G.J.S

That amount of runway is perfect to allow all the jocks of “other” machines to see what a legend looks like . . . That was our excuse anyway

SUBS in full effect . . . . Again

There will never be an easy answer to the question you pose. Weapon selection is based upon the target type and what you wish to achieve. Do you wish to degrade, or completely wipe a target? Is there a risk of collateral? Can the same desired effect be guaranteed with a smaller weapon? Maximum effect with minimum bang is the usual mantra.

Certainly PDS apparently. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/a-quick-look-at-algerian-foxbats-the-only-mig-25-fighters-to-take-part-in-nato-exercises/

Were you on the ground when the screenshot was taken? If not, Asking only due to the ASI at zero, maybe the GAU is susceptible to icing too?

If referring to player controlled aircraft, could it be down to sticks not having enough length to allow a smoothly gradual pull? The majority of sticks in use don't have enough length to allow finesse. If in reference to the AI, then that will be a core issue that ED will maybe be able to tweak.

Some fantastic work whiteladder, I love to see in progress shots just as much as the finished article.

See it from various viewpoints, https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Virtual-Tour/Cockpit360/ http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/cockpits/CW_tour/CW-2.html

Hiya Flappie. Cant remember exactly, and I don't have a track or anything as I posted this up as an afterthought. All I can remember is that I had a flight of 4 UH-60 inbound to Groom to land, using pads H01 to H04 inclusive, 1 & 2 were used as expected by the AI, 3 & 4 had the flight members just position in the hover OVER the pads (3 & 4) at around 200FT AGL, even though the others on 1 & 2 had landed and shut down successfully. There they remained - I had landed for fuel, this was completed and i took to the runway again and the 2 UH-60's were still over the pads, just hovering. The flight would have arrived at Groom circa 10 - 15 minutes before I dropped in, so the 2 members of the flight must be stuck in the hover for reasons unknown. Sorry I cant provide a track or anything, it was late and I just shut down without thinking, it was only next day I thought "better post it up as a 'maybe' issue just in case?". Regards.

Pads H03 & H04, AI Heli flights (seen with AI UH-60's) seem unable to land, instead hovering at around 200FT? H01 & H02 seem unaffected. Just for info.

It’s his “improvement” of the -18, says “it looks better” !?!!?. I just can’t . . . .

Be proactive, fly the donut (it’s in your eyeline for a reason) and anticipate throttle requirements that the ‘A’ needs over the ‘B’. Personally I prefer the ‘A’ , but if you are okay in the ‘B’ you are already on the way to being comfortable in the ‘A’ . Just understand that there is a excess thrust and spool up time difference, anticipate and act accordingly.

I vaguely remember having a discussion with a Boeing rep at Farnborough years ago about this seemingly weird design choice, if my memory isn’t pulling a fast one on me (age!)- it’s something to do with weapon separation tests in the early ‘90’s. The redesigned fuselage causes slightly strange adverse airflow effects at certain speeds and loadings that can cause a released gravity weapon to be pulled IN toward the fuselage barrel. The outermost pylons are kinked out 3 degrees, the next inner two kinked out by 4. It’s a cheaper alternative to a large redesign on what was (then) something already over budget.

That's a airfield violation Sir, you have been requested by the Station Commander for an "interview" . . . . HAT ON!! no biscuits . . .

Think it’s the normal AI one, with different skins. Can’t remember who did them, but there are loads and they are rather good - just on a UH instead of an SH.

Tornado attack with JP233 cans against an good sized airbase would typically use a 4 ship split into two elements - two fly along the runway (one may be offset to take a long taxiway that could double as a runway), whilst the other element would come in as mentioned typically 30* off axis of the runway to make 'cuts'. Using HD iron a 30* slice would almost guarantee a direct hit with at least one munition.

Would probably need a short video or something to identify your "beep". Could it be a Morse identifier for a ground station? Any radios tuned? Type of Beep?

Amen, brother.

Its not a proper Phantom if you can see forward . Turk F-4E, or Hellenic? *edit: Hellenic, can just see the Bird Slicers.

Quite a few missiles have a plug to keep the rocket bell clean and clear. This is expelled backwards, at great speed, upon ignition. See link https://nara.getarchive.net/media/a-rear-view-of-a-us-air-force-usaf-agm-88-high-speed-antiradiation-missile-4c2da9

The M & K (FGR2 & FG1), in FM terms would be quite distinct from the other J, N, S & B, C, D. Due to the engine change, the RR Spey gave faster light up/spool up times at all altitudes, and although slower at altitude - typically M1.8 - 1.9, down low the acceleration was quite something. From a start of say 350kts below 200ft, the FGR2 could reach 750kts before an accompanying US F-4 would hit 650, and 'some' UK Phantoms have 'seen' over 800kts on the deck, for , well . . . reasons. The brute thrust available in the low level regime is quite the shock to some when first crossing swords. It gives options - things not going your way? Unload to 0g and extend rapidly, then curl back in. Or run and disappear. Want things to go your way? Make them uncomfortable then push the vertical - meat on the table. Min burner cleans up the slight (compared to most US versions!) trail left, so as to hinder a viz pick up. Weight wise, the M & K are . . . beefy gals. But, when you "Spey" ANY animal - the ar5e gets bigger! Although not as svelte as some of her foreign sisters, she could still move Rapido!

Yep, like draconus states - just get it. You will not be disappointed in the slightest. Even at full price, for what you get, it’s cheap. *and by cheap, I don’t mean nasty.

There will always be detractors, and in the same vein - enthusiastic proponents. Im in the latter camp. The perceived lack of AA kills in its infancy was due to improper use and equipment. It was a learning curve. Vietnam kind of ‘got in the way’ and accelerated its use in ways that couldn’t really capitalise on its strengths for a while. That did change, just not quick enough. The F-4 did mature, and became extremely good. A “jack of all trades”, if you will. The F-4 became the yardstick that all following fighters were measured by, and that shows how it was valued, for its timeframe it was ‘the best’. But, time moves on. The flame had to pass on, and it did. The F-14, F-15 took the mantle as they were better. But the old wrinkly master can still surprise the student. And has done on a few occasions, one of which I was party to. It all boils down to the “meat behind the stick”, if you pardon the parlance. You can have a new upstart armed to the teeth henchman, but an experienced guy with a stick can still whip him if the opportunity presents itself. So just because the F-4 is “over the hill”, and old news, doesn’t mean you can safely ignore its nose. You can’t, you really can’t. Any Phantom driver with ANY moxie will still pull your panties over your head whilst spanking your booty with 20mm if he (or she) fancies getting in close after you make a mistake, to really make it a personal thing. Yes the F-4 was as big as a barn, and slowed in the turn similarly, but power recovery when unloading was eye watering. Use of the vertical would give many modern fighters heart palpitations. True - the view was limited, but with 4 eyes it makes up for any canopy bow. The F-4 consistently made opponents re-evaluate their tactics, and sometimes their life choices too. I miss the old girl, she had a fat arse (FGR2), leaked a bit, and cut and bruised many who worked on her innards. But by god . . . . What a ride.