Bremspropeller
-
Posts
1782 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bremspropeller
-
-
I do.
IIRC the larger knob did the job before the patch, too.
-
What about Dushanbe airport? It's within the North part of the map, but it looks like it's not implemented/ planned.
Was that an important logistics hub?
For Pakistan:
- Gilgit airport (should be within the North map
- Chitral, Chilas and Saidu Sharif should also be on the North map
Dedicated pakistani military airports should be within the Center map.
-
2
-
-
Spoiler
K2 base?
K2 base camp is east of the map boundary
Spoiler
Nanga Parbat should be inside the North map boundary, though. Hopefully it's Rupal face - Earth's tallest mountain face - is going to be modelled in some detail. Rupal face is on the backside of the ridge in this picture.
This Jeff is flying in front of the "Silberzacken" and "Silbersattel", which was the route used by the first ascendant, Hermann Buhl. It's just above and to the right of the tall trees in the photo above.
-
1
-
-
Gilgit in Baltistan (Kashmere) would also be in the Northern part of the map.
Spoiler
null
Chitral, Chilas and Saidu Sharif should also be on the North map.
A good deal more airfields should be on the East map:
Spoiler
Unfortunately it seems the the map ends just west of Srinagar and Jammu, which would be indian airports.
-
3
-
-
I'm in with the outrigger pylons.
Did they also carry Sidewinders on those or was that an ASRAAM thing?
Edith: Sidewinders, baby!
null
-
The important missing information is: What modules do you already have? The Harrier is arguably the most different aircraft (read: "the least more of the same") if e.g. you already own the Hornet.
The Harrier can also do SEAD-lite, albeit limited and probably subject to porking in the future (due to the AGM-122 being a bit OP at the moment). The Harrier does have LJDAMs and APKWs, which also sets it apart from the others. It does not have JSOW or the three-digit CBUs, but who needs those anyway. Tactically, flying the Harrier is a bit more about having your pants rolled down to your ankles, as you can't scare people with AMRAAMs (yet, the Harrier II+ is still planned!), which in some way makes the whole experience more involved and more interesting, as you have to think way more thoroughly in terms of SA and your battle plan.
Be prepared to struggle a bit at first due to the less than self-explanantory HOTAS fumbling, but you'll wrap your head around that and it'll become second nature. There are a good deal of tutorial videos online, so the suffering should not take too long.
-
There even used to be a standard skin for the 'Fulcrum C' from Termez airbase in game. Maybe it's still in the game, haven't flown that one in a hot minute or two.
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, DisplayName said:
Strongly disagree.
Mission development would be significantly enhanced with the development of the Western side of the map to include Mary (1521st Centre for Combat Employment) - This is especially important with both the MiG-23 and full-fidelity MiG-29 on its way to us within DCS.
Developing the Western side of the map (Mary) would result in a map that is capable of hosting historically feasible missions for both RedFor and BlueFor. It would also enable the long military history of Afghanistan to be rightfully and correctly represented instead of having the Afghanistan map simply be nothing too much more than a virtual bombing range for BlueFor.
Whether Mary is to be added exclusively to the full Afghanistan map (if at all), or a future sub-map for people that just want a cost effective alternative to fly their MiG-23 and MiG-29 within a community of like minded enthusiasts, I do believe that Mary is an absolute must have - noting as well that the FC3 MiG-29 already has the liveries of Mary.
I have attached two pictures showing the MiG-23 and MiG-29 with their unique nose art that was found on aircraft posted to Mary.
You're not strongly disagreeing with me. In fact, you're rather strongly agreeing. I want additional airfields, including Mary in the northwest.
I want the western border of the map be shifted east a couple of miles, closer to the western airfields, so that more airfields in the neighbouring contries to the east can be created in order to bumping up the overall value of the map.
-
4
-
-
This SPAF jet carries the underwing AIM-9 rails:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain-Air-Force/Lockheed-Canadair-F-104G-Starfighter-CL-90/2602308/L
More underwing rails
This should be a Vinten recce-pod:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Spain-Air-Force/Lockheed-SABCA-F-104G-Starfighter/3898819/L
-
2
-
-
What about Termez? Why not shift the map a couple of miles to the east, which would cover slightly more of Kashmere.
I think there should be more airbases, including a couple in Pakistan, India and China (depending on where the map borders are drawn).
This would bump up the mission-building value way more than covering the same area in the west.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Ronin_Gaijin said:
For air units to be used in Afghanistan, they need to be spawned from their respective airfields in the satellite states of the USSR.
At this stage that capability does not exist.
The only airport that does not belong in Afghanistan but has an icon on the map provided, is Khorog in Tajikistan.
Unfortunately this did not play a role for the USSR as it is barely an airport.
Attached photos for reference.
Great, now I want a flyable Yak-40 or An-26 even more. Good job!
I've always loved that photo of those two Yak-40s at Khorog - gravel airstrip with that tall-a$$ mountain inthe backdrop. I think they now do have a paved runway, though, which takes a bit of the romanticism away from the place.
If anything, we need more airfields in all of the neighbouring countries. Even if they're just coming much later. Kinda like the recent additions to the Syria map.
-
2
-
-
On 3/14/2019 at 10:52 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:
Lack of IRST bulb indicates this is a mark prior to E, any ideas?
WU tailcode = VMF-334 "Falcons"
The beta-vane on top of the radome indicates an A thru C variant. All-black radome indicates a B or C. Keel fins indicade a C.
The A would have the smaller ranging radome:
-
1
-
-
On the Essex 27C/ 125C boats, the normal hook-to-ramp for an F-8 was somewhere around 9.5 feet. And apparently they had a timeframe on Hancock, when the mirror was misrigged, putting the actual hook-to-ramp down to 7 (seven!) feet. They supposedly had a lot of ramp-strikes during that timeframe.
The story is buried somewhere in here:
https://f8crusader.org/gatrtalz.htm
This is an awesome info dump from the earlier days of the internet. Lots of the contributers have flown west in the meantime, unfortunately.
-
On 2/23/2024 at 2:23 AM, Pikey said:
The problem seems to be that everyone wants to simulate GW1, carrier ops and 900-1000 mile round trips.
I don't, tbh. Iran-Iraq is the more interesting conflict IMHO.
I'd want to do tanker-plinking in an EQ5/6 or even a SuE. That, however, would require a good deal of the Gulf being modelled, too.
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Scrub said:
We also can't roll the aircraft with rudder as much as before
I also think this needs to be looked into a bit more.
-
In squadron ops.
Like any jet it's limited by a bunch of things. The biggest issue is shock-heating and the compressor inlet temperature (121°C limit on the standard 104, possibly more in the 104S), which will normally be reached first and which may be reached below "max Mach", depending on outside temperature. The warmer the temp, the earlier you'll run into the limit here. Temperature gain through the shock is pretty much fixed by geometry and Mach, so starting colder is beneficial.
If you're waiving this limitation, you can go faster. Easily. The tail area (yaw stability) is most probably tied to some arbitrary stability margin figure, which is a data-point in flight testing and will give you a flight-manual max Mach number to fulfill that criteria. Hence the bigger tail on the two-seaters introduced after a couple of F-104Bs produced (same tail as on the 104G and S) and the additional strakes on the F-104S.
The F-104C jets I have in mind (especially a "Kite Intercept" flight by Tom Delashaw in June '62) were modified, but no fancy stuff:
- larger two-seater tail instead of the small F-104C tail
- biconical shock-inlets, which weren't used on any serial 104, but which would have been an easy installation (the cones don't move anyway)
The jet used had paint flaking off, so you'll get an idea how "hot" they were.
The flight is referenced here ("top speed Mach 2.5") but I remember reading that he was actually closer to 2.6 in a different article.
https://www.i-f-s.nl/f-104-records/There were other record flights with 104s, but those were tweaked beyond what could and would be done in line ops.
-
1
-
-
On 1/24/2021 at 11:35 PM, bies said:
Great kinematic performance, the fastest single engine fighter ever, very low wing loading and good maneuverability in a dogfight, it was outturning F-4s and F-100s - and some units had been trained in close air combat in Nellis.
Officially the fastest single engine jet.
F-104s were flown north of 2.5 occasionally.
-
1
-
-
On 2/22/2024 at 3:03 PM, bies said:
For now full fidelity F-14A/B, F-4E, Mirage F.1 and low fidelity F-15C will fit the 1980s timeframe as well.
Mirage 2000C.
Which would even be on your side when flying peruvian or indian Fulcrums.
-
On 12/13/2023 at 12:12 PM, rkk01 said:
My personal view…
… it all revolves around the Sea Harrier
Getting the SHAR modelled unlocks the whole of the 1982 scenario
With a block on the SHAR, 1982 becomes a bit pointless for air ops…(and the whole S Atlantic map concept starts to unravel)
Raz claim that the radar system isn’t possible due to security classification… which may well be true, but some limited “Joe Public” type internet wanderings suggest there should be info and SMEs for the 1970s Blue Fox radar in the FRS.1
(I almost wonder if civil servants at UK MoD are responding to Sea Harrier data requests on the basis of the later and genuinely sensitive Blue Vixen radar from the Sea Harrier FA.2…???)
I hear you.
But let's just play devil's advocate for a second: There's a pretty nice looking GR.3 in the pictures there, too. No sekrit radar and stuff. I'd take a GR.3 before no season-correct Harrier at all.
Was Atlantic Conveyor planned to be in the assets pack? I'd like it to convey my AV-8B to places, that's why I'm asking.
Yes I do know, the real one is in a "slightly used" condition...
-
Hi Aerges,
seems like the Feb 2024 patch broke the Combat Flaps in the F1BE.
They won't come out either on the ground or airborne when inside the envelope. This affects both seats.
-
14 hours ago, truebrit said:
Give the Brits some love. Buccaneer or Jaguar.
But to eff with the Brits in revenge for Trafalgar, make it a french Jaaaaaaaaaag.
-
1
-
-
The Syria Map is a gift that keeps on giving.
Thanks for your continued support of this awesome map!
-
7
-
-
Kerbo = The real MVP!
-
2
-
-
Charlie don't surf at Chu Lai.
null
null
null
Why isn't possible to carry 2 S-530F and a R-530?
in DCS: Mirage F1
Posted
Because this ain't War Thunder.
Srsly: The button for the left wing station also activates the fuselage station, which would be kinda awkward if you had missiles on both stations. It's by design and intent as mentioned by ColonelAgile.