Hiromachi

That's all I have really. There is also a description of combat employment of the missiles which basically boils down to this: I think the above graphs really give all the necessary information, not sure what else you need ?

So what's the conclusion regarding the missiles ?

That's from one of the technical magazines focusing on Polish post war aviation: Poland tried to rewire (and manage to do so) MiG-21MFs to provide capability for R-60 missiles (originally only MiG-21bis delivered to Poland at the end of 70s had such capability). The project was called "Jasień" I believe. Prior to rewiring all units, there were some tests carried on how this functions and if it creates any risks. This also gave an opportunity to launch various types of missiles from the same airframe, as indicated above during trials there were multiple launches of R-3S and R-60s. Now I dont have entire report but merely an article from the magazine, but it clearly points out to a difference in produced smoke and flash. R-3S was very smoky.

I have this from Polish manual And this is for R-60MK for comparison: I'm not a missile specialist, so maybe you can read more from that than I can. One thing that I know however, is that R-60s are supposed to produce less smoke and flash during launch so in result their launch should be harder to spot. I somewhere have a picture showing comparison of R-3S and R-60.

It's a total claimed kill ratio. It includes kamikaze and combat from 1942 to 1945. I'm talking about more specific period and area. In the same area (i.e. Solomons) Hellcats in 1943 claimed victories to losses was 4.9, for 4.1 of Wildcat and 5.4 of Corsair. So I dont doubt they had individually scored positive k/d ratio, even if the above claimed one is not perfectly accurate. But neither of this aircraft fought Zeros on one to one. Throughout 1943 you could see raids against Rabaul escorted by Wildcats, P-38s and Corsairs. Japanese Navy had one fighter in the area, while US Navy, Air Force and Marines each had their own machines which distorts the perspective. Anyhow, here is an example for Feb 1943: Sidenote. I'm not the author of the above, nor did I carry the research. Research is based on the following publications: https://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/1693 https://www.aircraft-navalship.com/produit/model-graphix-avions/2133 https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/449923123X/ref=sr_1_7?keywords=%E5%A4%A7%E6%97%A5%E6%9C%AC%E7%B5%B5%E7%94%BB%E9%9B%B6%E6%88%A6&qid=1580409501&s=books&sr=1-7

Yup. Fuel tanks were the most vulnerable part of the design. Or more so they are the most vulnerable part of any design due to high flammability of Av gas and necessity of inclusion of them. Engine cant run without fuel after all. Though to be fair even mid war it remained quite effective. I have somewhere a most likely a complete list of A6M losses and victories throughout 1943 in Solomon Islands campaign. It shows a near 1 : 1 exchange ratio between Zeros and competition (and that includes not only slower Wildcats, but also higher performance aircraft such as P-40s, P-38s, F4Us, couple P-47s and later even some Hellcats).

Fragility doesn't come from existence or absence of the armor but structural design. Zero in comparison to Wildcat was well constructed aircraft, able to withstand high G's (ultimate load factor was 12.7 G's!) but the moment someone would start peppering it with bullets, structure would would be exposed and failed. Reason for this, is that Jiro Horikoshi, having to produce aircraft in accordance to Navy specifications, had to impost strict weight limits and control every single bolt, rivet and duralumin sheet going into it. This was done by playing with safety factor on various elements, some elements required very high strength to be able to absorb those deck landings (landing gear) or high loads in flight (wing spars) but others were not needed like that (i.e. cockpit panels, some handles, etc.). This produced a light but strong construction, however unable to withstand extensive damage. Though it's not like Zeros could not be damaged or never returned to base when damaged. I have some pictures of damaged airframes and there are lots of reports, indicating that aircraft were hit, often hard and got back home. I havent seen btw. any zero to fold up. Point is, unless we're talking about something like Il-2, aircraft doesnt get any armor around its structure. Few key areas get protection (cockpit with a pilot, fuel tanks, potentially but not always oil tank and radiator) because all aircraft have weight limits imposed.

Planes do not shrug off the damage. Pilots do. All defensive measurements taken during the war were meant to protect the pilot and vital to pilot's survival systems. And since Zero has 20 mm cannons, its equally lethal to the opponents as they are to it.

This comes from Polish MiG-21bis Flight Characterics doc. It gives various characteristics such as max acceleration depending on ARU "arm", burner (either with 2nd stage called "CzR" or without), weight (amount of fuel left) and load (with two R-3S missiles). This should give better comparison Jonne:

Structural limit stipulated in manual is 6.4 G symmetrical and 5.2 for rolling pullout. But this limit is only limit. I have a 1973 Field Technical Report from NAS Miramar related to F-8J cumulative accelerations and fatigue life, indicating a few dozens of accelerations of more than 7 Gs. Continuous high loads on the wings were having various effects, most often cracks or deformations. But no wing failure is recorded. I'm pretty sure ultimate load factor is quite a bit higher than 6.4 G.

We have Marianas incoming and Corsair. If any Japanese aircraft were to be included as full fidelity modules Id focus on coherent setup indicative of 1944 air battles. So Val would be only secondary to Judy and Kate less relevant than Jill. Betty would be fine, but I much prefer P1Y.

Radar was very maintenance dependent. I reached out to NHHC for various combat logs if possible to investigate scale of that but they arent particularly responsive.

Alright. It's one of those things that annoys me. Tac Manual really was only updated with added stuff like RWR, but they didnt bother much with the rest. Still, the funniest is the APQ-124A Pulse Doppler radar with non functional Pulse Doppler mode.

I went through 1973 Tac Manual, even that one refers to F-8E only so that will be the best I can give you. And I dont see anywhere graph with any external stores, only empty. Will that be ok ?

I have Flight Manual and Tac Manual for F-8J. What do you need ? Keep in mind forum rules do not allow to post entire documents, but I think I can post a pic or two. F-8J is heavier indeed. Thats why, to keep weight and drag low, pilots preferred to fly with two missiles only.

AIM-9B, C, D and G were mentioned in the updates but Hotel is pretty much the same as Golf, only tiny improvements. Will see.

Have Doughnut was based on MiG-21 F-13. Lower weight and much better maneuverability than MiG-21bis, but also lower thrust. Emergency afterburner on MiG-21bis makes a huge difference, in vertical especially. However F-8, if it manages to stick in a longer fight, should be able to survive. MiG-21bis with emergency burner will burn fuel rapidly while F-8 was known for a very good range and moderate fuel consumption. Tac manual says simply: "At medium to high altitude, buffet onset occurs early and is several G away from stall. Therefore, it cannot be used to define optimum turn. A 16-unit aoa turn will produce a relatively good rate of turn without excessive energy bleedoff. Optimum turning radius is obtained between 18 and 21 units of AoA, depending on Mach and altitude. This means considerably deeper into buffet than is experienced with most other aircraft." Buffet is a good sign, you have to understand it, not be afraid of it. I guess B / N would be natural. Some other sims got it that way. Flight manual even mentions newest loadout with AIM-9H.

Its not so easy. It had superior turn rate and slats helped with that a lot. A lot. But this comes at a price. From the accounts I read, F-4 was a very manly aircraft. It told you exactly what was happening to it. And so if you were pulling high angles of attack, you knew what was going on and how much more you can pull or not. Slats killed all that feedback. They also reduced noticeably rate of climb and top speed (I'm comparing here J to S). Finally, due to slats aircraft bled the energy even more than ever (that is something you get to experience with FC3 MiG-29 as well). So it really depends what you wanna do with it. If you wanna turn, F-4E and S are for you. But if you can pay attention to the energy levels and keep fight in the vertical, F-4B or J would be just as good. Especially with all the added features Navy had for dogfights and launching missiles in close combat. F-8 had some of that too. And F-8 also had IRST (albeit primitive). You cant buy skill :pilotfly: The N saw service most certainly. Got a lot of pictures from 70s and 80s. They just might've missed Nam earlier, but by the end of 1973 one Navy squadron was station in Japan (Atsugi base I think). Also, I seriously dont think slats had anything to do with F-4E success. More so employment of AIM-9D and vast organizational superiority over Syrian and even Egyptian Air Force. Tom Cooper's got that right in his massive 6 volume history of Arab air wars. I really recommend reading that one. F-8 will be a bold fighter. Lots of power and lots of tricky characteristics. F-5 is gentle thing, predictable. Combination of AIM-9D/G/H, SEAM and APQ-124A make F-8 a really capable close combat platform, but it will be demanding. All the accounts I read so far make it obvious, that aircraft was fantastic to fly but it punished you for every mistake. But then again, thats what 21 does already :joystick:

Navy and Marines > Air Force any day :P

This: is cooler than this: Period. Also, I think we should get Phantom Phans thread somewhere else. This one after all belongs to Crusader folk:

All F-4Ns saw combat :P Just that they were called F-4B back then. F-4N was in service from Feb 1973, so they must have seen some action. As for F-4E, naaah. It's radar was nowhere near APG-59/AWG-10 from F-4J and even lacked in comparison to APQ-72/AERO-1A. Navy Phantoms (including later F-4Bs) got SEAM, VTAS, dogfight computer with ACM launch zone indications and dogfight modes for AIM-7s, air-to-air IFF, data-link and pilot lock-on mode. Air force throughout the Nam war did not emphasize air-to-air capabilities nearly as much as Navy post RAG / Top Gun introduction. For me Navy Phantoms remain primary air to air predators.

Yes Sir, real Phan here :)

If this goes one some team will finally do it. Yeah, but E is generally a more ground pounding than air to air platform. I personally like J and N. B/N shared some ECM and RWR stuff with F-8J too.

You know what also would go well with F-8J ? This: I'm sorry but I couldnt hold myself :) Phantom fan here. As for A-4E. Absolutely, would love to see it as full fidelity module. Mods are fine, but there is a point I feel it gets more inconvenient to run it like that instead of fully integrated version.

How are they going to collect bucks if Marianas map is meant to be free ? :megalol: