Bremspropeller

2025 has broken. Any news on the Crusader?

I can confirm it does turn a bit sharp, but it will turn smoother when you're close and after pre-contact is called. Granted, it's not ideal for getting to learn refuelling...

Have you tried talking to the tanker? Usually they'll stop their rollercoasting once you check in.

I'm assuming the devil to always be possessive

I hope ole Teufelsberg station is going to be a thing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teufelsberg I'm hoping for ED to open the Germany Map subsection soon, so maybe we can gather some info on special buildings for the larger cities.

Okay, this explains the 747 at THF on that day (it's in frame at 10:52): Mr. Gorbachev, tare down this wall!

27L was only about 1800m long with little to no overrun. Going long could have you plow through trees, across railway tracks and into Tempelhof S-Bahn Station.

Maybe to clarify for some: No NATO assets based there. There'd still be traffic through the corridors - including large transports: https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/Lockheed-C-5A-Galaxy-L-500/1328423/L https://www.airliners.net/photo/USA-Air-Force/Lockheed-C-5A-Galaxy-L-500/1326439/L Muste have been quite the music for those people living here: https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/-/677189/L https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/-/477033/L Room with a view: BTW: The Pan Am 747 in the trailer wasn't quite as misplaced as some might think: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Pan-American-World-Airways-Pan-Am/Boeing-747-121/1334169/L https://www.airliners.net/photo/Pan-American-World-Airways-Pan-Am/Boeing-747-121/1230780/L This was most probably a special charter. Pan Am's 747s, however, also were taking part in the CRAF programme. CRAF was the Civil Reserve Air Fleet, which consisted of commercial airliners being used for military transportation in case of conflict - Pan Am had many of their 747s modified with a strengthened cabin floor and an additional cargo door on the rear main deck, similar to the door on the 747F: https://www.panam.org/global-era/airlift-paa-the-craf N741PA wasn't a CRAF modified airframe, though.

The 104G IIRC was the first INS application with all the associated troubles with new tech. The Mirage III and 5 never carried INS until the later upgrades. The IIIE (and derivatives) out of the factory carried doppler sets. Earliest application of an INS in a Mirage seems to be the Mirage IIIRS upgrade in 1967 with the LN-33, which is the next gen INS to the LN-3 in the 104G. IIRC, the Canadians also upgraded their LN-3 equipped CFs to the LN-33 later.

When the F-104G was procured, the contemporary A-4 was the A-4A and B. Neither had a radar, doppler or any kind of night or bad weather capability. Neither had they any impressive bomb capability, which only came up because some Marines remembered their job and found a way to put more bombs on the aircraft* - before that, you had the choice (conventional) between one bomb and two tanks or two bombs and one tank. A-4C (with a radar) deliveries started in 1960, which was basicly in parallel to the 104G. A-4E (dopper nav set, J52 motor, five hardpoints) deliveries started in 1963. The 104G came out of the box with a radar (AA and AG modes), an IR sight, INS nav (a premiere in fast jets) and at the time unparalleled capabilities for such a small sized airframe. Plus Lockheed agreed to a sizeable amount of tech transfer, which was an important part of the decision for the 104. *MERs were a development that in turn rooted in the work of a Marine Coprs officer at VX-5 at China Lake and it found it's way into Douglas in 1960 F-105s CAN carry 16 750lb bombs, but they never would in an actual war. This is indicative of what a wartime loadout looked like: That's six 750lb bombs, two tanks and probs a tank in the bomb bay. Add Sidewinders or electronic warfare gear onto the outboard stations for flavor in the later years. The jet in this configuration would often take off with minimal gas and then tank up in the air because it would just eat up all the runway in hot/humid SEA. The 104C would carry two bombs (no dual rack capability then), the 104G would carry four 500lb bombs. That's 67% of the 105 real world bombload in a much smaller, much more versatile aircraft. The A-6 is a vastly larger airplane with two engines, two crew, lots of digital gear that wouldn't work and it was purpose-built for the job. It can't intercept a high and fast soviet bomber 250 miles from the airfield, which the 104 can. I don't have the data for the bombloads aorund right now, since my 104G manual is a very early one, and I can't be arsed into looking any deeper into it for as it's gonna be spun around anyway, so let's just take the four tank configuration + centerline store as a proxy: Here's three RNLAF F-104G and a TF struggling to maintain altitude with four tanks (and a camara pod): http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wK8273.htm A RBAF jet with four tanks and a centerline store just doing fine at altude: http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wFX96.htm My F-104A/B/C/D (dated 1968) manual has a nice max achievable air miles graph, including step climbs in the "heavy" configuration. I may find some time and look up the initial altutude capabiliy at heavy loads, to put some actual numbers onto it.

That one didn't come through as it seems.

Me neither.

If the Fast Packs were on the jets, as they were on the 57th aircraft for about a decade each, they'd be accounted for in TO-1-1B-50 as well. The document continues to say exactly nothing. You're probably correct about that. I've been able to disprove my own "nose to tail batch off the factory" hypothesis by the mere fact that the FY80 jets would have been delivered before 1984. There's also pictoral evidence of one jet having a prior career without the CFTs.

Well, it's not me being wrong 100% of the time and shifting goalposts to make a false narrative fit. I guess it's up to you to - start being responsive to arguments by people who know more about this subject than you, - stop the personal attacks, - provide actual beneficial content to the discussion. If you can't, well, "ignore list" it is for you. The 104 could carry about half as much as the F-100D (not counting MER, TER or double racks which weren't designed for the 104 yet), but itcould reach the CAS area quicker and hence had a shorter response time, which is a quality in itself. I suggest you take the time and read Sharkbait Delashaw's thoughts on the 104 in SEA, which was linked some time before. I also suggest to read a couple of other testimonies of pilots who have experience in the 104 vs F-4 to give you a better idea of what the strengths and weaknesses of either airplane were. The 104 was mainly bought to drop a nuke onto the Soviet Union from airbases in central Europe, which itcould perform well and better than most other jets in the early-mid 60s. It had about a 50% greater mission radius than the F-4 in that role. When the decision was made to procure the 104G for the WGAF, the F-4 was still a paper aircraft.

Here's F-104s in Vietnam (Da Nang) in 1965. Note that they don't carry bombs. http://www.916-starfighter.de/Large/Stars/wU892A.htm

That's a CF, but it's not really making any difference. Should be enough to prove the jet can only carry either - bombs or tanks. Here's proof it can't carry comparable missiles to the Viggen. It also can't carry missiles and tanks at the same time.

We seem to have diverging ideas of what "standard" and "normal" is. For me, "standard" is any cleared loadout and configuration. "Normal" is a loadout/ configuration that was flown on a regular basis. In terms of the 57th FIS it was both, standard and normal. For any different jet, it was a standard configuration. The USAF with no doubt had been quite proficient at refuelling jets between the mid 1980s and mid 90s and nonetheless decided to put the CFTs on the 57th jets. Out of wisdom or ignorance - we'll never know, but it seemed to be a good idea to somebody at TAC/ ACC. 1) CFTs aren't even mentioned for Strike Eagles. That's because they aren't "tanks" or "loadout". The document says exactly nothing in terms of our discussion. 2) Got an ACC document from pre '95? Disagree. Some more shots of the few with 57FIS (80-): 0027 in 1995 0029 in 1992 0029 and 81-0047 in 1993 0029 and 0035 in 1994 0038 in 1992 0041 in 1987 0042 in 1991 0043 and 0047 in 1990 0046 in 1993 0049 plus others in 1990 0050 in 1987 0050 in 1991 0052 in 1992 0057 (D model) in 1985 '86 '93

I don't think so, but that's an interesting question. Maybe a couple of transports on detachment. But not in the sense of their own tailcode (USAFE).

Trouble is, if you cut out everything west of Bremen, you'll cut out lots of major airfields. WGAF: - Wittmund - Jever - Hopsten - Nörvenich - CGN (Köln-Wahn) - Büchel (depending on how your outgrowth suggestion works) - Pferdsfeld (similar) - Bremgarten (similar) RAFG: - Wildenrath - Laarbruch - Brüggen - Geilenkirchen (ceased fast jet ops in the 60s, but was still "there", handed over to the WGAF) USAFE (depending on outgrowth): - Hahn - Bitburg - Spangdahlem - Sembach - Ramstein - Zweibrücken RCAF (...outgrowth): - Lahr - Baden-Soellingen AdlA: - Colmar - Strasbourg You can see, the suggestion basicly cuts out at least 50% (rather more) of the NATO fast jet bases, which kind of defeats it's purpose. And that's not counting RNLAF and RBAF airfields. RBAF Kleine Brogel IMHO at least should be in the scope. RNLAF Twente , Leeuwarden and Volkel also should be in the scope.

What are we trying to prove here? First, the request for CFTs/ FAST Packs is brought forward. Then somebody claims it wasn't an option for the light grey Eagles and the person is proven wrong. Then there's the argument that just "a hand full" of KEF based jets used it. That argument is proven wrong two-fold: It was the entire squadron over a significant timeframe and there's pictural evidence of more jets on the ground (FF and ZZ) and jets in the air. Two AK jets being airbore, the FF jet standing on the line and the ZZ jet in a configuration that suggests a ground-display showing the jet's overall capability. Note, there's also a Mk80 on the wing pylon. Then there's the argument it was a weird test config or taylor-made for the IS jets, which is wrong as well as evidenced by the other jets and the IDF jets flying the config. How about acknowledging it's a standard and normal configuration dictated by mission-requirements which are seldomly on the table. As such, it should be in the scope for the F-15C in the game. Just like the general AG capability.

That would be a somewhat reasonable explanation, but it doesn't add up comparing the tailnumbers. All of the KEF jets I've consciously seen have 80-0XX numbers on them which indicates they're pretty much a nose to tail batch of airframes right out of St Louis. The Langley jet is an 82 fiscal year (82-018) aircraft. One of the Elmendorf jets might be a 79-xxx (picture isn't clear enough) jet. It's hard to tell on the Kadena bird unless there's a higher resolution version of that photo around.

Exactly. There is no such limitation for ED to present us with the whole capability of the airplane, though. Which it had in the first place but the USAF didn't elect to use it. In an actual Cold War scenario, day three will have you scratch together all the assets you have and using them for whatever they're good for. There'll be no artificial political games anymore when tanks are crossing the Rhine River into the wrong direction.

Please define "regular" and "standard". Our mileages may vary here. The lengths some people are going to rationalize not adding optional features never ceases to amaze me. There's literally nothing the addition of FAST Packs will take away from you. For the time being, assume people want to fly those exact jets out of Keflavik. Or Kadena. Or Elmendorf. Or Langley.

That area was re-strucured with the Fernsehturm project, which touched the entire place. In 68, there were no houses around Neptunbrunnen, but some old houses were still in the area, which were razed during the project: https://www.luftbildsuche.de/info/luftbilder/rohbau-berliner-fernsehturm-alexanderplatz-berlin-mitte-222901.html As Erichs Lampenladen (Palast der Republik, finished 1976) is in place, this helps us to narrow down the fimeframe to between 1976 and 1990 - nonwithstanding other architetural clues there might be. Kind of hoping for the Schwangere Auster and L'Habitation, Olympiastadion and other things to virtually visit in Berlin ^^

That's also the reason why a proper Cold War Viper would be a cool addition.