303_Kermit

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.

I want that sound https://youtu.be/wdUKeDyNT28?t=83

@Yo-Yo Is it corrected?

1. AFAIK Razbam works over Mirage 5 or one of it's modifications 2. Heatblur works over Phantom family. F-4E is first but not the only one.

Even Normandy - Since GB was also a F-4 User

Here's something about gyro. I hope it helps a bit. Sperry gyroscopes. https://www.maritime.org/doc/gyromk14/index.php

I have an Impression that you just like to argue. No matter the reason or person. We presented you an arguments on why MiG-17 could dive without limits. However, to understand them you need, a knowledge of high speed aerodynamics, and shockwave mechanics at least. To understand that, you need a knowledge of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. To understand that you need higher mathematics; like inverse Laplace transformations to begin with, vector calculus, and conformal mappings to understand basic language of aerodynamic. Then your statements will matter, you will understand what we're talking about, and people will care about: With my best regards Kermit

Terribly sorry to hear about your confusion.

Here you go: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_52.PDF and here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_51.PDF Those are USAF & USN made tests in flight of Lim-5 serial number 1C-07-18, built in Poland in 1956-57. The LIS-5 engine was serial number 559128 Personally I enjoy such statements: "Every Navy pilot engaged in the project lost his first engagement with the Fresco C. The Fresco's overall performance in the ACM {Air Combat Maneuvering) environment surprised all crews concerned with the project. The AlB on the Fresco engine gives it a performance level that cannot be duplicated or realistically simulated by U.S. airplanes with similar turn capability. Thus U.S. pilots were not accustomed to fighting an airplane with such an engine/turn performance combination. The relative age of the Fresco also led to a general overconfidence by U.S. crews prior to their first engagement. " and here: "There are no U.S. Navy airplanes that can simulate the performance of the Fresco C. Consequently, the aircrews who fought the Fresco during the test had no ACM training against this type airplane. The great improvement in U.S. Navy aircrew performance after only on simulated ACM engagement dramatically illustrated the lack of realistic ACM training" In wikipedia (unfortunately only in english) there is a very good article with many sources given on it. Between them there's a statement: " The afterburner doubled the rate of climb and greatly improved vertical maneuvers. But while the plane was not designed to be supersonic, skilled pilots could just dash to supersonic speed in a shallow dive, although the aircraft would often pitch up just short of Mach 1." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-17 Below the article there's very rich compilation of sources on which the article was created. You can check them out. And finally here: from original flight instruction: The range of speeds. There are various other statements, to confirm was I wrote, but that what I gave is enough. One has to apply aerodynamic laws for transonic range of speeds. (My advice is Арзанников Аэродинамика - I use polish translation of it). MiG-17 accelerates to it's maximum speed in horizontal flight, or in shallow dive. By reaching about Ma~1 as a result of built a shockwave on wing surface plane becomes tail heavy, and exits dive. The steeper the dive, the more vigorous pitch up reaction for it. My best regards

here's more Please help to prop up

I am kindly asking all of you, to place here any founded valuable material about Northolt Airfield. It will surely help Ugra Media to put these piece of history on Normandy 2.0 map. here: RAF Northolt 1940 from German reconaisance! Plane on approach to Northolt. See houses? RAF Northolt open day

Yes. There is an Infor that: "The PPK-1 system (-1.75 to +8 G) was added only to the later batches of the MiG-15bis after the Korean War had ended" -it still lacks for any sources - on which the revelation is based. It says: That [OKB Mikoyan] started to develop G-suit. Again lack of sources, but more important no info on about actual series production. It's not that easy to convert production line to built something new. I may also make no sense, in the light of new - improved constructions. MiG-17 and MiG-19. Source of what exactly? I'm not the one who tries to prove something. Logical conversation demands, that statement must be proved. If it would be otherwise , the world would be very hard place. One could then write "I say that in galaxy Andromeda flies an great pink magic unicorn. Prove me that there isn't." With my best regards Kermit

It would be nice if you point out the proper page with info. I have of course first of mentioned books - and whole series of them It's nice lecture, but its no valid source. There's many failures in it. It's not a "First hand source" - as for example flight manual or exploitation manual. I have such books for MiG-17 - and I assume that's the single really valuable source. The other fact is, that ... I can't recall where is says about MiG-15bis being produced with G-suit installation? in the second source you mentioned I just found that: quote: "Еще два месяца активных боев с F-80, F-86 и В-29 позволили пилотам 64 ИАК сформулировать требования по улучшению МиГ- 15бис, впервые появившиеся в документах Корпуса. Главным образом летчики требовали от создателей самолета: [...] — оснастить самолет противоперегрузочным костюмом;" end quote and later: quote: "Некоторые из ранее высказанных пилотами корпуса пожеланий уже удовлетворялись. Взамен автомата регулирования топлива АРТ-1К на двигателях МиГов 64 ИАК появился АРТ-8В, тот самый «автомат минимального давления топлива», который просили еще летчики 151 ГвИАД, в Корпус стали поступать самолеты, оснащенные «Барием-М» — ответчиком системы госопознавания. 3 января 1952 г. Министерство авиационной промышленности выпустило приказ №10 «О самолете МиГ-15бис», который предписывал окрасить истребители 64 ИАК матовой краской, оснастить МиГ- 15бис тормозными щитками увеличенной площади, установить дублирующее управление катапультой и обязывал завод №153 до 15 февраля 1952 г. оснастить трехканальными УКВ радиостанциями РСИУ-ЗМ «Клен» 60 «бисов» и направить их в 64 Корпус." it rather proves my point. G-suit wasn't the feature onboard MiG-15bis... maybe in War Thunder? The other problem with these publication is lack of any given sources. In good quality publication , author is obliged to point out the source on which one or another fact was presented. As for third "source" Again - the same case. It's not the first hand source. The text is long and very interesting. Thank you for that. I like such stories. I took my time and red google translation, and still I didn't found anything about MiG-15bis being produced with G-suit installation. -Again as previous: problem with these publication is lack of any given sources. In good quality publication , author is obliged to point out the source of presented facts. Otherwise it's just pointless work. I can also made a website and write down any given storie. Without sources it has no value, other than fun. As for other statements starting from word "Attention". I really try to understand your point, but I still failed. Can you please consider posting here in less emotional way? These place is made to exchange opinions and informations. It's natural that there are people who'll disagree with you. However - I see your point. It's simple truth, that we don't see the planes the same. It's all natural. I would call it "professional bias", but I don't know if it means the same in englisch as in my native language. MiG-17 and MiG-15 are for me so different as Ferrari 458 from Audi R8... "Some say" - they look the same. Just the two supercars. But if you came to Italy and say that in public you'll be ... Like sgt. Hartmann used to say "I a world of s..t" and you better run fast I tried - it's fun With my best regards, and hope that you see my poing Green Ugly Fellow

+1

Dear Gentlemen! First of all I want to thank you for your amazing job by Normandy 2. Man has to use 1 000 words to describe one Photo. Your job is then beyond any description. I felt like becoming whole new game. Thank you for that. Being a fan of WW2 planes and history, I couldn't help myself not to travel around Great Britain and then Normandy, all the coast lines... Amazing job. I still like to take a Jeep and just ride.... What a shame that there is no "de Havilland Tiger Moth" or "Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann" in DCS P-47 was way too fast to enjoy it properly. Around London however I discovered strange aberration. To be more precise "W" of London I found to my amusement.... Let's check one after another: A Heathrow airport or Great West Aerodrome?!? Lets start from the beginning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_West_Aerodrome "The Great West Aerodrome was not an active RAF airfield, but sometimes in World War II RAF fighters or bombers needing to land, landed there, and their crew sometimes found a bed for the night in Heathrow village. " So what about Heathrow ? According Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport By the time the airfield was complete, World War II had ended, and the UK Government continued to develop the site as a civil airport. The airport was opened on 25 March 1946 as London Airport. The airport was renamed Heathrow Airport in the last week of September 1966, to avoid confusion with the other two airports in London, Gatwick and Stansted. ...To my bigger amusement I didn't found ... a Northolt Airfield. Soooo.... what about Northolt? Its location: Direction Length and surface 07/25 1,684 m (5,525 ft) Grooved asphalt Northolt in 1939 had a 800-by-50-yard (732 by 46 m) concrete runway. Wikipedia names Runways: - 07/25 concrete runway (currently) - 08/26 concrete runway 800-by-50-yard (732 by 46 m) was extended 1841-yard (1684m) in February 1943 to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command. - 02/20 (smaller) runway closed in April 1944. - 31/13 runway built March 1946 Site history Built 1915 In use 1915–present During WW2 A Homebase for daytime fighter operations of: During BoB RCAF No. 229 Squadron No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron No. 504 Squadron and part of No. 264 Squadron according to https://www.ukairfieldguide.net/airfields/Northolt Battle of Britain RAF Sector Station (10th July 1940 to 31st October 1940) 1 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 18th June 1940 to 23rd July 1940, then 1st August to 9th September, and then again from the 16th August 1940 to 11th October 1940 Note: Later to become 401 RCAF Squadron. 43 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 23 July 1940 to 1st August 1940 229 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 9th September 1940 to 15th December 1940 257 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 4th July 1940 to 15th August 1940 264 Sqdn (Boulton Paul Defiants) 29th August to 29th October 1940 302 (Poznan) Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 11th October 1940 to 23rd November 1940 303 {Kosciusko] Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 22nd July 1940 to 11th October 1940 604 (RAuxAF) Sqdn (Bristol Blenheims) Later during Wartime: No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron, No. 229 Squadron No. 615 Squadron No. 308 Polish Fighter Squadron No. 306 Polish Fighter Squadron No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron during 1941 to form the No. 1 Polish Fighter Wing. Also Homebase for Reconnaissance squadrons: No. 16 Squadron No. 140 Squadron No. 69 Squadron with their Vickers Wellingtons modified for photographic reconnaissance that arrived later. All three reconnaissance squadrons were combined to form No. 34 (PR) Wing. Polish Fighter Squadrons based at Northolt in 1942 took part in Operation Jubilee (the raid on Dieppe) on 19 August alongside Nos. 302 and 308 from nearby RAF Heston. (that's another mystery?) Reconnaissance squadrons No. 16 Squadron and No. 140 Squadron operating Supermarine Spitfires and de Havilland Mosquitos moved to Northolt in 1944. No. 69 Squadron with their Vickers Wellingtons modified for photographic reconnaissance arrived later. All three reconnaissance squadrons were combined to form No. 34 (PR) Wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt And it is not "Just another Airfield" Northolt was important: In 1943, the station became the first to fly sorties using Supermarine Spitfires (Mk IXs) in German airspace in support of bomber operations (it's kind that Wikipedia don't give the name of the squadron). On 25 March, RAF Ferry Command became RAF Transport Command and thereafter used Northolt as a London base for the transfer of new aircraft from factories to airfields. Runway 26/08 was extended in February that year to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command. Northolt continued as a Sector Fighter Station until February 1944. As a result of this and the new larger runway, the smaller 02/20 runway closed in April 1944. RAF Northolt became home to Prime Minister Winston Churchill's personal aircraft, a modified Douglas C-54 Skymaster, in June 1944. The aircraft was used to fly him to meetings with other Allied leaders. Between 20 and 21 July 1944, a converted Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber named "Marco Polo" made the first non-stop intercontinental flight, flying from London to Washington, DC, then returning to Northolt from La Guardia Airport within 18 hours. In November of the same year, an Avro York flew non-stop from Northolt to Cairo in 10 hours and 25 minutes. A new runway, 31/13, was surveyed the following month and built in March 1946 Im curious... What period of time actually recreates Ugra media map? W of London seem to be somewhere in 1946-47, except of Northolt which is apparently in 1914, and Normandy seem to be some in July 1944... Can you please explain it to me and other WW2 DCS Fans? RAF Northolt website today: https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-northolt/ Northolt during WW2 Northolt in 1939 RAF Northolt 1945 (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RAF_Northolt_1945.png) Northolt in 1950's Northolt in 1954 And at the end I found that: Approach chart May 1951 Northolt With my best regards Green Ugly Fellow