Jump to content

Bremspropeller

Members
  • Posts

    884
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bremspropeller

  1. Disagree. We need more Mirages and Fishbeds to flesh out the CW. A Kfir is not a Mirage, no matter how much you want to pretend it is. Raz's Mirage III/5 family is direly needed. Even if they're only approximates for other customers' equipment.
  2. Aber dann auch schön in die Tüte pinkeln - wegen Realismus und so!
  3. Sinai's good for a bunch of conflicts, so it's a natural choice. Can't wait to fly a proper MIII above the Nile delta. We need more Fishbeds.
  4. Krass. Fehlen nur noch die MIIICJ, Nesher und ein ganzer Sack voll Fishbeds, Frescos und Farmers. Leider "zu modern" für die interessanten Konflikte, aber trotzdem ein instabuy. Ihre Kolabären können sie sich in die Haare schmieren :mh:
  5. Vielleicht sollten hier einige den Digital Glücksbärchi Simulator installieren. Es kommen jeden Tag gewaltsam Menschen zu Tode. Sei es durch Krieg, "Kriegsähnliche Zustände" oder Verbrechen. Seit Jahrtausenden. Daran ändert das "schlechte Gefühl" (TM) beim Wegknipsen irgendwelcher Pixel rein gar nichts.
  6. In addition to what MBot wrote, it's basicly a consideration of what the pilot needs during which phase of flight. In normal flight, the HUD's horizon-line is offset, so the pilot can get an attitude-reading, which makes maneuvering easier. If it wasn't offset, you'd have a hard time figuring out your spatial attitude with the nose high (mostly because the canopy bow's in the way) and the "nose high" reference-lines barely visible at the top of your windshield. If you want to put it that way, the representation is offset so it seems like it's centered in the windshield. This "centered" view-angle is actually a couple of degrees down, so the depicted horizon-line doesn't coincide with the actual horizon. It's much the same way in the Tomcat. You'll kind of have to "look through" that and *fly on instruments*, referencing the offset horizon-line. It's actually easer than it sounds, once you're getting the hang of it. In landing mode with the VV (which is a visual procedure), the HUD-depression goes away and the horizon-line is true, as you'll just look out of the window to get an attitude-reading. Makes sense?
  7. I guess it all comes down to what "scenario" constitutes for you. Is it an actual, historical scenario? Well, in that case the F-4E wins hands down. In a sandbox-environment, anything can be turned into a viable, semi-viable or completely made-up scenario. With several layers of degrading historical correctness or plausibility - from "could have happenend, but for some reason didn't" down to "completely bonkers". Flying a USMC F-4B out of Lebanon or from the Med just off Lebanon wouldn't require an awful lot of playing pretend.
  8. Some interesting info in here. Especially the test-shots that were conducted.
  9. And it's uglier. And it has higher wing-loading and more drag, which the higher thrust is trying to overcome. It's not that much better than a PFM or MF all things considered. In terms of better missiles - well, the Bis' missiles "$uck less" than earlier Fishbed missiles, but they're not exactly on par with contemporary Sidewinders. All of those could be carried by earlier Fishbeds still around, though. Many PFMs (and MFs) were actually around for quite a long time (late 80s and longer) in some air forces. I'll take a PFM over a Bis any time.
  10. There'll be a -17 in some time, there already is a -19 and the -21bis isn't that much more capable than the F-13 (which in turn was more maneuverable), PFM or MF. Your assessment remains flawed. Also, when looked at from the IDF perspective. I'll give you it was an exceptional fighter-bomber in it's time. I'm not wrong at all. What is wrong, though, is your hypothesis of the F-4B being relegated to only (!) ground-attack, which you're trying to weasel-out of. Let's see - Linebacker (I'm counting all kills of '72/73 here, not just Linebacker) USN/USMC MiG-kills: 16 MiGs killed by F-4Js (plus one probable) 10 MiGs killed by F-4Bs The USMC only had a single MiG-kill, because most USMC squadrons were stationed down south "in country", and not on Yankee Station. 'Rock River 102' - BuNo 153045 - was an F-4B. That's mostly because of the Route Packs assigned to the Navy surrounding Haiphong, which didn't account for many MiG-21s, which in turn were stationed closer to Hanoi, which was the Air Force's playground. That's not a "B vs J" thing at all. The whole "B vs J" argument isn't. The J got more kills because there were more Js around when the war went hot and produced all those kill-opportunities. Plus Topgun had been around for some time, elevating the F-4 community's general A-A capability. The F-4B killed at least three MiG-21s (that's when I stopped looking) - two by VF-142 and one by VF-143. That's in 1967 - pre-Topgun. The MiG-17 isn't a weak enemy at all - especially when you can't just blow it out of the sky at 10nm head-on, but when you actually have to get in-close and personal and V-ID it first. Killing an An-2 with missiles only isn't all that easy either. Agile Eagle was an Air Force project and had not a lot to do with the F-4S, which got it's slats a lot later. The F-4S was more capable than the F-4N, but it also was a good deal heavier.
  11. And it shows. If you actually did some research on the F-4B, you'd realise that it had MiG-kills right through Linbackers I & II and it closed the tally-list in January 1973, when the Chargers bagged a Fresco as the final USN MiG-kill. No Ns in Vietnam, no slats, same motors as in the B. The weapons weren't tied to the J anyway. It's historical performance might disagree with your assessment here.
  12. By chance, mostly. That's a VF-74 F-4J off Forrestal in August '81 - photo taken not long before VF-41 bagged their Fitters.
  13. Thx! Schade, dass sie "nur" die C1+ und nicht auch den Krüppelvogel C1 (ohne "Canards" und Nose-Strakes) machen :mh:
  14. Ist es inzwischen bestätigt, dass die Kfir C1, C2 und C7 kommen werden?
  15. I realize it's a large map. I'm hoping for the day that DCS leaves it's tendency to being a hardware hog behind, so we can have even nicer things. Including more maps that'll run your tanks dry.
  16. +1 and same here. Any member of the Mirage family will be welcomed with great enthusiasm on my part - just make sure we're not forgetting about the originals.
  17. Don't get too excited about the Kfir, though. The heat-shielding and additional installed drag (due to the required cooling-scoops) that had to be introduced to fit the J79 into the Mirage airframe, killed a lot of the percieved additional performance. Apparently the Cheetah C hits globally the same numbers with a weaker motor and better aero-refinements (Atar 9K50 vs. J79-17). The Kfir is one of the prime examples for strapping a more powerful engine onto an airframe and not getting the hoped-for result. The J79 was chosen mostly, because they had access to it, rather than the Atar, which was embargoed at the time.* Now, if you really want to see a souped up Mirage III, look for the IIIR2Z (actually operational) or the Avon-powered prototype of the Mirage IIIO. ___ *and they already had gotten away with fun and games with the Nesher, so this route would not work again
  18. Which kind of "F-4B" are we talking about? A 1962 aircraft or a late 70s VTAS, SEAM and AIM-9G F-4N?
  19. A Mirage III family would be an instant buy for me. At the moment I'd personally rather prefer the south african variants over the pakistani ones, though - especially the IIIR2Z with the 9K50 motor (same as in the F1), even though that one lost the initial IIIRZ's capability of carrying bombs or the AS30. Trouble with the MIII and M5 is as always: Whose Mirages to make? Just as with the F1, their capabilities differ significantly - dependant on what the customer wanted or what they were allowed to buy. Pakistan had a very wide range of Mirage III and 5 variants (including the M5PA3 that could shoot Exocets and several Project ROSE modernisations with fancy TV-screens). Trouble with the PAF Mirages is the lack of maps to use them on.
  20. Somebody a couple of months back had an intriguing idea of a large map encompassing pieces of Mozambique, Botswana, Zimbabwe/Rhodesia, Zambia, Angola, Namibia and South Africa. That map would enable us to cover a lot of conflics, even though it would cut off a couple of pieces. Not sure if a coast-to-cost map would be feasible. The original idea was smaller in East-West size, but it looked roughly like this: Given the several historical conflicts in the general area, such a map would provide for over 20 years of continuous relevance.
  21. Plus it carries "the gun" (TM). That thing alone would hype me for a 27.
  22. Both are wrong. F stands for "flèche", which is a reference to the sweptback (as opposed to delta) wings.
  23. 540 for "out or retracting" if I remember the plackard correctly, yeah. Seems like at least one pilot went supersonic with the flaps at T/O and lived (RCAF pilot wondered about the slow acceleration and retracted the flaps at Mach 1.3). Thanks! I'm a big fan of the Zipper. I had once seen a P_s diagram over at the old key publishing forum - the 104G (half a tank, tip sidewinders, gun, low alt) IIRC topped out in the high sixes of G at about 450'ish KIAS. The kink at flap retraction was quite pronounced. 1 to 1.5 g seems about right from memory. It's somewhere on one of my old, dead hard-drives. I seem to remember that during one of the Featherduster/Have Dougnut matchups they figured out that a 104C could spiral-climb away from a MiG-21F-13 at around 4g sustained. And the 104C with the large tail and optimized shock-cones would go Mach 2.5+ (no engine tweaks on top of the big tail and the optimized shock cones). A real hot ship, but it would take a competent pilot to exploit it's strengths. I'll take my Charlie with the bolt-on probe in SEA camo.
  24. Dude, stop raving about the lookdown-issues. The plane's out for less than a week and you're already sounding like a broken record. Give them some time. How long did it take to come up with the current radar in the M2k? The cyrano "not being usable in lookdown" is not the reason for the Giraffe tactic. It's keeping the Pheonix at bay and exploiting the AWG-9's feet dry look-down performance. Are you really suggesting the EQs with shorter range radar and missiles would have been approaching the Cats from above if the Cyrano had a better lookdown capability? Back that up please.
×
×
  • Create New...