Bremspropeller

Make sure you bind the Servo Reset on some key - you may need it every once in a while.

It's not really damaged, you're just kicking the servos offline. Hit the Servo Reset button and you'll be fine.

I also think it's down to not having the controls at neutral. The transonic issue is just the ALT Hold function. ATT Hold works fine. CAP should also be fine. Haven't tested the Radial-tracking functions at hi Mach yet.

I think we should establish a ground on which we're discussing this topic. 1) DCS vs real world. The DEFAs in DCS don't to diddley squat against AA targets. IRL, one or two hits were fatal against a MiG-21. Compare that to DCS, where the -21 will happily bullet-sponge. 2) What are we talking about with the M61? ROF? You'll need a finite amount of time for the barrel to spin up and move at BRRRT rate. So while Mr. Electric Motor is getting up to speed, the DEFA has already sent shots downrange at close to it's nominal rate. IIRC, a normal revolver action gun (DEFA, M39, which are both descentants of the Mauser 213 design) will have a ROF-advantage over the Gatling design M61 for the first second of trigger down. After that, the M61 takes over. Remember that pulling the trigger in the F-5 opens the vent doors first, so your mileage on that "more rounds delivered within the first second"-consideration may vary there. The four M39s on the F-100 should give you full stereo right away. Dispersion? Well, it helps in hitting something, while it helps missing what you're actually aiming at, at the same time. This may or may not be beneficial. 3) Trigger time? The M61 will have a disadvantage. Maybe only the A-7E won't suffer here with 1000+ rounds to spend. 4) Damage per round. Similar, but highly depending on the modelling of the shells and dependant on the DM of the aircraft at the recieving end.

There was a refuelling probe kit, but it was only used on deployed F-104C models. There might have been trials with canadian CFs. https://airrefuelingarchive.wordpress.com/category/f-104/

There was a helmet sight that was supposed to work with the V3B. The switch most probably is tied to a function with that sight and the V3B.

There's no direct way of gauging FF. The clicks you're hearing is the totalizer winding down. I believe one click is a liter, but it could be multiples of that. So if you count the seconds between clicks, you get an idea. Other than that you could count the seconds it takes for the totalizer to change (10l increments) and then extrapolate to an hour. Normally, fuel won't be much of a concern in the F1.

Awesome, thanks for the input!

@LanceCriminal86 this dude seems to be wearing a VTAS helmet at around 2:09. Can you confirm or deny?

The SMT came before the Bis. It was powered by the R13.

No worries, I wasn't directing anything into your direction. I just wanted to give some additional perspective as the topic's called "carrier version", when the carrier capable versions also did many ops from shore bases. Both in theater as well as on deployment at fwd bases in Japan or on det elsewhere in the Pacific.

It's not just carrier versions. Don't forget our friends in the Corps. USMC Phantoms flew out of Da Nang and Chu Lai. That naped-up Bengal Tiger's seen cleaner days. This Falcon is ready to go to town. Dual-Zunis on the inboard Sidewinder rails can be spotted quite often on Marines jets. I've seen the dual and two quad launchers on the shoulder pylons. Black Knight with another LAU-33 on the inboard Sidewinder rail. Red Devil with LAU-33 and a pod full of BRRRRRT. Gotta be the Hughes Mk4

The 104S manual I have states no separation issues up through to Mach 2.2 for both AIM-7 and Aspide - in fact, the only limitation stated is gas ingestion when going too slow, too high. Pages 5-15 and 5-16 / Figures 5-7 and 5-8. There's no "subsonic launch only" for any missiles anywhere in the manual. There are limitations for weapons/stores jettison only. The 104 isn't limited much by the tanks either, except for g loads. Tip tanks are cleared to Mach 2.0 and only the pylon tanks are limiting the jet to subsonic.

Y'all secretly want the M. All of the weight and none of the thrust. Must have been fun in the ME and India. Don't forget about Rambo showing off his blue light.

The early F-4s could go slower than 140 thanks to being light and BLC. The flaps were tested during the 60s, when they were trying to figure out if there was any use in them for BFM. They found there was none. Hard wing jets would need to stay fast or have a golden hands guy doing slow speed stuff. It's not like they didn't lose like 100 jets due to departures before the slats. The slats helped quite a bit in flying the jet slow, but they didn't take all the edge off the adverse yaw and they certainly didn't change the fact that there was no HOTAS and no advanced BFM modes to help the pilot achieving his goal. Naturally, going fast-fast means you can use the vertical, while Dr. Strangelove in his 60s boomer-jet is tied to being a flat-earther. So while bubba Rhinodriver is using all his limbs to get some tone, get into prarameters and squeeze off a Sidewinder, ole Doug Masters is just listening to 80s hair metal, yanking on that early non-movable sidestick with his boots on the floor, spitting epic one-liners while easily foxxing that salty mustache-model in his sweaty flight suit. Disclaimer: Message may contain traces of nuts, bolts and organic humor.

Also Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Though those are different models of the F-7 and I'm not sure how much action they saw. Sri Lanka maybe some counter insurgency stuff.

Iran and Iraq also had F-7B fighters during their conflicht, though it seems they didn't use them too heavily.

The Wright Flyer also flew just fine without tanking. That's mostly considering contemporary aircraft designs like an F-15. On an equal skill-level, the Viper will still beat the F-4. No matter if fast or slow. At 250KIAS, the F-4 pilot will have half his brain occupied with not departing the jet. The controllability of the F-4 in the groove comes mostly from the blown droops and blown flaps. Bring the flaps up and the non-slatted jet will make you re-consider your statement quickly. A slatted bird will let you get away easier, but it's still no first/second gen MiG-21. Doesn't seem like that was much of a thing when the F-16A came fresh from the factory with lots of high-grade F-4 weapons instructers around to put that hypothesis to the test.

There are no real "contemporaries". The F-13s were used into the 80s, chinese copies even much longer. For many war-timeframes, the 21bis wasn't even around for several years.

The EGAF SPS and SPS-K (local designation of their PFMs) were upgraded to carry R60s, starting at least as early as 1983. This was when JG 1 did their upgrades. The upgrade ended in 1985. ("697, Montur-Start, Überfahrt zu Halifax-Start, Kanal 1" - A. Schulz, p. 189 and 197) JG-2's SPS jets were used in TANGENTE-88 (Tangent 88), a shooting-campaign at Astrachan (Soviet Union) and the wing for the first time shot the R60 missile. 12 SPS and one US two-seater were ferried to Astrachen to participate in the live-firing exercise. ("30 Jahre Starten und Landen" - p.96)

I think they were MiG-21FLs in all cases. Those had the vanilla R11F-300 motor as opposed to the MF with the R13-300. In '65, there was at least one instance of the 104 accelerating away from the IAF F-13s intercepting them. Not sure about the geometry, but the F-13s supposedly had a high q limitation (low altitude, high airspeed) that may or may not have played a role. According to some sources, some of the PAF F-104As had the J79-GE-11 engines retrofitted, which should have been a bit more powerful than the original -3s. Can't dig it up at themoment, though. There aslo were a couple of jordanian airframes, with different Sidewinder-wirings (no underwing 'winders). F-13s were also highly relevant in the Middle East and Europe. Considering the upcoming Kola map, both Finland and the Soviet Union flew the F-13. Finland used the F-13 as a makeshift recce-jet into the 80s. Just like the EGAF.

Never happened. The -104s were either out of gas or never saw the -21s before the merge. Also, the -104s had suffered from an arms-embargo before the war, so few flight-hours because of lacking spares. The "MiG-21s clearly won" is just a fairytale. All that said, the -21 was still the better (easier) dogfighting platform. The Wopen engines were R-11 copies and were worse than the original. China had virtually no experience back then and it took decades to make up for that. But it would fit much better into the interesting timeframes. It could carry four missiles with the Monsun carriers, adding an a$$ton of drag. One could also think about the FL, which is just as relevant in the middle east (and India, lotsa people - just saying). It will be less capable than the PFM, but at least the IAF at some point installed the outboard pylons. I have yet to see a pic of an FL with anything on those outboard pylons in flight. What's on there on the R/H jet?

I don't think the yaw damper plays a significant role there. For several reasons: 1) The aircraft exibits natural directional stability, so sideslips will righten themselves out quickly. Especially with a low aspect ratio swept wing. This would be oscillatory with a dampening coefficient, so additional stabilty (actually dampening) is provided by the YD through yaw-attenuation. 2) Yaw dampers are mostly used to counter dutch roll, which is caused by a high spiral stability in relation to the directional stability. Their authority is limited, otherwise we'd have no adverse yaw issues when using ailerons at higher aoa. That's also why additional ARI is used on some jets in some circumstances. Yaw dampers don't really control sideslip per sé, but rather yaw-rate. Some turn coordination functions may exist, though, depending on the system's architecture. Most of that is by cancelling adverse yaw on the turn-entry. 3) The only trim required in a steady turn is pitch trim, if the turn entry was flown coordinated. If you need anything on top, it's mostly a matter of spiral stability and the associated dihedral effect through bank angle. This would be a pretty sh1tty design though, requiring aileron into the turn, meaning additional drag on the outboard wing (adverse yaw out of the turn). Hence most aircraft have a reasonable, but not excessive spiral stability. It's more for letting go of the stick for a minute and not doing a JFK Jr., rather than crossing the Atlantic stick-free. Think about it another way: If you're using the sideslip technique for crosswind approaches, you'll find yourself crosscontrolling (aileron banking into the wind, opposite rudder to hold the heading). And that's without YDs. In fact, YDs are normally off during the landing, or you'd run into trouble during the flare... ____ The more I'm thinking about it, the more I think the current spiral stability on the F1 is way excessive. I guess its a leftover from the last "asymmetric loads" fix and I'm positive we'll see another iteration. Edit: I did some more testing. The uprighting moment seems to be reasonable, when tested under several sideslip conditions with YD in Anti-Slip, YD and off. There's a defiante connection between a sideslip indicated by the ball and a resulting roll movement. Certainly in qualitative terms. Roll by rudder seems a little slow at slow speeds, though, and you need a good deal of AoA for her to do more than just a lackluster roll. Still won't do much with some alpha on. She'll do a quite nice rudder induced roll, however, at 500 KIAS

The -23MLA has half the engines but about 2/3 the fuel of the F-4E. Internal, that is. I'd expect an F-4E with the 600gal CL tank to be roughly on par with a -23MLA with the 800l tank. That's not accounting for L/D in the hold for the CAP, but just fuel going through the motors. Combined with it's variable wing geometry, the -23MLA should be able to CAP fairly efficiently.

I think the -23 will take most blufor people by surprise. Especially when the loadout is restricted to nothing but Sparrows as big sticks. The F-4 might have a sliver of an edge in WVR when just comparing ITR and STR, but the -23 can blow through the fight at Mach 500, regain energy pretty easily and it has the gas to stick around. BVR will not be a happy place fo an F-4E, when the opfor is flying late Floggers.