vanir

I'm super looking forward to this but so impressed by the quality of all the DCS work so far and realize the sheer amount of work involved...well IMHO it's all bargain pricing on a superb environment and don't want to rush anyone. Just know I'm an avid customer of everything DCS so consider me a satisfied sale with any additions. :)

I might be necrothreading a bit but it's a poorly understood subject so worth stating. The C3 injector and MW50 boost systems aren't about C3 or MW50 at all, in fact ideally neither would be required for what is being achieved by them. It's all about over boosting the engine supercharger to accomplish higher than normally rated power outputs. Nothing to do with injecting anything, all about over boosting the blower. This was a common practise for supercharged aircraft before boost regulators became normally fitted, for example the P40E doesn't have a boost regulator, so the pilot has to carefully manage the throttle below critical altitude or damage the engine with too much boost. This is because the throttle gives maximum boost at critical altitude, air is more dense at lower altitude, so the maximum boost is exceeded below critical altitude unless you have a boost regulator fitted, like a P40M. That one you can shove the throttle to its gate at take off and simply get maximum emergency power, try it in a P40E and you'll hit about 1900hp for half a second and explode the engine. Without a boost regulator you have to watch what you're doing with the throttle under critical altitude, hence it's called critical altitude because you need to be wary under it and not sad altitude because you lose boost above it. That's the way I like to think about it anyway. Okay so the common practise was to richen the mixture a little too much for normal running and push the throttle a little too far forward, exceeding maximum listed manifold pressure, to exceed normal maximum outputs for a short period, 1-2 minutes tops. But then by midwar pretty much every aircraft had auto mixture and boost regulators so you couldn't do it without a built in override facility or mechanical adjustment, but it probably saved a lot of fighter engines from excited cadets. Simple version is you couldn't do it so easily once a lot of a/c management became automated or semi automated, but it was a common practise when everything was so manual the pilot had to spend more time looking at instruments than they could looking for e/a and broken engines in those days were very common indeed. An example of this is the RAF operating P40E at 1670hp in North Africa and RAAF actually getting 1720hp from theirs by significantly over boosting using high grade fuels, documented by Allison Engineering in wartime correspondence records. Quite a bump from the 1150hp rated output. It was a letter advising against its continued practise as exceeding manufacturer operating procedure and dangerous for forthcoming engine type production, although Allison was apparently quite pleased their engine stood up better than their expectations in the field. Adding a charge coolant injector obviously alters this field improvisation of boosted power to one of manufacturer installation under tested guidelines. Initially these did the same thing pilots used to do on their own initiative, ie. a modest boost increase for a very limited duration of 1-2 minutes before holing the pistons. With further development, improvements to the intended engine in chambering and so forth specific to the modification, by 1944 over boosting with a charge coolant got you up to ten minutes of continuous, significant over boost and power increase in hundreds of horsepower, without breaking the engine. This took time to develop using synthetic fuels, Daimler worked closely with IG Farben to develop combustion chambering throughout the war, their original 1940 goal of 2bar over boost and 1.5bar military power in the forthcoming 605 engine was never actually achieved until the D motor of late44 (and 1.85ata was the best they got on B4). One way of cheating was to hotrod an engine with C3 (or C2) fuel like the 1940 601N motor, Daimlers normally run on B4 so the higher knock rating allowed a limited over boost for 1-2mins. But the BMW 801D already ran on C3 so unless you were going to run it on alcohol you couldn't really hotrod it. Now the 801D2 was intended from the beginning of production to use MW50/over-boost kits but these weren't available from their manufacturer until February 1944 for whatever reasons. In the meantime Focke Wulf wanted a cheat for the FW190G to give over boost at low altitude for its schnellbomber mission role, which in modern terms you might call deep penetration strike. These were sent in raids against the British coast in 43 and had to outpace Spitfires by the dozen for any chance at survivability. So came the C3 injector, which also tended to find its way into the F series. German engines use direct injection after the blower compresses raw air, which gets quite hot and throws out the mixture when you over boost. Boost enrichening is normally incorporated into factory tuning but when you over boost you go beyond normal tuning. Not such a big deal in a carb motor like the Merlin, which compresses a fuel-air mixture and can probably get away with manual mixture adjustment to compensate but a real problem in a German engine compressing raw air and then adding pre-calculated fuel metering that didn't have over boost in mind. The C3 injector just adds an extra fuel injector to the supercharger intake for boost enrichment and it helps a little with charge cooling compared to compressing raw air. The over boost it can withstand is limited but there. The MW50 is piped to the supercharger exhaust and uses a completely different set of playing rules, the direct injection itself is retuned for over boost enrichment and the injector just cools raw air coming out of the compressor. It allows significant over boost for long periods. The FW190 radials got MW50 from February 44. The G and F had a much more limited C3 injector over boost before then.

Stuka would likely carry the PC1000 armour piercing bomb for antishipping with the gunner seat left empty to carry the weight. One hit would probably sink a pre-dreadnaught battleship like the Marat, it's like a 1903 design with triple expansion steam engines and no concept of aerial threats. A Ju88 is more suited to the role however, some carried a pair of PC1000 under the wing roots for the purpose as a part of numerous Luftwaffe special tactical development projects, the Lehrgeschwader and such, IIRC it had MG151/20 under the nose for shipboard FlaK suppression. They also played with He111 torpedo bombers. FW190G could and most likely would carry a PC500 with a pair of drop tanks under the wings to attack ships, which is the lightest armour piercer and it would readily be misidentified as a 190A or F, however generally variants other than the G carried a 250kg bomb and not a 500kg one when you start to check historical record over design features, either an SC250 HE or thick walled SD250. It might also be noteworthy the 190G was the first to get an engine boost system for use at low altitude in the first blower gear, which is the sort of thing you do to help heavy loads off short runways. By the time Schlachtgeschwader were formed the F might also carry an AB250 submunitions dispenser with 4 SC50 under the wings for attacking troop concentrations or airfields, but SD50 are available which would help mess up a transport ship. An SD250 would be very nasty for anything shy of a cruiser. SD have an adjustable fuse IIRC. Stuka would definitely carry a PC500 or PC1000 if an antishipping sortie so perhaps any FW190 variant tasked with antishipping would carry a PC500, eg. the A and F of the SG units. Overland jabo however I can't think of any but a G that carries a 500kg by example. The BF109G14, G10 and K4 were also designed to carry a 500kg bomb yet in practise also carried only a 250kg by example. The tailwheel lengthening compared to earlier variants was actually to provide ground clearance for a 500kg bomb rather than pilot view in taxi. Perhaps due to the majority of forward airfields being rough grass and the majority of late war airfields being very hasty setups with even quicker retreat plans, perhaps it is that rough field runways were simply too bouncy to risk the tight ground clearance of a 500kg bomb over a 250kg bomb. Or maybe it was a supply thing and the 250kg was simply more widely dispersed. As far as hauling capacity is concerned the FW190A had no trouble carrying well in excess of 1000kg loads ferrying heavy bombs to KG airfields in 44. It could not deploy these weapons, but armourers affixed SC1000, 1400 and other heavy bombs for transport by the fighter and then at the bomber airfield other armourers would have to remove it again, it couldn't be jettisoned or armed from the cockpit, purely a ferry mission. It also carried torpedos which it could deploy, in some development prototypes that were 750kg and heavier, but this version had the guns and any other non-essential equipment removed. The aforementioned FW190G did routinely carry a 500kg bomb with two drop tanks, or two 250kg bombs under the wings with a drop tank, but had all but the wing root 2cm guns removed and IIRC magazines reduced. The F series had the outer wing 2cm guns removed, probably to allow internal reinforcement for double ETC50 racks there. As mentioned a typical loadout would be a 250kg bomb and four 50kg bombs. A G would carry a 500kg bomb if a single bomb was being carried to allow for two drop tanks. Otherwise with a single drop tank it would carry two 250kg bombs. The SC250 and SD250 is definitely the mainstay of the jabo. Even Me210 was specifically designed to carry two SC250 internally as the heavy fighter mission shifted from strafing attack to fighter-bomber. I would definitely like to see SC, SD and AB variants in the 250kg class for all the German fighter DCS WW2 modules (FW190A8, D9 and BF109K4), to give the variety required for different mission tasking. Because they can carry a 500kg whether or not they actually did in service (apparently not), it'd also be nice to have the PC500 and PC500R delayed fuse armour piercers simply because the type doesn't come in 250kg. Experimenting with rockets was very big for the FW190A, the 3 main ones being WGr21, R4M and Panzerschreck/Panzerblitz in triple racks. It was always experimental but included combat sorties so equipped, but numbers in the handful except for WGr21 which was commonly fitted to later Antons such as those intercepting bombers over the Netherlands. The Dora also used R4M on sorties IIRC, so it's good that option exists in the DCS loadout, but it was the Anton which is the most notable German fighter used in rocket experimental combat trials and the most widely equipped with WGr21 aside from the Me110G4. As for interesting rockets, the first wire-guided air-intercept missiles were carried by the Dora, love to see that as a loadout. IIRC there were three airframes setup in trials, stretching my memory here and can't remember if they ever shot anything down. Other people were doing similar things but were more conservatively still concentrating on aerial guns development. Germans already mooted the revolver cannon design the Aden and DEFA were direct copies of, in both 2cm and 3cm versions so was done in that department and just waiting for them to enter production when the war ended. But the Russians were still developing aerial guns like their excellent B20 rechambering of the Beresin HMG and heavy caliber Nudelmans. Postwar Yaks and Lavochkins would carry triple 20mm cannon for less or equal weight than their wartime ShVAK armament with one or two 20mm. In terms of handling qualities the Anton and Dora are the same aircraft: in construction terms the Dora is an A6 with an inline engine, the A8 is basically a refined A6. The only difference between A8 and D9 is the engine and individually customised equipment options. Some radial engine fighters have excellent reputations as fighter-bombers due to inherent sturdiness, however the reality is the BMW801 always ran very hot in a close fitted cowling and series development only helped the worst of it, such as the second bank overheating prematurely, it was never completely solved. The second issue in the lightweight fighter was vibration, which was shocking in early series and limited engine performance but was helped greatly with the fuselage lengthening of the A5, itself simply to allow future fitment of MG131 or MG151 in the upper cowling. Again it was never completely solved. Put simply due to those two factors it's not really a fighter you want to have any engine compartment damage in, it'd be like upsetting a balance beam. By comparison the Dora has a well protected engine system with an armoured oil cooler and annular radiator so between the give here and take there I think the two even out in groundfire survivability in real world terms. The third issue of the radial was indirectly the reason behind the Dora. The BMW801 just never liked altitude much. You could say the 801 was engineered for an operational height around the 6000m mark, with an emphasis on take off, acceleration and load bearing performance. A good engine for a medium bomber. It was adapted to the FW190, the airframe was originally designed around another R14 engine that fell out of production, the 801 was the only available alternative. But it makes sense since high performance bombers and fighters often share engines. Just that time frame means popular convention was medium overland ranges ahead of a fast moving front and 5000m combat height, early war thinking. The Spitfire MkI to III wasn't so hot above 6000m itself, the BF109E was an exception of the day being excellent at 7000m, so the whole altitude thing with the BMW801 makes the Anton a late war fighter with the altitude qualities of an early war fighter. Still okay among contemporaries, most Soviet fighters were no good at altitude either, the Anton was no worse than a Yak9D or an La5F in altitude performance, but paled against the MkIX Spit, P38, P39, P47, P51, etc. Still, once they got an engine boost system the only thing that could catch an FW190A (in this case actually, the G) at 1000 metres was a Hawker Typhoon or Tempest. Catching FW190A at low altitude was actually the specific reason for the Typhoon re-entering production, after initial production airframe failures and the RAF actually ordering a decent number of them. It was already shelved and pending cancellation before the second wind. Okay so Kurt Tank at Focke Wulf had a pet project for a new high altitude fighter and when RLM got interested they wanted him to modify the design elements to use existing FW190 production tooling, which became the Ta152 series. The idea was this and the new jet Me262 would replace all existing fighter types in service, but as production and in particular the complicated new engines would still be some time away RLM wanted a much simplified version to enter service in the interim: the Dora. So technically the Dora is a simplified version of the Anton and BF109 replacement, whilst at the same time it is also an Anton with an engine change. Many A8 wound up with Dora fins and several Dora wound up with Ta152 fins, all F8 got the blown canopy, standardized in later Dora production and many A8 had them. Various Dora variants have motorkanone and outer wing guns, some have a cut down version of the Ta152 engine with 1800hp at 8000 metres and over 2000 at take off. The entire long nose FW190 family might curtly be described as combining the best parts of the FW190A and BF109G/K without losing anything to either. For historical simmers there is one big glaring difference that affected aircraft selection: C3 fuel often had limited, local availability. B4 was everywhere. Later production Doras used B4, as per all later Messers and pending Ta152 of all types.

According to Jane's the public information given by Mikoyan OKB explicitly claims the MiG25RB series has demonstrated its 2.8 Mach speed limit whilst carrying "a full bomb load" and its supersonic cruise is 2.35 Mach for which it was specifically designed to fly long distances whilst carrying its war load. It is also faster in time to climb to its flight ceiling north of 20,000m than a P series by two and a half seconds flying clean and about 3/4 of a second carrying 2000kg of bombs. These statements of climb performance are given by Mikoyan OKB as undertaken at 2.35 Mach, so presumably a period of level acceleration or shallow dives/zooms were involved in how the speed tests were performed but they are not described in detail. Mikoyan OKB makes no distinction on climb or speed performance for the P series but Belyenko said the only performance change carrying a load is its ceiling is 21,000m carrying four R40 missiles and 24,000m for two minutes carrying two R40 missiles. Noteworthy Mikoyan makes the distinction the time to altitude is as 2.35 Mach, particularly since for example the Flanker is about three times faster to altitude, but its climb would be more like at 650kts. But then the Foxbat was initially mooted in 1959 in specific response to the Lockheed A11 designation spies got wind of (the Blackbird), ahead of the Valkyrie. It was known to be built almost entirely of titanium and would exceed Mach 3 and 80,000ft so the MiG25 had to be at high Mach at missile launch, within two minutes following a climb to ceiling to try to catch the Blackbird inside about 15km of its smerch before launching the only two R40 it can carry that high, that fast if it was to have any hope of interception. The truth was however, according to all the experts on both sides it was impossible but the career of the U2 overflying anywhere with a MiG25 was definitely over. This is very different from how British and American public release information describes maximum warbird performance figures, which are achieved using specially prepared airframes and laboratory test conditions and whilst the resulting, inflated claims of service performance serve some propaganda role it would appear, most of the time it was really about achieving design requirements during contract bids, design requirements from unqualified sources like idealistic politicians which were either impossible to achieve or counterproductive to the mission role. In other words the Whitehouse and British tabloids wanted high flying jet fighters exceeding Mach 2 after a time when flying around like that will get you killed and survivable missions had become about low altitude, transonic performance and load bearing capacity, necessitating a completely different airframe design from high Mach performers. But if you wanted the funding you had to deliver that Mach 2+ claim the politicians demanded. The F15 Eagle for example is speed restricted to 1.78 Mach, being designed for extreme transonic and fast subsonic aerial combat performance, determined with combat experience in Vietnam and elsewhere to be the real centre of fighter vs fighter warfare. High mach operation was found to be less important to fighter combat than transonic manoeuvrability and combat engagements were demonstrated in practise to consistently occur at much closer ranges than strategists believed when aerial combat missile ranges achieved BVR in the 60s. BVR is certainly a big part of modern aerial warfare but not to the exclusion of close weapons engagement (CWC) performance capability. The F15 has this in spades. The way the F15A accomplished its FX speed requirement was by means of an engine management override switch. The engines required a mandatory full tear down maintenance immediately upon landing if this was used. In normal service it is really a 1.8 Mach fighter, which utterly accomplishes its air superiority mission superbly, high Mach is just superfluous to it but can be done in a one shot sortie like a WW3 scenario where it doesn't matter if you break the plane. The MiG25 speed capabilities are in fact described by Belyenko as similar operational doctrine, just faster benchmarks of 2.5 Mach normal max speed and 2.8 Mach only with special permission, but even then engines only had a 150hr service life. The reason for the FX speed requirement was the MiG25, of which at the time little was known other than a speed performance well in excess of 2.5 Mach, so the FX requirement was to exceed 2.5 Mach. Other experts around here will know more detail than me, I can't remember if the speed test F15A (was it Streak Eagle or was that just the altitude test version?), it might've had all its equipment sets like fire control removed as is typical for these kind of factory tests, and flown as just a bare, stripped airframe with engines, fuel and a pilot, overriding the management system and destroying the engines during the run. I'm merely speculating about this part. It does lead us to the infamous event over Jordan in which Israeli ground stations clocked a MiG25RB fleeing an intercept of F4 Phantoms doing 3.2 Mach headed back to Egypt in 1973. After reading the report transmitted to the CIA the Secretary of the USAF Robert Seamans declared the Russian MiG25 "the most potent interceptor in the world today." According to Russian sources the record of that particular incident showed the MiG25 in question landed at its airbase with its engines completely destroyed and the entire airframe had to be scrapped due to damage from the flight. They described a phenomenon of "runaway rpm" or engine overspeeding to which the MiG25 was prone when pilots exceeded 2.5 Mach and the engines required careful throttle management above this speed. Belyenko described operational doctrine as aforementioned, 2.5 Mach speed restriction during normal missions and can only be exceeded with special permission, beyond which 2.8 Mach was airframe limitation before pieces started melting. Engine overspeeding wasn't a unique phenomenon, IIRC the McDD A4 had a tendency to do it too and there was a pdf technical publication at a university site describing how this occurred in the engine, something about the engine feeding off itself due to internal conditions so that altering pilot inputs no longer controlled engine rpm and it accelerated by itself at full throttle until it broke. It was notable in that for a while the pilot was helplessly strapped to a plane with its engine completely out of control. Part of what I'm trying to say is the reason for all these engine problems was an actual reason of way too much being asked of them, which is why I certainly hope what we don't see in further MiG25 DCS development is western performance adjustment from claimed figures to sim performance and lose all that Foxbat speed the minute you put an R60 on it. I feel satisfied of corroboration for the MiG25 speed capabilities being much less impacted by war loads than western composite-honeycombs designed to maximise transonic performance in their designs, like the F16. And maybe the F15 speed drops to like 1.5 Mach with a full load of AAMs but it can't normally exceed 1.8 Mach without the management override anyway, hit that and overspeed the engines and maybe it'll squeak past 2 Mach with a missile load. But official sources absolutely claim Russian MiGs, specifically MiG23ML and MiG25 of all types achieve their quoted maximum speed limitations whilst carrying full war loads. They're very specific about this. Just like if someone does a MiG23MLD DCS module I expect to see it out accelerate an F16 whilst carrying a war load, as per explicit Mikoyan claims. At the least I'd want to see documentation or test results of why manufacturer claims are being dismissed. Western appreciation of the MiG25 historically went from over-estimated to under-estimated in sudden, diametric extremes. As if discovering there is no Santa Claus ergo Satan lives, for some reason western media is always full of false dichotomies. The MiG wasn't designed using captured extra-terrestrial technologies (yes it was actually tabled in 1968 at the Pentagon), yet it also wasn't built in farmhouses using household implements. Yes, it used valve electronics not because solid state hadn't been invented in Russia yet but because transistorised electronics invented anywhere was not yet reliable enough for the high powered operation of the smerch and things like that, which was literally capable of cooking rabbit meat during ground testing and is described as burning through any contemporary ECM attempt with sheer wattage. Its old school elements were functional, not limited. I just hope the module doesn't get warped by pop views of the plane, the western pop view is a poor one and even if the Russian pop view is a little over the top there has been few balanced renditions of it that aren't coloured and compared with an F15 when it should be designed like an island as a box-monocoque high mach type where the F15 is a composite-honeycomb transonic type so they aren't even in the same ballpark, which is okay because they don't have nearly the same mission and technically shouldn't even meet. If I might add also worth hunting around various combat encounter reviews of Foxbats in Iraq kicking around, here they challenge pop figures for Foxbat performance at low altitude, describing supersonic dashes on the deck when Mikoyan lists the MiG25 as subsonic at sea level. They also describe much better handling in dogfight engagements at low altitude than were expected, whilst the Eagle is obviously superior in this realm the Foxbats proved competitive and became considered a greater threat than the MiG29, which was opposite of what the pre-war briefing had told them to expect. I'm sure with such huge fuel capacity its load would have a great deal to do with it but nickel steel box-monocoque is a real strong structure and it has a bag load of high speed thrust and tons of lift area.

According to third party, detailed development history the BMW801D2 was designed from the onset to make use of an MW system, however the MW50 kits for fighter engines were not available for installation until February 1944, which coincided with A8 production so it was the first Anton so equipped despite earlier variants using the same engine. Boosted 109s also began to appear and Reich Defence as a specific unit was formed and included Sturmbock, the hotrods of JG301 and numerous individually customised mounts. Before this, in the interim Focke Wulf made use of an extra fuel injector at the supercharger inlet of the F-series (starting with the F3 IIRC, or might've been G2 first), which provided some charge coolant effect as well as a boost enrichment for modest over-boost designed for use at around 1000m altitude, in the low supercharger gear. It was to provide an extra burst of schnellbomber speed at treetop height and using it a 190F could carry around half a ton of bombs and still outpace an early P47D flying clean at 1000 metres. It was very difficult to catch on a jabo run. The A8 however used the new MW50 kits with an injector mounted at the supercharger exhaust, providing greater charge coolant effect and more over-boost, plus was recommended for use anywhere under the throttle altitude and not just in the low gear. A GM-1 kit was also available which gave performance boost above throttle altitude, since the BMW altitude performance dropped off quickly above 6000m and wasn't really ideal for something like bomber interception without some sort of modification or conversion. The F8 also used the same MW50 system as the A8 and equivalent G-series instead of the earlier C3 injector. The C3 inlet injector system with overboost was called "increased emergency power" (erhöhte notleistung), whilst the MW50 exhaust injector system with significant overboost was called "special emergency power" (sonder notleistung). The FW190D had a similar potential for confusion, initial production had no boost system and then initially it was fitted with the C3 injector and ran on C3 fuel to bump performance by overboosting under throttle altitude. By late 44 however they were converted to B4 and used MW50 with an exhaust injector for better performance than the C3 version. Initially the Ta152C prototypes used C3 burning DB603EC engines too, but the production series was to use 603LA tuned for B4/MW50. Using the MW50 tank as a fuel reserve could be a myth related to confusion between the C3 injector boost system and the MW50 special boost later system, they are different systems mounted differently and there is no reason to think the C3 injector system used its own tank as there is no reason at all that it wouldn't draw off the engine fuel supply in the main fuel line. The MW50 however not only necessitated a 115 litre tank but its 150kg installed weight threw CoG out, not ideal but it had to have a separate tank because it doesn't have fuel in it. MW50 needs to be kept separated from the engine fuel system for obvious reasons. Now here's the technical problem with it. Whilst possible as an extreme improvisation, a mere ten minutes extra fuel in that tank can't supply the engine fuel injectors. It can only supply the supercharger exhaust boost injector and how shall you be handling mixture of your intake ratio, licking your finger and sticking it in the air before shoving the throttle past its gate to activate the injector solenoid? Because remember, the engine injectors have stopped working when the main tanks are empty, so the engine not only isn't running aside from whatever your dribble out that boost injector with dead reckoning as a guide, but also there isn't any kind of operational tuning to provide any remotely stoichometric fluid for the engine to burn anyway. So in the real world good luck with that, but on computers, yeah the option of an emergency fuel reserve, sure. I'd speculate that it is indeed a myth which began with a simple mistake. Reshke has infamously misidentified models of aircraft he flew sorties in, Aces like other humans have fallible memories and war service is traumatic, non-stop no rest no leave for the entire war unless injured for Luftwaffe pilots. I'd suggest it is a myth which began with a German pilot misremembering technical details about boost system variants used by Focke Wulf variously 43-45. Messers just used the one, plus GM. Unless of course an installation of an accessory system specifically switched the MW50 tank to function as a reserve fuel tank when filled with fuel instead. Then sure, no problem. Been so long since I read about warbirds day and night, working on car projects and climbing inside KJet injection, I can't recall if FW had that facility installed but it would have to be specifically for that function, with a switch that said so in the cockpit.

I'm also looking forward to an increase of loadout. I'd just like to select between available SC250 HE, SD250 thick walled and AB250 cluster munitions an A8 might get loaded with at Normandy. Aside from units assigned to bomber interception duties the primary fighter role by 1944 was jabo as far as policy went, although there was more acceptable independence in the field among the Wehrmacht than any other military before or since, some unit commanders enjoyed complete logistical and tactical autonomy whilst others were court-martialled for believing they did. Without question both infamous squadrons like Stabschwarm JG301 and celebrated aces like Gunther Rall actively sought fighter engagements late in 44 where strict policy was strap a bomb on and go help the troops if you're not shooting down bombers. The Erla G10 batches were purpose built for fighter engagements but relatively few late build fighters of any type were seen without an ETC rack, bomb or drop tank and 1944 saw concerted efforts to develop FW190A8 rocket loadouts for anti-armour missions such as modified panzerschreck under wing racks. WGr21 rockets were commonly fitted to the A8 as well as BF109 types assigned to bomber interception from January 1944, however according to pilots only squadron leaders had them because they were so difficult to use against aerial targets in an aircraft, being an army rocket for use against surface targets. It suffered an immediate trajectory dip after launch which apparently made them impossible to aim and luck with instinct played the greatest part in dislodging a bomber from its box formation. Other, junior BF109 pilots in bomber intercept were equipped with MG151/20 gondolas and drop tanks for the long climb to target. The FW190A8 already has guns and fuel, but we can at least say a number of WGr21 equipped A8 saw service just going by existing museum airframes drilled with their mounting holes. Certainly Sturmbock infamously had a pair of MK108 but also had armouring reinforcement and all other A8 we can actually examine have MG151/20 outboard. However the rustsatze kits are listed as separate between the MK108 and Sturmbock armouring so there is every reason to suggest it perfectly likely some A8 mixed into regular squadrons could've been A8R2 mods, just an A8 with a pair of MK108 alongside another with some WGr21 and a bunch with regular MG151/20 all on bomber intercept duties around the Netherlands. It is a perfectly reasonable loadout option. We can at least say American aircrews were very familiar with the MK108 and often describe it being fired at them in various war documentaries about different units and aircraft types, often enough that it was clearly a very widespread aerial gun equipped in German fighters in the late war, no reason to exclude the FW190A8 pilots from this club as it was available to their aircraft type. It was certainly very common in BF109 during 44-45. Some A8 definitely sortied in the Normandy region, not many pilots returned and they didn't have their aircraft. Policy at this stage of the war dictated they should've been roaming around with an SC250 trying to support the Army but there were some aces involved with custom mounts and long term squadron mates so pilot reports are more like fighter-bomber intercept and fighter on fighter engagements flying clean with the outer gun magazines left empty. If I was to characterise what I've read here and read there and tried to reconcile it. The panzerschreck thing is worth mentioning again for its service derivative, although a limited batch phenomenon but reputedly quite successful, the Pb1 Panzerblitz which was capable of destroying any tank of the period, three carried under each wing. It's just a fun addition using a weapon type DCSW users are familiar with but with a WW2 reflector sight twist. They were definitely in service but you'd probably have to hunt a while to find one on their most prolific day.

I mean I've only just upgraded from my old single core WXPSP2 that basically struggled with FC2 on medium settings when it ran well back when flip phones were still cool, but then y'know motherboards fry eventually... I was busy spending every waking cent on a classic AMG build and sorting better employment. These things take years and yes, I've only done the mechanicals on that fricken car but at least it's the fun part. Nobody expects a rough looking 80s Merc i6 to keep with their vanilla LS or 24v quad tailpipe jap V6 or sound cammed and track prepped so 90% happy there but I really need to do paint/interior one day. At least I got a few votes for best modified on the German auto day in Canberra but seriously it still looks like a $1500 car with $3000 rims until you hear it run. It's a cammy granny car, I love it haha. So pausing that, now I spent a few grand on a high end box and went crazy on the 50% off xmas sale for DCS products. Almost as fun as the car. Sadly it's very Americentric and/or NATO heavy on the module options and ship remodels. Which is terrific and logical given a large American and west European contributor interest in DCS but I just wish there were more Russians involved in module projects. It's really the Russian birds and maps that drew me to LoMAC in the first place. I just never flew the F15 and always flew the Flankers. Fulcrum's a bit of a pain in the butt mainly with fuel load but I still find it really interesting. I love the MiG21bis DCS module, but would've preferred the 21F13 and other Russian versions. The "bis" is a post production export variant never used in VVS service. It's an Italian term adopted in the 1930s for updated models offered for export, eg. the I152, an update of the I15 was exported using the Italian suffix I15bis so the general market would realize it's an I15 update and not an entirely new model called I152, in VVS service the same plane is the I152 and the I15 was retroactively designated I151. The trick about the MiG21bis is being conceived long after the MiG23 entered service with the VVS and has no VVS counterpart; a downgraded version of the MiG23 was to be exported to loose allies outside Warsaw Pact and the MiG21bis was conceived for non-NATO markets that weren't allies, with roughly similar (avionics, warfare) capabilities to the downgraded MiG23 but less overall performance envelope. It's really not a VVS warbird and in fact its VVS contemporary at time of production would be the MiG23ML, which is a bit like drag racing a Ferrari with a top fueller: just when you're done saying wow over the Ferrari the top fueller just creams you all over the place. Performance wise the F5E most closely matches a MiG21 at low altitude for flight envelope, whilst the MiG23ML is most noted for out-accelerating an F16 at mid alt. I'm just not as excited by the MiG21bis as I would be by the MiG21F13 or MiG23ML being AFC modelled, but at least a "sort-of-Russian" bird has one alongside the A10C, Hornet, Mirage, WW2 planes, decades worth of western clichés, etc. I understand the reasons and applaud the developer team on that bird not just for all the intensive work and character involved but also the very conception. It is still in contemporary service and a NATO campaign build on a DCS map benefits tremendously with it, in fact its absence would be a conspicuous oversight trying to build an immersive campaign in terms of force coalitions and their realistic equipment stocks. So kudos, I'm just coming at it from my own selfish direction of a personal wishlist I can only look forward to in years to come. Like I said I'm really greatly interested in the Russian (VVS, PVO, Naval Aviation) warbirds. My favorite AFM at the moment is obviously the MiG21bis but my wishlist is thus: MiG25P a-la 1972 production, there seems to be enough technical information for an AFM build and you could charge double price and it'd still sell like guaranteed hotcakes. Trick here is mainly getting the engine management routines down, with overspeeding failures prone above 2.5 Mach and dramatic fuel load influence on envelope but the systems themselves are fairly basic and revolve around brute force over fine engineering. Fire control couldn't even be described as lookdown/shootdown, more like way overpowered microwave emitter capable of burning paint off a target aircraft at close range. And the engines are so stressed just maintaining 2.3 Mach combat loaded cruise you basically get 10-15 flights before you scrap the plane. But y'know, that one shot use 2.8 Mach level intercept dash at around 20,000m and the endgame, split second 25,000m supersonic zoom for missile release just sounds fun fun fun. Of course the PF is a different bird with far more expensive engines and avionics updates and more of an 80s bird than a 60s bird like the P. So it's more of an historical desire than contemporary, since by the campaign period of most DCS users the only Foxbat still in service is the Russian wild weasel 25BM produced in 85, with a nose packed full of ECM jammers and four Kh58 antiradiation missiles...although still 2.8 Mach capable war loaded, in fact the basic airframe was demonstrated in service example with four 500kg bombs on external racks clocking 2.83 Mach reliably so the PF and any RB~ and BM model have no problem with high Mach carrying warloads: single biggest difference to NATO warbirds, which have top speeds always quoted clean and without war loads and often only with special preparation of unique airframe variants designed specifically to accomplish design targets well outside regular service capabilities. The Foxbat is the one, true, genuine exception to this rule. So I'd really like to fly an aircraft that accomplishes quoted performance maximums all dirty, randomly chosen off the production line and loaded up with mission gear, off a snowed out, partly disused runway nobody's taken a broom to in ten years and it still clocks the quoted maximums day after day and then breaks on the fourth day but what a few days haha. My wishlist also includes all the Russian navy remodelled for high polycount and inclusion of a destroyer class and kiev class. Especially in the Black Sea, I mean maybe you'll get the hybrid-nuke cruiser and kuznetsov class sent there in a war climate where NATO naval forces are likely to venture but okay another technical explanation: the kuznetsov is really a modified kiev hull, they're both really missile cruisers in naval terms, they just expanded the air complement but the real focus is that of a missile cruiser: Surface action, ASW and air defence: fleet screening. Rather than looking at either design in terms of successes and failures as ultimate WWF cage fighters like American war materiel, think in terms of mission design. Kiev is a white water naval screen. Kuznetsov is a blue water refit. Kiev gets supported by land based Naval Aviation, it's white water. Designed for the Gulf of Finland and Black Sea/Med. Kuznetsov is really designed for Arctic/Pacific or any venture into the North Sea/Atlantic, hence even 4000km range Flankers from land based Naval Aviation can't protect it, so it carries its own. Still a missile cruiser with ASW emphasis and air defence role but, it's even secondary to dedicated missile cruisers like the Moscow as a command vessel because the Russian Navy doesn't function even remotely like an American carrier battlegroup, they're not into force projection, just enemy destruction. In a combat sortie the American destroyers range ahead and the cruisers rally around the carrier to protect it, which launches air attacks and CAP screens and the battle is coordinated from this command point...the Russian carriers rush forward flanked by destroyers and attack like missile cruisers in their combat sorties. Totally different ballgame and the command ship keeping further back is actually a 60,000 ton missile cruiser launching dozen strong volleys of nuclear tipped antishipping missiles the size of an F7 Corsair apiece from about 150km behind the attack line, each with Nintendo game quality AI flight control protocols and autonomous inertial guidence. But that's okay because the fricken aircraft carriers rushing you are also launching a dozen of those vertical off the flight deck, next to about 150 ASW rockets and missiles to kill your sub protection. They're just playing a completely different game to NATO so the roles for similar looking craft are completely different and so are their equipment and capabilities. You don't compare a Kuznetsov to a supercarrier, you compare it to a missile cruiser to understand deployment. Hence generally you're more likely to find a Kiev in the Black Sea than you will a Kuznetsov, given the Russian navy treats them like the same thing but one ocean going and the other coastal or sea bound. However there is the simple fact that solid international treaties surrounding entry to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean clearly state that no catapult equipped, dedicated aircraft carriers may pass the Dardanelles Strait it is a reasonable assumption the Kuznetsov refit of the Kiev hull was specific not just for blue water operation in which the Kiev is unstable but also, coincidentally brings an aircraft carrier of high performance, fixed wing aircraft into the Black Sea without challenging any international treaties, where an American supercarrier is prohibited by those same treaties. Aside from the Kuznetsov class this leaves only the ramp equipped British carriers embarking Harriers and otherwise only helicopter boarded ASW carriers and marine landing craft allowed entry into the Black Sea without international incident, most particularly with Turkey's more extremist governing elements outside NATO interests within its military, but also with Ukrainian and other regional authorities and their west European support ranging Spain to Italy and some corners of British Parliament. This was only possible with introduction of the Flanker, being high performance en par with an F15C/E Eagle but also STOL en par with an F/A-18 Hornet, so brings Tomcat supercarrier teeth in an air complement from a ramp carrier with no catapults like a Harrier or Heli carrier. The aircraft here made a difference more than the ship, but makes the ship bigger and badder than anything else allowed in the Black Sea without declaring a war. Have to note that because it means a Kuznetsov can be in the Black Sea and long before any NATO carrier battlegroup will even try to go there, without international incident, but it's unlikely unless a NATO carrier battlegroup intends to head there. Kievs would be there. There's more political details latent here, like a higher potential for rogue elements to secret around the Kuban and then Ukrainian issues between the Crimea and Kharkov, possibly a criminal element around Odessa. Then Georgia romancing NATO whilst being supplied by Ukraine. Finally weapons deals with Iran mixed in smack in the middle of that. Turkey has a NATO military that are being brought up on treasonous charges by a Muslim extremist government but defended by Christian isolationists in Istanbul. The Black Sea region is nothing short of turmultuous, especially in the 90s at the height of international black market arms trading worldwide and no small amount coming from right there. Right wing American extremist economist fears of Chinese sabre rattling in the Pacific Rim and Taiwan Sea aside I think the most immersive campaign builds still revolve around rogue elements of Russian/CIS forces and nevertheless would like to see more emphasis on modules constructed based on Russian/VVS equipment. My wishlist also includes, of course a full AFM, mouse interactive Flanker cockpit. Some of the MiG29 models, the original design goals are vastly changed between the late 80s and late 90s to the point of being completely different aircraft. The MiG23ML, the Su15 which is little known and therefore vastly underrated but essentially carried the PVO backbone for 20 years and had little expense spared in development and design. The Tu128 which formed the second specialist arm of the PVO air defence system under command of the Soviet strategic missile forces as opposed to the VVS air force, essentially the PVO received prioritised equipment in advanced development and specially produced airframes like the Tu128 for long range (typically arctic) patrol, the MiG25P for high altitude and high performance interception, the Su15 for mundane high altitude interception and the MiG23P for mid-low altitude, high performance interception. The MiG31 eventually epitomized the PVO technical favoritism with its deployment of the world's first digitally scanned phased array fire control system in a fighter aircraft, matching what amounts to a 4th gen radar set with a Foxbat's performance envelope and an Eagle's management system way back in the 80s. Give the low RCS part of the conversation a rest and it's basically 30 years ahead of NATO in the teeth department, not entirely unlike the Kashtan/Kinzhal naval air defence system compared to Sea Sparrow and CIWS. I've just had American (and to a lesser extent, NATO) materiel marketing shoved down my throat since the 80s and no kidding it's just like wall to wall telemarketing. I'm really interested in simming in some Russian birds with the whole DCS thing, any Russian birds. But I just don't want to see a situation where DCS turns into an arcade and the Russian equipment is like stormtroopers in star wars. I did develop flight modelling for mod versions of IL2 Sturmovik of Daimler-Benz DB603EC and LA engines at 1.9 and 1.72ata and Allison V1710-39 engines at 68" and 72"Hg and adapted the engine for lack of a boost regulator and the Daimler for mid-alt slippage of the hydraulic coupling so I wound up fairly accomplished in period technical research and filtering wheat from chaff as far as militarist propaganda efforts (often based in sincere patriotism or political righteousness) goes. I'm pretty good with engines and mechanicals in the real world so tend to filter out claims that don't make engineering sense when constructing a profile or performance envelope. Sometimes it's translation ambiguity in foreign documentation, like I found researching BMW801D2 engines looking into the performance regime of Fw190A models, particularly charge cooled boost improvements from late43, which were also relevant to Jumo engine specifications in early Doras. I instantly recognized similar systems used on drag strips in auto racing, obviously the later performance inspiration drawn from WW2 piston engine development so it became easy to pick glaring fallacies other enthusiasts were overlooking because they weren't reading a document translation right, ie. with some technical knowledge of the subject independent of the documentation to qualify it in the first place. It means nothing for a document to say water injection adds 300hp when it is a logical fallacy and the way race engines make an extra 300hp is by cooling the cylinders with water injection but then adding another half bar of boost, which is what actually bumps the power, the water just lets you up the boost. You've no idea how long I spent arguing with seeming-idiots that pouring water into an engine doesn't magically produce bonus horsepower. Jets work the same, a MiG Foxbat works the same, an Eagle works the same. Claims are technically sound or aren't, many of the really popular ones aren't. So if there are groups looking at Russian AFM projects like maybe a MiG23ML or a Foxbat or whatever, be glad to help in the research department. I mean these are some old school valve and vacuum mechanical warbirds that have elementary checksums to get accuracy with. More modern digitalized birds are way harder investigating every specific tech element. But a Foxbat is basically a leggo set that doesn't make sense when you get it wrong and will when you get it right, even if it challenges conception. I mean every time it's been examined closely it's challenged a conception. It must be super advanced, no it isn't. It can't perform at low altitude, yes it can. It must handle like a brick, no it doesn't. Pretty much every time someone makes a statement about it that turns out wrong the next encounter of one actually flying. It'll be fun. Who wants Tomcats in DCS, I want a Foxbat man :)

The Dogfights series is very heavily biased. It doesn't lie exactly, but it definitely misleads by framing conclusions and using selective data, eg. "american firepower, american training, and the enemy doesn't know what hit them" is a typical episode introduction. It plays into popular misconceptions which is what offends me about the show, I'd love a documentary which delivered what that show claims but that one is just entertainment media for an American audience and not a particularly bright one either. The sort of things Dogfights does is takes a combat record where say, one plane is low on fuel and has no manoeuvring reserve, which gets bounced by some American fighters with half tanks and plenty of endurance to play with, then when they go trapsing all around the sky getting elaborate firing positions the narrator will state, "and here the superior manoeuvrability of American planes and superior training of American pilots is punctuated", yet if the roles were reversed an American wouldn't be in a position to do anything different to the enemy pilot or plane because that's the situation he's in. Dogfights repeatedly states combat superiority is all about nationality. Anyone who's actually been in one states it's all about circumstance. The fact the least industrially threatening of the influential European nations (at the time) brought the entire world into an all out war for monopoly of the game board proves this. What Germany achieved in terms of war materiel was mostly gathered from the midwar period onwards, all of it was gathered after 1938 and it wasn't that much until 41. German prewar military strength was a fiction. But I suppose Dogfights would call that underdog success due to nationality too and miss the point completely.

Exploding car gas tanks. Screeching tyres on dirt roads. Small calibre MG sound effects of 50-cals, vulcans, GAU and DEFA. Dubbed phrases added during physical exertion scenes when the actors lips aren't moving. I think we've all come to know and love "hollywood realism". Where I find it offensive is when it becomes politicised propaganda, such as casting Hitler's inner circle for the hollywood romp "Valkyrie" to look foolish. The first round of casting for the film was more believable actors for those roles but the studio decided some movie goers might not appreciate a neutral historical depiction and would rather see silly charaquatures so they can point and laugh and say how silly the Nazis look. So they picked more foolish looking actors for those roles, which is really propaganda in a subject serious enough that it should be neutral and more documentary, so that whatever lessons are not lost in the midst of idiocy. I loved movies like Downfall and The Black Book, but unfortunately you have to go to the European film market for that kind of honest filmwork, and put up with subtitles.

The statement sounds like an expression of interservice rivalry, but maintenance of carrier operations isn't the only element to USN aviators being probably the most highly skilled warbird pilots on the planet. They're required to perform all-weather carrier operations in day and night and the only nation to perform night carrier operations, with regular re-qualification and there is a cost. I can't recall off hand the attrition rate but there is a yearly death toll. Carrier pilots and air force pilots are really in two very different spheres of skillset, one's job is akin to holding a tiger by the ears and the other's biggest danger is himself or faulty equipment imho, moreso himself.

Russia in particular has extreme variation of atmospheric conditions from thinner arctic air to storm swept tundra-deserts, mountainous regions and inland seas, rainy marshes to arid canyons. Airframe camoflage which generally blends in over the Bering sea doesn't so much over the Caspian. With the collapse of the Soviet Union you see much less variation in the relatively small number of Flankers that were equipped at that time. MiG was the main VVS fighter, the initial Flankers were nearly all operated by PVO-Strany. You might have different camo schemes from one district to the next based on common atmospheric conditions, including common skyline hues but these district PVO Flankers have become Ukrainian AF or Kazakhstan AF Flankers (whilst Russian PVO Flankers became VVS Flankers). Main stock of Russian Flankers operated on arctic and siberian patrol, so blues. Ukraine (old west district) Flankers are darker blues for the Black Sea sky. etc. The camo schemes you see in demos though is designed for the intended market. The old "Terminator" brown SuperFlanker scheme was hoped to attract Middle Eastern/African/CentralAsian purchases in the 90s, they also advertised it as a multirole emphasis. That went south. The newer SuperFlanker (Su-35 or Su-30MK-) black/grey scheme is based on attracting Pacific rim customers, more successful with sales purchases. They basically paint the demos based on who they're trying to get purchases from.

I watched a documentary about a Nimitz class carrier that said there was enough fuel and munitions capacity for two weeks of normal air operations without support or tender, similar on crew consumables. They're very dependent upon support tenders and I presume in a wargames scenario the Russian philosophy would concentrate on attacking the tenders with submarine action and holding off the carrier strikes in the meantime with fortified ports, then finally attack the battlegroup using force coordination and surface action groups (ie. land-air, SSGN, corvette flotilla and high value cruiser strike with air warfare screens). Russian cruisers generally have the electronics and command ship fit that is in US carriers, so Russians tend to use cruisers as flagships whilst the US uses carriers as the flagship and cruisers as carrier escorts. Russian carriers have a very different role to US carriers, primarily ASW with secondary surface action or in Kuznetsov case air defence. They don't do force projection but are designed to support either port fortification or for surface action groups and hunting boomers (SSBN). The heavy emphasis of Russian navy is ASW and surface action, it is designed to kill enemy naval units rather than attack land based targets or engage in remote aerial warfare. Russian missile strategy is designed to work in a high ECM environment so doesn't rely as much on remote guidence updates as NATO gear which is designed to work in environments under NATO control. Russian antiship missiles can use fire directors for course update in long range strikes (more than 150km from the firing ship), but few projects use things like satellite/GPS systems and in contended airspace rely on short range attacks with heavy warheads (typically a ton of high explosive or a small nuke), using advanced "AI" coordinated-release algorithms and the missiles' own onboard radars/ECCM for mid-course updates. Put in simple terms, the missiles are designed to be released in salvos of four or more, three skim the water to avoid countermeasures and one flies high and guides the entire flight using its on board avionics. If the guiding missile falls to countermeasures, another one scoots up and takes over that job. The idea is fire 8-20 ramjet powered missiles at a carrier battlegroup and there's a very good chance since they're travelling at about 3 Mach at least half are going to hit and only one will sink a carrier. The latest US/NATO missiles use GPS mid-course guidence but this is because they can generally assume electronics warfare superiority in most engagements. The system does fall down if Russian jamming beats NATO ECCM but it is thought unlikely, especially since the USN has been experimenting with things like green-laser satellite communications uplinks for years now. Doesn't sound easy to jam a laser with electronic noise, I think you'd actually have to make big fiery explosions between the emitter and receiver to refract the laser. But still there's always a way. What all this means is that you're not really going to see a classical WW2 protracted surface action warfare between naval units. US/NATO and Russian navies are constructed and equipped so differently that each wars completely independently of each other even when attacking each other. I think what you'll see is the kind of thing in my opening paragraph, a contention for ports, enemy action to cut off supply tender and only when air warfare capacity is diminished in the carrier battlegroup there'll be a desperate assault by land based air and various naval units to release large salvos of antiship missiles at high attrition that ultimately only need a few hits to sink the whole fleet. If all out warfare something like 4 in 12 warheads will be nuclear, the rest big conventional ones, the total missile attack in the region of 60 heavy and 20 medium antishipping warheads on four or more attack fronts per target. So it's still not going to involve the need of major sim development for naval warfare. DCS/FC would still concentrate on a few pilots in Flankers or Hornets (or Fullbacks, MiG-K and Superbugs), shooting down enemy missiles and their launch craft, or making independent antiship strikes. You don't need and won't have advanced ship-ship warfare, nothing that wouldn't be simulated purely by the mission editor during mission creation.

I think the state of their navy is more a reflection of shifting perspectives than purely economics, until the very latest NATO air defence refits undertaken within the last ten years they were well ahead in that area with the kinshal/kashtan system and navalized P300/400. The classification of destroyers, cruisers and frigates underwent confusion and reclassification in the cold war period as it was, blurring the lines since earlier convention was based on gunfire armouring and displacement as much as it was intended roles. Gunfire armouring for one was made obsolete by the 60s, which brought reclassification into the realm of intended roles and equipment (in the US for example some destroyers under construction were reclassified as cruisers and frigates took over the job of destroyers). Of course and Russian military conceptions and conventions vary from US/NATO ones, the US naval force is built largely around force projection whilst the Russian is submarine action and fortification of ports (hence it only recently stepped up as a blue water fleet in the 80s, a kiev class carrier can't even venture reliably from coastal areas and shallow seas due to poor seakeeping qualities but that was never an issue in the soviet strategic philosophy). The blurred lines and recreation of earlier naval conventions placed the Russian navy in a position to economise during the 90s and current period. The modern destroyer is really a dinosaur, a kind of pocket battleship among contemporaries designed for air warfare screening, ASW and surface action roles, but not quite large enough to be highly specialised for any (due to individual magazine capacities and deck space) and within these roles redundant among ASW and escort frigates, surface action/air warfare defence/command ship cruisers and ASW and air warfare dedicated Kuznetsov or kiev cruisers in range of land based air cover. The type of surface battlegroup the Russian navy is designed for and geared towards needs only a couple of frigate types in a total of 3-4 screening for a handful of high value central units like a kirov and kuznetsov in the northern navy say, plus tenders. The only elements a frigate adds to this group in terms of equipment is an extremely limited antishipping capability that pales in comparison to the central units and either land based air cover or fire directors from the kuznetsov under the protection of sea flankers. That's a very expensive undertaking for virtually no tactical value. Support strike forces will be in the form of submarine action and land based air. Force projection just isn't a role the Russian navy needs. Now if it did and wanted to go around attacking Mexico or something like the US in the central asia, well then it'd want destroyers and strike-craft bearing carriers and its cruisers would want to be screening ships for the carrier rather than command ships with surface action emphasis. But then it would look like the USN and not the Russian navy. It's a matter of the right tools for very different naval philosophies. Not about comparative equivalence, it's like comparing a Ferrari with a tank and asking which is better...well it depends on the job you've got in mind.

A somewhat related anecdote, at least of my point, is when I first started flying lomac I tried ILS and crashed constantly, which was disconcerting since I was fairly practised with other warbird flight sims and the jets seemed to have much more control at landing speeds than things like Spits and Messers (admitedly higher landing speeds, but still more control and able to handle it safely). I got so fed up I decided to ignore the cues and just land visually like I do in a Messer. Had no problem with good soft landings, first time, every time. I get a little paranoid in bad weather of course because I dread the ILS landing, but if I can see I do much better using my own judgement than being led by the nose by automatic cues that are so comprehensive you're supposed to respond with controls to HUD cues and not what's going on beyond the HUD and your own judgement. There is a point I find where cues become clutter, don't you think it's a bit redundant to have a HUD that displays flying instructions amid all else you have to monitor? ILS is one thing and I can understand the necessary evil obviously, but I really don't like the US HUDs in FC2 personally, or the ergonomics. I find them worse than the Russian ones, annoying and in my way. The Russian ones I leapt into and they worked with me going in cold, very very easy to fly well and transfer skills, I found.

Well I can say one thing for the Russian HUD in FC, the waypoint circle system keeps me intuitively visualising the aircraft attitude outside the cockpit, where the Eagle one is more like being led by the nose and following instruction rather than relying upon visualisation which is actually a very useful personal tool skill flying. That's what I mean when I say it's more intuitive to use coming from older warbirds which rely absolutely on your necessary out of the cockpit visualisation under high performance flight conditions, a lot of older birds are very tricky to fly hard and don't tell you anything but whether the engine is overheating, you can walk right into a fatal stall during an innocuous manoeuvre with your eyes open if you're not with it. That said, if a pilot elective chose to spend extra effort to maintain out of the cockpit visualisations, whilst using the extra HUD data that would be great, but the system allows laziness without obvious impact and there's no reason to think pilots would electively do this routinely. No need. But then when a spanner goes into the works, reduced proficiency. Maybe. Or I just don't like the US HUD, I like the Russian one.

Coming from WW2 era warbirds (and metric country) to the modern jets personally I simply find the Russian HUD/systems far more intuitive than US ones in FC2, I fly Flankers over Eagles because I'd have to pretty much start all over again to get Eagle info intuitive, where I just jump in any of the Russian birds and everything is right where/how I expect it. I like the radar/fire control system better, all of it. Not to say the Eagle stuff isn't more technically sound, but I'd have to start all over again to learn it from scratch, but the Russian stuff is just how it should be with little or no familiarity, despite cyrillic (which I use, but can't read Russian or anything), I don't need to know how to read cyrillic, I know what all the symbols mean figuratively because the things I expect to be displayed are and right where/how I expect them. I find much less distraction from controlling the plane this way, and would need many more hours to get the same proficiency in an Eagle. So maybe there is something to what was posted about the Russian system being more intuitive for instrument fliers, or older school generic training. The previous generation of Floggers were even worse, I don't think they even had a HDD fitted to the fighter/interceptors, just limited HUD projection for fire control and nav by steam dials.

wrt aforementioned raptor/tiffy comparison, would I be so wrong in a general impression that the margin between the top line fighters at this point, things like the raptor, tiffy, su30/35/ovg types and suchlike are just so close anyway, that you could beat everything with one type one week, and another type another week, for no real rhyme or reason, and whilst certainly different characteristically, flown well these margins are so close they're effectively as good as each other? Comparative evaluations would only be telling if there was a genuine flaw or performance shortfall to be exploited in a given type, wouldn't they? I don't think any of these birds have any serious shortfalls concerning each other at all...

just spitballing here but won't you run into intellectual property issues with ED/DCS/model-author when you take the completed project to airshows and charge $50/pop "to experience the world's only F-84 cockpit flight simulator" ?

At the end of the day they're still both 9G fighters, and the Eagle has spiked 11G frequently enough that it's even Youtubed from the cockpit recorder. The Viper is control system limited to 9G, you can't exceed AoA or G max ratings if you wanted to because the control system prohibits this. The Eagle's doesn't. That said the capability of the viper to exceed it is there, for this reason pilots that have flown both Block 30 and Block 50 sometimes prefer the Block 30 for the ability to exceed to the limiters if you're quick on the controls. In the MiG-29 you can just switch the limiters off, ie. the entire control system off (there's a swich to disable), it's generally stable. In the Eagle the limiters are just warning klaxons, you don't have to listen to them. It is worth looking at some Red Flag footage of Eagles mixing it up on the deck with aggressor Vipers. They're modified to act like MiG-29 but the Eagle still matches move for move and they're both trying for the kill with everything they've got. It comes down to pilot contest, clearly. As they say, one of the biggest advantages of F-15C squadrons is they train air-air exclusively whilst everybody else trains multirole, so the telephone book sized training manual for Eagle drivers is A-A specialised and they're very, very good at it, in any plane. That's a huge advantage on its own.

BlueRidgeDx, do I really need to post the FX and LFX engineering requirements? The F-15 was a pure dogfighter...and the F-16 was a pure dogfighter. So was the F-20 and the YF-17 that also competed for the LFX contract. High transonic performance and emphasis on subsonic BFM was part of the requirements for both, the main difference is cost caps, and ferry range for the FX (for euro deployment, to be used from major bases), high turnaround short range operation for the LFX (for frontal airfield deployment near the combat zone). The FX added a 2.5 mach requirement and twin engine requirement, the speed capability was cheated though and achieved through an override of the engine management system, usable only in emergencies since the engines require full tear down maintenance if this is used. They're otherwise speed restricted to 1.78 Mach. The high speed requirement was in response of course to the Foxbat of which little was known, it was assumed that it couldn't handle well as a fighter at combat height but was high altitude specialised, but just in case it was good at combat heights, the speed requirement was added to the FX requirement. Generally the Eagle is a 1.8 Mach range fighter, same as a Viper or a Hornet. In air-air form, no tanks the wing loading is about the same, the Eagle is 20 tons to the Viper's 12 tons combat loaded, depending on the production block it's got up to double the Viper's thrust. Let me find an article by a pilot I've seen before, rating the F-15 supreme in low altitude BFM among the teen series. edit, I managed to glean some interesting technical points after some searching, it's a pretty random collation from various sources,

Look over a site called F-16.net, there's a couple of articles on there by an ex flight instructor at USAF advanced weapons/tactics school, qualified on F-4, F-5, F-15, F-16 and MiG-29. I remember him discussing the sheer strength of the F-15 structure in thick air, down at the deck there's really nothing shy of a Flanker that can turn with one (Fulcrums can out turn them with some altitude, but not on the deck due to structural strength). The Eagle is really right at the very knife edge of maximum BFM capabilities at low altitude, whilst the F-16 varies in handling qualities by production Blocks. Some have analogue controls, thrust/weight varies, the very best can match an Eagle on the deck maybe, most can't. At higher altitudes the control system of the Viper limits usable alpha so as far as I know with its twin engines the Eagle can bring its nose around as quick and has all the installed equipment advantages. There's some Red Flag footage of Eagles and Vipers mixing it up in BFM that's probably on Youtube, look that up. It's a pilot skill contest, they're neck and neck through the sparkling manoeuvres.

I'm going to need a computer upgrade... :D

Statistically when in regular service in the Luftwaffe, throughout its career on average an F-104 crashed every 6.765 flying hours. From memory in the first five years of service 70% crashed, many were fatalities, and it was still being hailed as a great aircraft. The "sabre dance" was infamous, you only have to watch videos of century series landing mishaps where every one of those birds kill pilots regularly on the runway. One great F-104 death it actually came to a complete sliding stop on its wheels, waited a moment then backlash from an engine compressor stall or something, like a delayed reaction, suddenly pancakes the stationary bird and it explodes on the tarmac. Numerous vids of F-100 tumbling explosions all over the airfield are equally shocking. The F-14A prototype looks scary when it suddenly noses down on approach and hits the ground in a fireball. That bird was almost cancelled because congress was starting to think the technology for such an advanced warbird was just too premature for the time. The modern media climate has become a little silly with its sheer disregard of the fact military careers are not stamp collecting but inherently dangerous and an environment where, in actual fact deaths are just loss ratios as part of a strategic calculation. I think perhaps the encroaching modern role of the US military as an international policing claim has bred a public expectation that a typical deployment should involve zero losses and plenty enemy deaths as a sign of superior force, where this simply isn't the case. It's a little more like how much enemy devastation you can trade your servicemen deaths for, the losses are a given. One thing I was thinking about with the O2 system in the F-22 is, the data handling system for the entire O2 system is done the same way as the engine management system, right? By digitally modelling a simulation of optimum performance under given conditions, and auto-adjusting the physical equipment until sensors match the modelled prediction? So...a bug in the system could be human error in the computer model used to simulate the operating system during flight, that is being used to manage the system in realtime. Anything not accounted for in the software management program will inherently lead to a disparity between what the system is doing and what it is being told to do. ? maybe?

Aviation press, military and Sukhoi company designations vary. Sukhoi initially designated Su-27UB side-by-side strike variant Su-27KUB and in 1995 redesignated Su-32FN as these designations promoted its maritime role on the international market which Sukhoi felt it will receive most sales. In 1999 they redesignated again Su-32MF to stress its multirole capability since the international market changed its climate. The Russian military press has always called it Su-27IB or fighter-bomber and occasionally Su-34 since the beginning, the Su-34 designation may have been given within the military because some cockpit features are from the Su-24 including the seats but that's my speculation. Presently the Russian air force designation is Su-34.

The Lyulka isn't smokey. It'd be nice if some aeronautical mechanics could pipe in to confirm but I believe the Klimov likes some oil in the fuel to cool that trick afterburner it's got located in the bypass. In fact I believe it was designed to run on diesel and kerosine in the field. If you used the Luftwaffe or Russian hot section rebuild (mandatory if you're going to operate them in the US), then you could get away with regular aviation gas and no smokies, or at least they wouldn't be as smokey as kerosine burners at a Russian airshow.