Bremspropeller

It's not close enough for me. Don't forget about the F-100D, which I'd want to fly out of the Hoas and Da Nang. Edit: Almost forgot about Phu Cat, the Spad and my two favourite chicks: Sandy and Misty.

I can't see why either module would steal any customers away from the other one. Yes, there's a considerable mission-overlap between the two, but I'd hazard a guess that people who are interested in the experience of that mission will end up owning both aircraft anyway. Those who end up buying just one module are probably not giving a toss about the other aircraft anyhow.

Not sure there were too many bombs tossed at all, after the tensions with the Libyans were eased in the early 90s. Operation Épervier seems to have turned mostly into a show of force by that time. If anybody does have a hint on literature beyond "Libyan Air Wars" and "France in Centrafrique", I'd be listening closely as well.

Literally in the first post of this thread. It's about as "multirole" as a microwave oven.

Those are all good points, but remember I said "upgraded Su-15", as in "the Soviets took some cash and put more modern hardware onto it". I'm thinking of it as a fictional third generation Su-15 (much like the MiG-23MLA and -MLD were to the Flogger family). The J-8 has about 15% more wing-area in the first place, so it should be outperforming the Su-15TM in all categories that count on the wing-department. Interesting piece of info on the LE camber, thanks!

The J-8 and Su-15 are very similar in dimensions and weight and they share the same basic engine - the R-13/ WP-13. The major external difference is the double-delta on the Su-15TM. I'd expect them to be ballpark-comparable in terms of performance.

Can the J8II be used as a believable "upgraded" Su-15 stand-in? HUD and avionics aside. They seem to be fairly close overall.

Thank you!

I've always found it odd that I'm usually running into a gear LIM warning on take-off during the gear retraction, despite lifting off below 200kts and cranking up the gear handle right away. Seems like the gear retraction takes too much time. The cycle should take 3-4'ish seconds. Takes roundabout from 08:05 to 08:08. I've seen other videos where the gear-swing takes much less time than in game, too. 1:50 to 1:54. 3:25 to 3:39. 0:12 to 0:16 (doors are still open at 0:15, when the shot cuts away). Seems like gear deployment (swinging down) takes longer and is more in tune of what is shown in game.

Aren't you supposed to put the throttle into idle between 300 and 600RPM? I'm usually waiting for 400-500, just to be pendantic and hit the center of the band. Never had an engine die after statup, so far.

Part of the appeal of cargo aircraft - for me anyway - is flying them into some dirt airstrip. We'd also need those. That's a good looking aircraft for sure. The reason I came up with the An-26 is mostly because it has seen tons of action and it would be a cold war soviet aircraft of which we undoubtedly need to see more.

A C-5B would knock my socks off. Those TF39s are a sound to behold. Only trouble is, with the current map-sizes, you'll barely reach cruising altitude before you're running out of map-space. If a prop transport is a must, make it a Transall NG and/ or an An-26.

Having fun on LK.

Don't wake those babies up!

The Dora had the lighter ETC 504 rack as standard and the Dora arguably had more range than the Anton - any actual difference is down to whether the 115l aux tank is used for MW50 (Dora) or additional C3 fuel (Anton). The Jumo should have better specific fuel consumption values than the BMW. I think (not 100% sure, though) the 115l tank could be used for either, fuel or MW50 in the Dora. Naturally, using additional fuel won't give you the benefit of the MW50 injection. A clean non-ETC Dora is mosly fiction. Here's hope of them fixing it. Together with the 3d model of the Dora. The myth of Doras flying mostly field-defense missions is another one of those old tales that die hard. There were some of those missions, granted, but the overwhelming majority of missions was in normal front line fighter missions and jabo missions.

It's said in the video and you can see it in the HUD. At times, as the rez of the video blows. The E model, which lacks the HUD, the Doppler nav/attack (incl. CCIP) suite and the additional oomph of the Larzac C20 engines. Anong other features.

Speed doesn't feel like anything as your frame of reference is in rest. You'll only be able to register the rate of change (acceleration) or a perceivable motion vs. another frame of reference, e.g. clouds going by or trees (other fixed objects) on the ground. Hence, your percieved angular motion. This training film (in German) shows the differences in percieved speed (airspeed = iso at 420kts) at different altitudes: 0:50 - 100ft 3:10 - 250ft 5:50 - 500ft 7:30 - 1000ft Yes, we do need an Alpha Jet A!

+1 And let's pretend Spain had a couple of surplus refuelling probes lying around, which they installed onto the pre-plumbed EDAs, so we can double-pretend they'e EQs.

It technically could be installed, as the 115l aux tank could be filled with pretty much anything (Fuel, MW50 or even GM-1), but you'd need a tailored injection system for each of the three substances. GM-1 was a nice idea, but it never really worked perfectly. Mostly because it was too volatile and would gas-out on warm summer days at readiness quite quickly, so figuring out the correct timing was a bit of a chore. It was still better than not having it at all. Having a larger motor with better supercharging and better fuel would have been the better option. Naturally. There's no reason not to implement the Erhöhte Notleistung modification, as it was a relatively easy fix. Also there is no "our A-8". The A-8 was flown from March/ April '44 through to the war's end and surviving aircraft were modified. Hence an A-8 flying around in late '44 would certainly have EN. Just make it a mission-builder option and we're good to go.

It's by design and correct'ish behaviour, as there is no aileron or rudder trim on the 190. Hence you're nearly always out of trim and you'll have to counter with combined rudder and aileron inputs.

Found it. https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=58248&sid=0cbfec249863901432fa6b3a5b7d05c4

You're pulling up with airbrakes out in partial thrust and then yank back the stick, while firewalling the throttle, provoking a massive compressor-stall, from which you never recover. That's what it seems to be to me.

I think Gums also once wrote and linked an article on why the A-10 wasn't a good replacement for the SLUF but rather a good companion. It's got to be somewhere on the net. Was in an old Air Force magazine IIRC.

Das ist RL Data. "Optimum" wohlgemerkt. An der Trall wären es z.B. FL170 bei 210CAS.

Hast du mal probiert, die stärkeren Verbraucher (Radar) auf Standby zu schalten? Ich habe das noch nicht extensiv getestet, aber ich bilde mir ein, dass es einen Unterschied macht. Nicht nur beim Tanken, sondern generell, wenn man langsam ist. Optimum zum Tanken ist FL250 @ 305 CAS / M0.80 für die F1 an der 135MPRS.