303_Kermit

I started to fly FW-19A8 on the daily basis. It's a flying brick. Powerful armament is enough for him to be worth something in team dogfight. With GM1 It would be a sensible, plane. Without it makes no sense to me. One can fly on ground lvl to hunt down kids in their Spits and P-51's, but hunting down B-17G -> main job of FW-190 is a real struggle. On 8 000m, there were P-47 rules FW-190A8 is worthless.

I love it. You made my day. Pinned down on Squad wall, until I find something more ridiculous.

Cool I found IT forum Datalink blablabla Mudhen blablabla Datalink blabla TF Radar blabla ... Not a word about flying sensation. Being in a plane. Hearing, feeling.... Best Module I ever experienced was MiG-15bis and P-47. I always recognize good module very simply. Saturday Morning I wake up to drink my first (and sadly last) cup of coffee inside MY plane. Then I fly. It's the true feeling. Dogfight, performance, A2G capabilities... It's all nice to have. But The Jug was ... alive. The plane must be alive. To be honest - both modules (F-16 and F15E) are great job - no doubt about it. Both are perfect war machines. Almost without weak spots. That's their biggest problem. They are just stone cold machines. In MiG-15 I always felt that she wants to kill me, P-47 was like a very very big fat tender girl. I can't wait to try F-86F. As for Razbam modules, best plane I ever flew was MiG-19P. She had unique, but strong personality for sure - she was like the Mother in Law, she always does things "her" way. You're always doing wrong. Too slow, too fast, too high, too low, too little or too much. What personality has F-16? Not even a R2D2... My regards Green Ugly Fellow

Like in a Peep Show sorry . I couldn't resist

P47 , A-1, F-9F, F-4U all could carry napalm. First use of napalm? Japan, B-29 bombers. All big towns except of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Front wheel bumping on touch down - that's wrong. MiG-21 had once the same problem. That's not like the real plane behave. There are old and quite new videos about it. No MiG-17 / Lim-5 behave like these. Is center of gravity too far aft?

I meant nothing bad. In history books regia aeronautica wrote a story which bring Italy no shame. Unlike a Luftwaffe.

B. I would argue on that. - 1st argument: Even Aeronautica Militare Italiana pilots acknowledged that variants with M61A1 are more suitable to real combat, and current radar does not give possibility to use Aspide missiles at full capabilities. - 2nd one: Since there's not much combat reports about F-104S, one can use a MiG-21PF/FL/PFM combat reports to check effectiveness of gunless fighter. In Egypt , India, and Vietnam they were extensively used, and there is a multiple reports how desperately its pilots needed a gun. In multiple occasions pilots were forced to ram their opponents. - 3rd one: It's hard to name a F-104S a "peak". It was by then very very old plane. In spite of these modification, loss rate were very high. (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeritalia_F-104S_Starfighter). It was rather a try to save money by extending a use of the same old plane couple years longer. All other countries possess gen 4 and 4+ fighters by then. If I search a "peak" it must be something competitive to compared fighters in the time. In case of F-104 I would say it's F-104 A/C/G. Being Light was extremely important for 104. Kelly Johnson had an Idea of very light, very fast, and very simple, cheap plane. With such small wing every later modification made plane heavier, made turn performance more ridiculous. F-104A was really competitive, since his opponents were MiG-17 / 19 / 21F-13. And they all performed worse than he did. Later modifications seem to forget the main point. Simple, cheap, light. Latest is not always the best.

1. Watch out please. If you use correct data, and choose only the one who support your thesis it's called manipulation. You want significant number of kills made by gun after Vietnam? Here you go sir. 6 day war, the time before and after that. Particular example? Giora Epstein Kheil HaAvir. 17 kills 5 made by missiles. All others made by gun. 2. I also ask why actually do you ask about gun kills made after Vietnam war? F-104 is plane made in '50 F-4 is made in '60... Another manipulation? During Vietnam War (and both F-4 and F-104 are planes of these conflict) almost the same number of kills are made by guns as by AiM-9. Considering, that F-4B/C/D had no gun, it makes these statistic proving my point. Most F-4 attacks were ineffective, because missile effectiveness, because lack of gun. (it won't change my love for these big fighter). 3. Please consider, that Fox3 engagement isn't quite a Dogfight. It's BVR engagement. Your statistic is a manipulation since most tomcat kills in Iran-Iraq are BVR. When someone make F-104 armed with AiM-120B/C/D or AiM-54 one can consider these statistic. AiM-7 kills most targets well below visual range. If it misses a target, gun may be necessary. So to make it clear: BVR are not counted into statistic. It's like comparing SA-2 vs 57mm AAA. both are part of the same system. 57mm AAA are placed just there were USAF planes are expected to make evasive maneuvers - Split "S". about 10-15nm from SAM site. Without SA-2 there would be no shoot opportunity for 57mm. The same is with aerial gunnery. If there's a missile with 60-80nm range - gun may be not needed. 4. Even most modern US fighter F-35 has a gun . why? simple. In modern warfare any range missile may quickly become useless due to a modern ECM. It was surely the case with 1991 desert storm AiM-54 use and AiM-7 use. The first one hit no target, the second one reached it's highest peak of effectivness ... ~13% F-104 without gun makes no sense

These discussion was solved a long time ago. Before even we were born. I don't say, that gun is better than missile, but I say that gun is necessary. Lack of gun is a serious lack. F-4B once he shoot sidewinder quickly disengaged. F-8 and F-100 quite the contrary. That was the difference. My regards. Nice discussion here

In vietnam most VPAF kills come as a result of surprise. In fact I believe, they would welcome F-104. They used to attack from low 6, and quickly disengaged

Quite the opposite. Bill Gunston writes, that among F-4 Pilots it was popular a statement, that it's quite cool to shoot one AiM- after another, but it's doesn't bring anything down. F-4 crew was (almost?) disrespected by A-4/A-5/A-6/ A-7 crews. F-8 was considered to be actually a only "trusted" Navy fighter by them. In other words - it was pure luck if AiM actually hit something. It was always first choice, but not always was possible to use. 2G limit, humid, and... Mildew inside AiM-9B head made them unreliable as main weapon. Especially against MiG-17 On the black wednesday 10 MiG's Intercepted 52 USAF planes under command of famous Robin Olds. 3 Aircraft has been lost, 3 crewman captured, and 2 killed. VPAF lost no planes that day. Same situation came on 2 December 1966, when USAF lost 5 planes (3x F-4C) and the Navy 3 Planes (1xF-4B).

That's very interesting. Any sources?

It's not my statement. "Gun is necessary"; is the statement of USAF sent to McDonnell Douglas after "Black Wednesday" and whole April 1967, USAF orders Phantom with a Gun. They chose a Gun over Pulse - Doppler Radar. USN introduced and used M61A1 Pod.

F-104 made never a kill. Not with AiM-7 nor AiM-9 or Vulcan. They were used in such way, that it made it impossible. Then were they quickly replaced by F-4. It doesn't mede Vulcan not important. Exploitation of F-4B/C/D proved that 20mm cannon is necessary. F-104 wasn't a turn and burn type of plane. It was last B&Z fighter. He could accelerate, climb, dive and zoom climb better that anything else in '60.

During Vietnam war conflict AiM-7 vs 20mm (according to : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_aerial_victories_of_the_Vietnam_War) 59 AiM-7 kills 48 20mm kills ... if I counted correctly

Interceptor needs a range - like P-38 had. It was the beginning of the idea, when it intercepted a plane with Yamamoto onboard, USAAF appreciated P-38 value, and Idea of interceptor was born. Air superiority fighter may work as GAI (like MiG-15 or MiG-17). To intercept something you need a range. F-104 was created as the last B&Z fighter in aviation history, based on experience of USAF fighter pilots over Korea. They said: speed, acceleration, climb, zoom-climb, cannon. And Kelly's fighter provided all that stuff at highest level.

https://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f104_31.html here someone says otherwise. Air superiority. Not interceptor. Author supports his statements with 10 various sources.

J is best performing F-104. its last pure "air superiority" variant of F-104. I know S had better engine, but it's also very heavy. And for F-104 it's actually a big issue...

No "S" please. No F-104 without M61A1 Vulcan. J/C/A/G but not S please. Especially C would be interesting since it's (correct me if I'm wrong) the only variant with air refueling probe.

Disagree. No F-104 without M61A1 Vulcan

Couldn't agree more. I'd like to have F-104C, if it's not possible F-104J since it's last pure air superiority variant. But TBH I love F-104G for their history. I visited 2-days ago Luftfahrtmuseum in Unterschleißheim to see one of those beauties. Slick, sexy beast I have advert for Aegres: "A module which makes your puberty hair grow" Anyway I'll fly any of them. I am finally in heaven. F-104, F-4, A-1, A-7, MiG-23, MiG-19... A shame that there's no proper MiG-21... The one we have is full of bugs and simplifications. It's kind of half - fidelity... @edit: here is the reason why I think that MiG-21bis is half fidelity: SAU not working properly, ARU not even in slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m) pulling hard with ARU in manual mode set in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G, while it shall cause a lost of control, due to excessive AoA and stability lost. Other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting unguided rockets with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy. It gives you precise hit point for FAB's with wind correction. A ballistic table for manual bombing with various dive angles and sight deflection angles doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since I play DCS, Letherneck / Magnitude never attempted to correct these issues. Lowering gear makes your nose ... pull up instead of drop down. Aerodynamical moments are modelled upside down and nobody cares. Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie). RSBN - Is not modelled. Curent work is based not on RSBN/PRGM net, but ...after FC3 MiG-29 module! Every AF has RSBN/PRGM if you fly MiG-21bis. And channel doesn't match the F10 data. ARK-not correctly modelled (some stations are missing ), also ARK landing approach is not possible. That is why I say it's half fidelity. True- learning to fly it - I used original Polisch flight instruction, but if you set up the plane to take off according to instruction (SAU - Aileron and Elevator stabilisation on) - you will deeply regret it. SAU destabilise a plane and is nothing like its original design. One shall fly MiG-21 with SAU applied at least to ailerons, but actually it's hardly an option in magnitude half fidelity module. There are also some funny "easter eggs" - like "1,5Ma Test button" - literally nobody knows what it's made for. Including MiG-21bis real pilots (I know and asked 2 of them) and the devs. Anyway. I gathered all the nicknames of the "104" after wikipedia: "missile with a man in it" Super Starfighter" these was used by Lockheed "Oh-Four", but when the F-100 Super Sabre began to be referred to as the "Zip-Zilch" (for "zero-zero"), the Starfighter acquired the similar nickname "Zip-Four"; this was eventually shortened to "Zipper" or "Zip" Eiko (Kanji: 栄光, "glory") The Japan Air Self-Defense Force "Gustav", "Witwenmacher" ("widowmaker") or Fliegender Sarg ("flying coffin"), Erdnagel ("ground nail") - Germany The reputation of the Pakistani F-104 was such that the Indian Air Force referred to it as Badmash ("hooligan"), "Scoundrel", and "Wicked One" Spillone ("hatpin") Among Italian pilots Vestfjordoksen ("the Vestfjord bull"), due to the immense roar of the aircraft based in Bodø, at the southern end of Vestfjorden. "Lawn Dart" "Aluminium Death Tube" and "Flying Phallus" In the Canadian Forces, due to its shape. "Silver Sliver" and simply "Starfighter" NASA's F-104B Starfighter N819NA acquired the nickname "Howling Howland".

I was already discussed, please keep F-4 Topic clear & clean. Search topic first, instead of multiplying them.

God I hope It won't be the "S" variant. I don't care how many Sidewinders it takes, but without M61A1 it's not the part of the F-104 pedigree. The only cool fighter without cannon is F-4 I also hope it won't be the "G", cause they were quite heavy ones, but at least they had a Vulcan gun.