Bremspropeller

The Gator is rad! https://www.smithsonianmag.com/air-space-magazine/11_on2015-f8-crusader-at-60-180956611/ Some flying stories do scare the sh1t out of you.

Great info, thanks! Interesting design-choice to isolate the aux blower at sea level. Was that design-choice driven by the requirement of providing all the power the R2800 could squeeze out (hence no SC losses by dragging along the unnecessary aux stage), or was it just a bored-out engineer trying to shove another lever into the Corsair cockpit?

Thanks for the correction. Mike Williams' site quotes a lot of tests that concern high and low blower settings, yet there's clearly three speeds on the charts. So which one is hig and low? And is there a "neutral" blower, which I seem to rember from somewhere, yet I can't attach it to any airplane right now.

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/sluf-vs-fresco-unarmed-7-able-fend-off-mig-17-skies-north-vietnam/ The later jets with maneuvering-flaps supposedly weren't half bad in terms of turning and high AoA (which was dicey in the earlier A-7s due to their departure-chraracteristics). They'd just not have enough thrust to be a credible threat.

As an addendum: The target-box/square won't show when locked onto somebody with the radar in "standby". The rest of the symbology will, though. Haven't tried to shoot, as I was not in the mood of getting kicked from the server

Never seen an A-7 with a wall-to-wall bomb loadout in theater. The entire point of the A-7D/E was to do more with less, so instead of dopping a huge stick of bombs, they'd deliver less bombs with a tighter CEP. Most A-7A-E missions off Yankee Station didn't use any bags at all. A-7Ds out of Thailand IIRC usually carried two bags. FWIW: The aircraft will probably have the maneuvering flaps mod, so it should be okay'ish in AA unless you're expecting to win against the teen fighters most of the time.

Awesome, thanks Panny! Just one minor thing I found (in the Sights section): 1Nautical Mile ~ 18 Hectometers (16 would be a Statute Mile)

Würde ich sofort kaufen, aber ist schon mehrmals von Razbam mit entschiedenem "nein" beantwortet worden. Dito 2000-5.

Aerges said they'd change things in the controls-behaviour with the next update. We'll just about have to wait and see.

Du hast "Autismus" falsch geschrieben

I must admit, flawless logic is strong with this one!

Nah. February 31st. Be sure!

I can't really wrap my head around it, other than the Lightning climbing at an airspeed/ Mach that seems slow'ish at first glance. That may be a procedural thing, getting the nose up sooner and getting away from people/ airspace quicker. Not sure, though. I'm usually assuming 600KIAS and M0.9 when I don't have any numbers. What's curious is the following (start of T/O-run to reaching climb-speed, see figure A3-1 below): The Lightning will reach it's climb speed ~15s sooner (.75min vs 1min), in almost half the distance (2nm vs 5nm) and using ~150lbs less fuel. And that seems to not even include the startup and taxi-fuel, whichapparently is included in that figure. The Phantom's initial climb speed is about 586 (?) KIAS, which explains the different figures (450:586 is roundabout 0.75:1, just assuming linear acceleration for a second). It backs up the question why the Lightning would climb so much slower, though. Fig. A3-1 https://imgur.com/a/DMKcjDF

I'm not sure if there's a bit too much mystique going on about using rudder in the F-4. First, you'd better use coordinated rudder at high AoA in any aircraft. My intro to spinning was in fact in a Bocian glider, using outside aileron in a slow turn. The result was a very gentlemanly rolling departure, but it kind of underlines the non-speciality of the issue here. And second, there are other aircraft in DCS, where using rudder is at least beneficial, if not mandatory at higher incidences. The F1 is one of them. I think if people have been flying those CW jets before, they'll globally be alright. If you're coming from the Horpner, though, and last time you touched the rudder was lining up on the runway....

The 23 is still somewhat of a black box to me, as there's very conflicting (anecdotal) data onhow it handles. Did the wing-swep g-restrictions still apply to the later MLx models? Was the StabAug System improved to actually not try and kill the pilot? What I do know is that the -23 (and certainly all the MLx variants) will go vertical like knife in a guillotine. Times minus one.

My favoutite story is about Tom Delashaw barrel-rolling around a U-2 (supersonic, of course!) and nearly tearing off it's wings. That was with a -3 or -7 motor and a different squadron, though. IIRC. I also like Ed Rasimus reconciling his time flying F-4Cs out of Torrejon, engaging a spanish Mirage III at high altitude and the little Mirage literally running circles around him. We need more CW aircraft.

Cunningham and Driscoll benefited from their BFM training, which the MiG pilots mostly did not. It's evident that skilled MiG pilots (those existed) with enough training (many less existed) and capable equipment* (even less) could and would provide serious trouble for an evenly skilled/ trained/ equipped F-4 crew. That's basicly what Have Doughnut and the follow on projects showed. It's not that a skilled and tactically savvy F-4 crew couldn't cash in on an unexperienced opponent. But that's also forgetting that an actual war isn't fought 1v1 allthe time and that the enemy has a working set of brains, too. The more capable fighter will eventually come out on top, all else being equal. That's just a matter of rolling the dice often enough. The F-4 will be able to exploit tactical blunders by Vipers and Hornets (or any other opponent), but that's for the most part just hanging on. It's going to be quite competitive against contemporaries, but I wouldn't expect to easily walk all over MiG-21s either, as there are some pretty savvy Fishbed-drivers out there, that will be able to negate the F-4's strengths. I'm fairly sure you know all of this, but I'm trying to kind of manage expectations of the casual reader/ player here. BTW: Love that tiger-noseart! ____ * It's mostly being said that the IDF won against the arab air forces because of better training. That's both true and false, as arab air forces not only were trained by the Soviets (bad), but they also had a good deal of RAF heritage (good) to draw from. What couldn't be helped was the mostly blowing soviet hardware.The R-3S was a very sh1tty missile that was very hard to employ effectively on a MiG-21 in a dogfight.

Got any more of them superlatives? If the F-4 was a "monster in the vertical" - what was an EE Lightning or the Dash-19 motor 104A then? lol You do realize that both the HAF and RoCAF M2ks are regularily winning against their neighbouring Viper-drivers? F-4E against the RDI M2k will blow in both BVR and WVR. Like really bad. From what I've heard, the F1 wasn't half bad against the F-4.

Am Ende liegt das Bottleneck darin, dass die Spanier nicht allzu viel fancy stuff in ihre Flugzeuge einbauen haben lassen. Momentan hat man sich noch nicht festgelegt, ob man den jetzt angekündigten Flugzeugen noch weitere folgen lassen will. In Frankreich steht eine EQ6, die seinerzeit nicht mehr an den Irak ausgeliefert wurde - das wäre ein ziemlich cremiger Flieger. Da ist dannalles dabei, was du dir wünschen würdest: Doppelte Exocet, AS-30L, 'Patrick' Laser-Pod, Kh-29 (!), Buddy AAR Pod (kann auch sein, dass der nur bei der EQ4 oder EQ5 integriert war), moderner HUD, etc. Die EQ6 ist bis jetzt noch nicht vehement ausgeschlossen worden. Ich denke Interesse bestünde bei Aerges - fragt sich nur, ob man alle Unterlagen zusammen bekäme. Ansonsten ist das Flugzeug sehr spaßig zu fliegen. Ist mit Trockenschub sehr schnell, auch wenn sich Zuladung und hohe Temperatur schnell negativ bemerkbar machen. Ist eben was Anderes als was es sonst gibt. DankDurandals kannst du Startbahnen platt machen. LGBs gibts in allen Varianten. Nur halt keinen Pod zum selber lasern. Aber dafür gibts schon genug andere Module. Die S530F sollte dann auch das BVR-Niveau nochmal sehr deutlich anheben. Rechtsklick - kaufen. Den Rest machen wir über Discord

Eher nicht. Wobei ich mir sicher bin, dass es hier und da auch autobiographische Werke deutscher Autoren gibt. Gibts bei den Fixed Wing Vettern von der LW und Marine ja auch. Ob das dann nun literarische Orgasmen sind, weiß ich nicht. In jedem Fall wird man nicht dümmer. Vorteil bei fremdsprachigen Büchern: Man kann nebenbei seinen Wortschatz und das Sprachgefühl ein bisschen auffrischen und der Sprache auf diesem Wege etwas "spielerischer" Herr werden. Ist also kein Verlust, auch wenn der Anfang etwas holprig sein mag.

Strohmann 1 Aber unter uns zwei Pastorentöchtern: Ist eine GBU-38 denn jetzt schon eine "Gleitbombe"? Strohmann 2 Wenn sie - wie eine Strike Eagle in Desert Storm - mit ihrer LGB einen hovernden Hip abschießt, dann würde ich sagen: Ja. Der Weg in den Lachkeller scheint lang und beschwehrlich zu sein...

Ich denke die Bezeichnung kommt von irgendeinem Schreibtischtäter. Eine "Missile" ist seit jeher im englischen Sprachgebrauch ein Projektil oder Geschoss. Und nein, letzteres wird nicht zwangsweise "verschossen" - auch nicht im deutschen Sprachgebrauch. Es sei denn, der Amboss auf der Hutablage wird bei einem Frontalaufprall von irgendwas "verschossen" um zum sprichwörtlichen Geschoss zu werden. Es reicht also die Trägheit der Masse. Ein Bisschen wie bei der Walleye. Es ist eine Missile, weil die Unterscheidung Bombe / Gleitbombe / Flugkörper, so wie du sie augenscheinlich gerne vertreten möchtest, reichlich arbitär und gekünstelt ist. Ab welchem L/D ist eine Bombe denn eine Gleitbome? Und warum gerade da? Ab wann ist ein Flugkörper (braucht nicht zwangsweise einen Antrieb) eine Lenkrakete? Und natürlich ist es eine Missile, weil es schließlch schon im Namen steht. Auch wenn ich mir die Frage eigentlich selbst beantworten kann: Das Malbuch in Schwarz-Weiß, oder in Farbe?

Man sollte nicht nach dem ersten Halbsatz aufhören zu lesen. Oder Fußnoten ignorieren. Oder Fragen mit einer Frage beantworten. Doch, erste Antwort - ganz oben. Rechtsklick - Leseverständnis. Malbuch?