Bremspropeller

Great! Now I want a transport tank with a shark-skin

Hey guys, the SAAF "Spectre" skin for the CE is missing some texture aspects, like the helmet, etc.

That's a pretty interesting paint-scheme on that tank, btw. I'm inclined to request that one as well

Hey guys, seems like the fuel totalizer wheel doesn't make adjustments (despite set to auto in special options menu) in the BE. Adding a tank will leave the fuel on max internal. Also, jettisoning the tank won't move the wheel. The landing-gear also won't automatically un-guard itself, despite the option activated. The other variants seem to work.

There's no other module that will give you the Harrier vibe, which sits at a very sweet spot with it's PGM capabilities and the VSTOL capabilities while being limited to non-radar shennanigans. "Going in" with the Harrier at night at low level after taking off from an entirely too small boat and tanking is a lot of fun and no other module can offer that. The upcoming F1M will have pretty much Mirage 2000C RDI AG capabilities and somewhat similar AA capabilities (with less performance and a pulse radar, once that is implemented). The F1 won't have self-contained PGMs (all you got is LGBs anyway), but bringing a buddy in a different module sometimes is half the fun anyway. The F-14 and F-4 will also get you very far downrange in terms of fun and capabilities, but you'll also need to bring a buddy - this time occupying the other seat. Jester is okay'ish, but both modules only really shine with a signifigant other... I'm biased towards the F1, but keep in mind it'll offer four aircraft in one package, which no other module so far does.

It's not. It's been repeatedly stated over and agian, that they're currently working on it.

A handful (seven) of test launches were performed at Lechfeld. The project was killed, not least becauseof the re-arrangement of NATO towards flexible response. The only thing to come out of it was the retrofit to the Martin Baker seat for the entire fleet, starting in '69.

Arid means dry and hence a pretty brownish terrain. The Spanish mainland is very dry in summer. The eastern Canarias are very dry throughout the year - the others have a slightly more humid side and a dryer side.

I think Okinawa, up the Ryu-Kyus and onto southern Kyushu could be doable and desirable. Certainly makes more sense than Iwo Jima as a standalone, even though adding Iwo onto the Mariannas map could be feasible.

While the conflict on a broader scheme is interesting, it would be another arid and somewhat sandy map.

Not sure abut that one, when all the DCS video'fluencers are basicly flying the Lightning design-mission: Take off in severe clear wether, with too little fuel to "increase performance", kill a couple of dudes in epic high-angle-off gun-engagements and then crash while trying to land ("...haven't read that page of the book yet..."). The EEL's the perfect jet for those fellas.

So, what about the F-8? Is it still planned and progressing, or has it meanwhile been abandonned?

Weren't there Victors in the air most of the time to support EELs farther out over the North Sea? I mean, it is a compelling AEROPLANE, but the cockpit and it's overall aesthetics are a b-side Monty Python sketch. F.2A out of Gütersloh go brrrr...

Agree 100% Btw, if you can read Dutch (which is sorta "drunk German"), this book is also worth looking into: null

I wasn't, but at some time I became interested in the whole 104 affair and it soon showed that lots of strong opinins on the jet aren't based on proper understanding. That in large part is due to the smear campaigns by the press, wanting to hit back at FJ Strauss who had a news-magazine raided earlier. And because journos like to copy each other instead of actually going for a story. The story should not have been based on the "$h1tty jet", but on the fact that the whole organisation was incapable of technically and logistically supporting it, while other, smaller nations did a much better job. That was in part due to the 10-year post war hiatus of operting any kind of aeroplanes, but that's also a convenient excuse for organisational blunder. Parallels to current events are purely coincidental... For people that are actually interested in the 104G/ CF, get a copy of this book. It does a good job of explaining the strenghts and weaknesses of the 104 in it's recce and strike mission in the RCAF (mostly OPS'ing over Germany) and the general state of mind of 1960s and '70s Starfighter pilots. It helps understanding why so many jets crashed, flying an inherently dangerous mission - all weather low level strike and reconnaissance. I can't recommend this book highly enough - if you can only own one book on the 104, it should be this one. It's been out of print for a long time, but it should surface in the bay every once in a while: null

They decided to buy it for several reasons: - one-size-fits-all "multirole" aircraft, which on paper the 104 did rather well - best performance available at the point of contract-signing out of any aircraft "available" (the F-104G specs were just a paper plane at this time) - customization by Lockheed into the specs that the Euro Air Forces wanted; no hand-me-down USAF (SAC-heavy at this point) aircraft - liberal contracting of local construction of airframes and engines (tech transfer) - INS, NASARR (F-105 radar), IRST - high speed and good range at low level (about 1.5 times the range of an F-4 for a nuke profile) - when the contract was signed, it was assumed that conflicts were going to be nuclear; conventional capability was not considered to be overly important The following F-4 replacements came in: - RF-4E replacing the RF-104G (in GAF service a useless jet without radar) in AG 51 and AG 52 - F-4F replacing 104Gs in JG 71 and JG 74 - F-4F replacing 104Gs in JaboG 36 The F-4s that replaced the 104 in the GAF were F-4Fs without Sparrow capability. The GAF didn't have use for Sparrows due to their limited air defense mission. JaboG 36 was a conventional-only unit, which made sense due to the Phantom's better conventional attack capabilty (which was even limited in the F-4F vs the F-4E). The other conventional-only unit (JaboG 32) wasn't converted to F-4s and later converted to Tornados (like the nuke-Geschwader 104s and the Marineflieger), which came roundabout a decade later.

Have you tried the JULIs yet? As they have the Lima seekers, it might also SEAM. Never tried it TBH.

Hitting the cage button prematurely can actually help locking up a little sooner as you don't have to fly the boresight onto the bogey first. I usually hit the button when the other guy's sitting on top of the HUD glass. ('ish...) Results may vary.

The thumbnail shows the TE flaps out. Not sure where that footage is taken, though.

Gotta be fully swung out, as the TE hi lift devices are out. Ze german shelters were used at 45° sweep IIRC.

The Gina will have somewhat high wing-loading, no LE devices and probably won't have heaters - can't remember if they were announced or not. It's only about 75% the size of a Sabre, though, so sneaking up at low altitude against opponents way above your weight will be a thing. As they were IRL. Most limiting will be the fuel, especially when dunking along at low altitude.

Picture this: - you're flying a left-hand pattern, runway has a 10 knot crosswind component from the left - during your 180° break turn, this wind will start as a crosswind (from the left), becoming a headwind with max intensity 90° into the turn, becoming a crosswind from the right on downwind - your base turn will be the opposite of the break: crosswind from the right, becoming a tailwind, becoming a crosswind from the left, when rolling out on final Here you'll be facing multiple challenges: Correcting the crosswind before the break. Modulationg the break pull (less pull) for correct spacing in downwind. Correcting the (now opposite) crosswind during the downwind part. Correcting for the tailwind during the base turn (steeper angle of bank). If you pull normally through the break (with headwind at the 90° point), you'll end up way too close to the field, making the base turn harder to achieve - especially when the same wind will try to push you accross the centerline, as it's becoming a tailwind through the 90° point during the base turn. If the wind blows opposite (crosswind on the runway coming from the right), you'll have to pull tighter during the break for correct downwind-spacing, but you can ease up your base turn, as you'll now have a headwind, which will less likely blow you through the centerline. Makes sense?

The 1%-thing is a technique, not a procedure. Don't get too hung up on it. For CW correction, you'll have to adjust your pull. You're basicly adjusting your pattern for crosswind all the way round. In the break-turn by adjusting your pull and in the base-turn by adjusting your rate of descend and your angle of bank. The upwind, downwind and final segments will require you to adjust your heading to fly the correct track over the ground. Assuming your're doing two 180° turns.

So on 4 April 44, reps from Fw and BMW meet at AGO in Oschersleben, determining the neccessity of the changes to the airframe for GM1 installation to be implemented after contract assignment. Some minor internal fixture stuff, tank integration, the neccessity of two additional acces doors and a reworked oxygen-bottle setup (similar to the one "on the Ta 152"). They also agree on getting the required and missing data by 6 April 44 and they agree on getting notice by AGO about the go-ahead on serial production on 8 April 44. Incidentally, on 8 April 44, there's three losses of A-8s, which mark the first known losses (acc Rodeike): 2./JG 1 - WNr. 170 044 - Ofw Anton-Rudolf Pfiffer takes the chute near Salzwedel, which by chance is only 100km from Oschersleben where AGO is about to decide whether to go ahead (or not) with GM1 system implementation into their A-8 production 1./JG 11 - WNr. 170 034 - Uffz. Herbert Nast KIA above Lüneburger Heide (a bit farther north than Salzwedel) 2./JG26 - WNr. 170 009 - Lt. Karl-Heinz Willius KIA near Kamperzeedijk (sounds dutch to me) That's three Cottbus-built A-8s with access panels ("...those were in all A-8s...") that supposedly were only determined to be neccessary four days prior. Fiction. No, you claimed the R4 designation ceased with the re-naming to A-9 by the end of November iaw Baubeschreibung 284. Then you show a source about exactly that supposed R4 designation (A-8 with swapped TS motors), which allegedly started "into service" in December 44 - after the "renaming to A-9" in those circumstances was decided. ======================================== What we've established so far: - no GM1 use in operations on 190A aircraft (or F/G for that matter) - AGO was to build 200 airframes with full up GM1 equipment with the "Rüstsatz 4" designation (Fw 190A-8/R4), starting in April 44 - this never materialized for reasons not quite clear so far* - supposedly there were eleven R4 aircraft in 10./JG 11 by the end of 1944 which came out of several production lots from AGO WNrs, built beween August and October 1944 - Erhöhte Notleistung was introduced in July 44 on D motors, TU motors were built into new aircraft in June 44 with the same rating, TU motors slightly heavier - D and TU motors are interchangeable, TU motors had provisions (injector nozzles) for GM1 but lacked the piping and tank - the 115l tank behind the pilot was standard and could be removed and exchanged for a 140l MW50 tank (115l ws also possible) or a 85l GM1 tank, this never happend in operations - A-9 aircraft were earmarked for TS engines after the delay of the TH motors with production starting in "fall 1944" (Focke-Wulf Entwicklungsmitteilung 3 August 1944), TS engines can be installed on A-8s (e.g. in depot maintenance) - TS engines into production airframes in September 44 at Cottbus (possibly with Mimetall Erfurt in August, but unlikely) - Baubeschreibung 284 dated late November 44 mentions that production aircraft with TS motors are named A-9 (which was already clear in August), it does not state aircraft are to be renamed A-9 after the swap from a D or TU motor to a TS motor. - the R4 designation for TS engines in the 190A-8 cannot be proven (or disproven for that matter) - the existence of those "R4" aircraft could match with R4s (eleven!) at 10./JG 11, incidentally built by AGO...or not *Most likely the bombing attacks onto the factory from 11 April 44 which caused severe damage and other, following attacks in late May and in June were the reason why AGO wouldn't go ahead.