 like it's about 6nm. It's rival is F-4E, MiG-21bis, MiG-23, MiG-17, Su-7, Mirage 3/5 There were many problems: In 4 missiles configuration it was a risk of hitting own carrier by AiM-7 since missile nose pointed outside leading edge of a wing. (they create a "own" shockwave placed before the wing shockwave, so it affects also stability) Launching AiM-7 were performed only in subsonic flights. Acceleration of F-104 suffers also in these configuration considerably. F-104S-ASA were delivered in early 1990. FIAR R21G/M1 radar, Pulse doppler Radar, RWR, modern navigation avionics, chaff-flare dispensers, APSIDE Missiles, AiM-9L, and M61 Vulcan refitted back since avionics shrinked back. (source: http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm) Its rival would be F-15E/C, F-14A, F-16C, MiG-29A/S/G, Su-27, Mirage 2000C. Most modern variant S-ASA-M has very sad career story. I quote after:(http://www.karo-aviation.nl/favorite/pages/f104/f104ami.htm) "Initial flight of the F-104S ASA-M was in 1995, with initial deliveries in 1997. These machines served in an operational role in 1999 during OPERATION ALLIED FORCE, the NATO air campaign against Serbia. The Starfighters were used for combat air patrols, being occasionally directed by airborne warning and control aircraft to check out presumably non-hostile bogeys. Even the ASA-M project was unable to made the Starfighter to soldier on until the arrival of the Eurofighter. During the wars in the ex-Yugoslavia the ASA-M showed all its age and was unable to fly along others NATO fighters. It was relegated to air base protection and deemed unsuitable even for that mission." other sources: https://it.wikibooks.org/wiki/F-104_Starfighter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter Sooo... witch one actually do you meant? For me its better to have F-104C - as a rival for MiG-19P. Don't you think? It's (early)Gen II fighter, and all Gen III updates seem to ... fail. Sadly With my best regards. Kermit

G & C you meant. Radar of F-104 was too small to fully exploit AiM-7. C is capable of air refueling, and it's most advanced version used by USAF. G- obvious reason

Pilot reports tell about heavy weight, and wrong center of gravity (while G rises helmet front lowers down on the eyes, and limits the visibility forward-up in fight). These solutions were warm accepted on AH-1 Cobra, but F-4 needs something lighter, and better balanced. regards

to be honest I can imagine some "Inertia effect" while "G" forces rise. Probably I would be hard to simulate, and all the work would lead players to conclusion, that it's not useful in dogfight. Like it was in original. Interesting fact is, that Heatblur introduced a possibility of having different helmets, so the subject is not dead. Regards

Please don't remove it! at least not from L-39C . Air tightness test of Oxygen mask is a standard point of our startup procedure. First flight a day we always test it. ... you may however be so kind considering to add such failure to your marvelous "Random Failures" My best regards

Nope. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_51.PDF only above Ma=0,85 or 450KIAS

It's kinda ... sick, but except amusement there was a silent, gentle, thought: "Some guy is flying MY plane... MY PLANE! SOME GUY IS TOUCHING MY PLANE!!! I want blood!!!" nice flying, great plane

Every single one. What a question....

Little F-5E is brilliant. I just want it to be not worse than today

Thank you for quick and nice reply! Was the system then replaced by something more modern, if I may ask? AFAIK 77/96 systems were in use still in 1973, until the end of Vietnam war. I know that even on A-4E/F system was implemented only on some dedicated planes, as "additional accessory". Various versions of these systems were in use until 2005. Are you planning to implement GDB on some of future F-4? Thank you for reply. And for giving us F-4. You're doing great work!

Hallo I want to ask about a system very popular in late '60 and '70. Ground Directed Bombing was very popular method of bombardment in imc weather conditions. The system used AN/MSQ-77 ground radar, Reeves AN/TSQ-96 Bomb Directing Central with ballistic computer Univac 1219B, and AFAIK were used on F-105, A-4E/F, F-4B/C ... Here are some articles about it on Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_AN/MSQ-77_Bomb_Directing_Central https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_AN/TSQ-96_Bomb_Directing_Central and here more about it in some wider context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-directed_bombing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_AN/TPQ-10_Radar_Course_Directing_Central https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeves_AN/TPQ-2_Close_Air_Support_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/MPQ-2 Will our F-4E have implemented such system? I can imagine how much fun It would be to simulate such missions. IFR fligt, MiGs, SA-2, and dark cloudy night in my F-4 ...