Bremspropeller

Not only do the manuals not suggest it was a thing. There's also a complete lack of anecdotal evidence of what would have been a serious operational constraint. I don't buy the glass bearing story.

That makes the missle even cooler, thanks Ivan! I guess the M2 has a similar scan pattern? The Super really is super-solid. The only way to defeat it right now is kinetically, like turning cold immediately when launched upon. Don't just squeeze it off when you're getting the green dot, but wait a couple of seconds. Threat permitting. I wonder if that will still be the case with the improved radar modelling.

Chads fly Alpha Jets.

AIM-9B/J - rear aspect heaters => Seeker needs to be uncaged. AIM-9JULI - Juliet with a Lima seeker (all aspect) => Seeker needs to be uncaged. R550 Magic 1 - rear aspect heater => Seeker magically uncages itself. Eats flares like I eat éclairs. R550 Magic 2 - all aspect heater (best heater for the F1) => Seeker magically uncages itself. R530 IR - BFM* rear aspect (and limited 3-9 line capability) heater => Can only be carried on C/L station or inboard wing-stations. Use the C/L station. R530EM - BFM* all aspect Fox 1 (acts like a pitbull on a playground in a furball) => Can only be carried on C/L station or inboard wing-stations. Use the C/L station. S530F - one Fox 1 to own them all => If Jesus had a missile. That's about it. Unless Aerges decides in the future to implement the V3B or C and Python 3/ V3S missile carried by Equador and South Africa. ____ * Big Fat Momma

Hey @peyvolt thanks for your quick answer! There's got to be something off, though - I just made those in the mission editor. Note how the chute-housing doesn't reach the aft nozzle-shroud, while on the actual jet, it should reach about a third to halfway into that O-shround. I made those screencaptures in plane of the nozzle-exhaust, so it should be dimensionally true. Note the position and length of the air-intakes for the afterburner cooling-air. CE EE JA BE Now let's check the actual aircraft: Maybe two similar shots next to each other best illustrate it - note aircraft No 54 has no afterburner cooling scoops, as it appears: The horizontal stabs seem to be a little too large (too much chord), too. Also, the vertical tail's trailing-edge might have too much of a sweep-angle, which sets the tail-base's aft end relatively too far forward. That would explain why the dimensions are correct, yet the issue exists. Thanks for your continuous work on the models! Looking forward to flying the F1BE soon

The engine/ nozzle portion is too long, which to me is the most striking inaccuracy. The air-scoops might be a little too far fwd and they're too short. @Loukuins will have a more comprehensive list of areas for improvement. No, it's not the different angle of the pictures. There actually is some wrong proportion in the rear part of the model.

The Herc will have to battle icing to a different degree than fast jets.

A Buccaneer or a JAAAAAAAG.

Any of them, starting with the Fox.

Nah, hopefully he'd be called Pablo. Pablo fears extradicition the most.

And maybe the 21FL, which was the first version with the big tail, but still without SPS and a fixed gun (GP9 gunpod-capable, though). The FL also (later on) got the additional outboard wing-stations. null null

What's your verdict then?

All resistance is futile. We're all addicts. Realization of our problems is the first step onto the path towards healing... So when are we going to take the 101 for a spin? And when are you going to get the L-39?

Which one did you get?

There is ignition delay, but it's certainly not shown in the manner you're describing. It would be cool if we could have that sequence work in game.

That's a possibility, but I think you're right in that they've just realized in time how dumb their plan was. On the flight into Santiago they'll tell you to sit down and strap in quite early, due to unexpected turbulence happening all the time - a no brainer, given the terrain. Sitting in a C-130 going over the Andes in $hitty weather doesn't really rank too highly on my bucket list. The minimum safe altitude in the region is quite high and might have an impact on performance. Superficially related: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 A nice idea for a MP mission/ server, nonetheless.

Having been to Santiago earlier this year, I'm wondering how the Argentinians planned to make it into the Santiago basin. The mountain-range just east of the city rises steeply to a height on average above 3000m MSL, with Cerro el Plomo reaching almost 5500m MSL. Valpariso is a 2h bus ride from Santiago, over another, lower mountain range with few passageways, so it's ideal ambush-country. Call me a pessimist, but I think the probability of success would have been less than their Malvinas/ Falklands adventure.

I decided to go and search for the airfield, taking off from O'Higgins. Field's a bit short, so the key lies in a good approach. Let's put the rubber onto the first few feet of the strip. Landing was short'ish but not too critical. Let's see if we can squeeze her out again! Single seat, 2600lbs of fuel. Well, I basicly rotated her into the pedal-shaker at 100KIAS and she leapt into the air, just making the opposite river-bank by a couple of feet. I guess retracting the gear right away did help. Back to O'Higgins. It's a nice little airfield and it will be cool for C-130 ops. Hopefully RAZBAM can extend the F10 map/MP to include the airfield, so it can be used by mission-builders!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achille_Lauro_hijacking Scroll down to where the Egypt Air part starts.

Or intercepting F-14s at night, trying to hijack an aircraft during an international affair and telling them to go eff themselves.

Check the loss-rates of indian MiG-21s then. Loss rates say absolutely nothing without consideration of the circumstances. The RAN lost 50% of their Skyhawks, the SAAF lost 50% of their Buccaneers.

null

Thanks forth quick answer! Could you give a short explanation how the modulation does work?

That's a great question about a topic I've been wondering about a lot, too. The engine schematics and description say there's three burner-rings, but they're all fed through a common fuel-manifold. There's a second ring (?) upstream, fed by a different manifold, but I haven't seen a description of what it does and how it works. It's provided by the same pressure regulator, through. Normally, multiple rings indicate multiple burner stages, but it seems they're all fed by a common manifold, so they'd be coming on/off simultaneously. Maybe the fuel is metered altogether instead of adding or isolating rings.