Bremspropeller

Seems like the simplified firing logic/ trigger safety also doesn't work. Can somebody confirm?

The pin won't come off. FWD seat. Haven't checked the rear seat yet.

Hey folks, I can't get my GND power to show. Anybody else have the same issue?

That's a deep rabbithole to go down into. But then again, the Bundeswehr's default setting is *tumbleweed*.

Yes and no. It wasn't purely nukes, but in the context of NATO doctrine back in the day, it would have factually have been mostly a one-way nukes galore mission. Conventional missions were a thing and were trained for - most jets were in a "conventional" configuration IIRC. But again, given the initial doctrine (which changed in the late 60s to a more conventional approach), it factually was "how to bring a nuke the fastest and farthest". Ironically, the 104 actually excelled in that mission as it was fast, had a low RCS and a pretty good range (farther than the F-4 by about 50% according to a pilot that knows). Conventional warfare doctrine later showed the 104's limitations. Which partially is the reason why the Luftwaffe went for the F-4F with two fighter wings (actual fighter mission, secondary ground attack) and two fighter-bomber wings (fighter bombers with secondary fighter mission). They also replaced the RF-104G with the RF-4E (two recce-wings). I think it's a LABS type computer, which in essence is a dumb CCRP if you think about it.

As others have stated, the A/B can be disengaged at any speed/ Mach. Just don't retard the throttle out of MIL. The overspeed regulation exists in most jets. Difference here is that the overspeed will kick in automaticly, but there's no protetction against retarding the throttle in place, like on most other jets. In other jets, if you retard the go-stick, the engine will stay at high power and schedule back with lower Mach automaticly. In the F1, the engine will just go back and *poof* stall. The overspeed is a mechanism to account for the shock-losses that become a thing at Mach 1.4 - why at 1.4? Well, I have forgotten too much supersonic flow theory to tell you all about it, but it's most probably related to some specific shock-table value. In essence, it's a matter of ram-rise (temperature goes up) and hence a loss in static pressure/ density, so you'll have to run the compressor at a higher speed to make the suck-squeeze-bang-blow magic happen. Keep in mind that the ATAR 9K50 is basicly a glorified BMW 003 from WW2 - it's only got 9 compressor stages, so it's a very simple engine with a low compression-ratio compared to other contemporary engines. For comparison: The J79 has 17 compressor stages and a complex VSV/IGV system to have it run at higher compression ratios.

It doesn't AFAIK. The NASARR didn't have that feature in the 105 and I'd be surprised if it had in the 104. It's gonna be depression-bombing only. Both the 104G and 105 were initially thought to bring light and cozyness in the mid-high kT range, not waste time with conventional bombing.The bombing computer is gonna be a LABS type with the "idiot-loop" delivery method. CRV-7 rockets supposedly were fun, though. Same story, depression settings and a bit of Kentucky-windage.

Thank you!

Hey Aerges, I'm not sure if this is a bug or a feature, so please bear with me: In game, we do have a CAP AFFICHE heading-select knob, that enables capturing selected headings. It's heading-bug is normally slaved to 360° unless a different heading is selected by the Cap Affiche knob. Is this a special feature of the spanish F1 variants? When scrolling through all the manuals I have (AZ, CZ, BD and ED), there's only a BIP trim feature for the heading. If the trim button is held for greater than 0.4s, the heading-bug will be controlled by the trim button. Much like in the Mirage 2000C. The manuals also say, that the HDG bug is slaved to the lubber-line, which would make sense. Hence, the selected heading is always the current heading, unless the trim-buttons are used to set the bug. If the button is just "blipped", the heading change will be 2° per blip, which I believe is the way it is right now in game. Now, again I'm not sure whether the spanish F1s do differ here and if the current in-game behaviour is intended as is. Would be cool if you could give me/ us a quick message on that issue. Cheers

EQ6, AZ and CR/CT would be awesome.

One interesting, subtle feature of the AZ and CZ is the bi-conical air-intake cone, which is unique to the SAAF variants. It resulted in a better pressure-recovery at high Mach and hence better performance. F1CR with the standard inlet cone.

They said they were happy with the FM apart from some tweaks in the high AoA department. I suspect they're meaning the wingrocking. The flat lift line seems to be there. Some patches farter back, it wasn't and you could yank her around a lot more at high AoA.

I'm only throwing the chute after the nose is down. The technique I'm using results from controllability (overcontrolling) issues at high speeds, so I'm trying to keep the nose off as long as possible. I'm not using the chute right away, because experience shows that if the nose comes down at high speed, it's incredibly easy to get into PIO. Especially if the chute tries to weathervane me into the wind.

To aerobrake and tracking CL.

The moment of truth on landing is when you can't hold the nose up any longer with 75% of rudder in and wondering, what kind of space-magic to perform, to not end up gator-rolling off the runway. NWS on, that is. No matter which gain.

True. Breakerman is breaking bad.

I also think the brakes are too weak, but then again military aircraft are prolly not adherent to the same RTO design-criteria (e.g. stopping at MTOW @V1 on brakes only). Now, you can tailor your V1 speed obviously, but you'll get ridiculously low numbers. What's more of an issue to me is that some aircraft are almost unflyable (TO / landing) with some medium degree of crosswind.

I'm just hyped for the F1BE, but I'm special anyways.

The SR didn't stop because of the Foxbat. It stopped because better assets vs. cost vs. risk were available. Sending an SR meant also sending support aircraft like KC-135Qs with the special JP-7 fuel. If anything, the Foxhound put an end to the SR overflights. Even that jet had low chances of killing a Blackbird unless you're sending an entire PVO district going after a single jet. The U-2 was a comparatively easy target for any M2.0 class interceptor. Not really. I'm arguing that trying to shoot down a target that comes over the horizon at up to Mach 3.2 to 3.5, above 80000ft, is excessively hard with the assets at hand. Doesn't matter which colour your air defenses are.

What? Not quite multirole, but multipurpose. It was an interceptor, that could also drop a couple of bombs. Not neccessarily during the same mission. It's more useful than being a single-purpose jet like the Tu-128 or Su-15, though. I like the Su-15 better, because I like the aircraft better. That hardly makes me a russophobe. But if you want to play the victim-card here, go ahead, whatever you say. The MiG-25 couldn't intercept the SR, because it evidently didn't. Had they been able to squash a Blackbird, they'd done it and we'd know about it as they'd have run the propaganda game, thumping their chest over that achievement. There's only two reasons why they'd not shoot somebody down: 1) They legally couldn't. Ask KAL how well that rule turned out. 2) They physically couldn't. Like Mr. Rust in his R172, who wasn't shot down because "he wasn't deemed a threat" and yet PVO proceeded with some personnel-shuffling in the aftermath. Everybody who wasn't in their airspace by invitation, got an explosive memo. Intercepting an enemy with an aircraft that's slower than the target and with missiles that are only for a fraction of their flight-time faster than the target itself isn't quite a child's play. It requires an orchestra of GCI and command-control assets to work just right. It only takes one person to mess up and the intercept goes to hell. Just look how much of a clusterduck the KAL007 intercept was - and that was a plain vanilla 747-200, not trying to evade anybody, jamming or chaffing.

Yeah, right. Please don't assume you're the only person who's read a book or two. I don't care about world-records, unless they've been achieved by line-jets. That's precisely why I wrote "real-world" in brackets. So have Viggens and a duckton of other aircraft. Being able to maneuver into a position from where you'd be able to squeeze off a missile successfully, is a different story altogether. Even for a Foxbat.

Nothing. It looks better. Capability-wise (real-world), they're pretty similar. null They're both cool aircraft and the MiG comes with the added benefit of having a recce variant and dropping some bombs (plus it actually saw some pew-pew conflict, apart from shooting at unarmed vehicles like the Flagon). Both aircraft only make sense, if we actually could build a proper PVO campaign, including battling the (sub-) arctic weather. Which means: We need weather-presets with sh1ttier weather (lower clouds, less visibility and more rain/ snow). /opinion

Most wanted to least wanted: Su-15TM (for people who like the Foxbat, but who also know how to use a fork and a knife) MiG-25 (for the rest) MiG-27 (because BRRRRRT!) Su-25 (it's already there, but clickety-click) Yak-38 (meh, lots of work for an aircraft that's mostly gonna be shnizzeled)

Check the box left to your left thigh or knee (where the red and green radio pushbuttons are). It has all the volume rheos for the TACAN, VOR, Radio and MSL tones.

The CT uses the same radar scope as the C-200. The square scope is in the CR. I think the greater difference between the CT/CR and the M will be the stores (e.g. double bomb carriers on the inboards, iraqi 2200l tank) and lack of Corail CM stubs under the armpits: