Toryu

The proverbial built-in fuel-emergency? It's not a bug - it's a feature! The interesting thing about "AWX"-interceptors (All-Weather) is, that even though they might be able to find their targets by help of GCI or even through their own on-board detection-systems, they might be ill-equipped to actually shoot the other guy down. Imagine a radar-intercept that ends in a 5km-thick stratus-cloud layer and all you have is a peashooter-gun and two (or whatever the number is...) IR-Missiles. Bomber: 1 Interceptor: 0

I don't want to drag this into a discussion way apart from the topic, but I actually like discussing aircraft, so I'll do it anyway: The 104 was designed in the face of the Korean War with the pilots complaining about the F-86's shortcomings in relation to the MiG-15 (mainly climb and altitude-performance). The resulting F-104 was thus a design, that concentratet most on those two issues - as well as on a third one: Speed. It was the first serially produced aircraft that was capable of maintaining Mach 2 in level flight. As Lexx said, he TAC started thinking about heavier Nuke-Fighter-Bombers in the mid-50s and favoured complex, heavy, and expensive designs. This did not, however, influence the 104's developent at first. The F-104A was introduced as a stop-gap measure for the gap, the underperforming F-102 created. The 104A was used during the mid-late 50s to close the gap between the 102 and the definitive interceptor, the 106. It didn't possess the avionical capabilities of either Convair-Delta, but it brought promising performance (and teething-problems) to the fight. When the 106 finally got ready for service, the ADC got rid of it's unloved, simplistic 104As. F-104As had no A-G capability whatsoever (safe for some models that ventually HAD the gun installed), and only flew as an interceptor. It wasn't an interceptor by design, but it was an interceptor by systems-tayloring. TAC had a slightly different thingy going. They needed an aircraft to replace the quickly getting obsolete F-100s. The F-104 was (performance wise) the right choice. It did, however, not bring the neccessary payload-capabilities (it DID have enough range, as opposed to most publicists' opinions). Also getting to be a non-lovechild (lots of teething-problems/ the opposite of the complexity-loving TAC), it was quickly put on a sidetrack. The F-104C was not an interceptor, but a fighter-bomber with impressive WVR A-A capabilitay and somewhat-satisfying A-G capability. Discussing the Zero is a little more confusing. That's because it incorporated different desingn-features of different roles. It was designed to have a good low-speed maneuverability. As such, it was a good "dogfighter". But actually, it's primary design-goal was not focussed on A-A capability. It was designed to achieve the longest possible patrol-time @ CAP-distance from the ship. As such, it combined a low-power engine with a gigantic wing that has a very good efficiency (L/D) ==> good low-speed maneuvering-platfom! The Zero in it's initial form was easily capable of endurances in excess of 12 hours! The Lightning (P-38) in contrast, was designed for maximum speed and climb-performance. It's size and power later enabled it not only to fly huge distances (lots of room for additional fuel-tanks and droptanks, that ere later incorporated), but also carry lots of ordnance. During WW2, the role of the aircraft was not so much determined by it's avionics-fit. Only during the later stages, special missions got special avionics and systems (e.g. radar). Many aircraft that were designed for one purpose, equally fulfilled another because of reserves in structural strength, or general performance-data. An aircraft that can lift off a short carrier-deck very propably can haul lots of ordnance from a much longer shore-runway (as was the case with e.g. the F4U Corsair). There are other similar or at least alike examples of aircraft having their roles changed because of their capabilities - or the lack thereof (e.g. the P-40 that was alsmost exclusively used as fighter-bomber due to it's lack of relative performance).

Dass Spiele verbuggt herauskommen, ist nicht eine Exklusivität von TW, sondern heute offensichtlich der "Standard". Jene armen Irren, die sich "Cliffs of Dover" für teuer' Geld gekauft haben und heute vor einem Scherbenhaufen sitzen, wissen wovon ich spreche. Die wenigsten Neukunden kennen vor dem Kauf eines Spiels die Communityplattformen. Einen Einbruch von Neukunden wird es daher für TW erst einmal nicht geben, wenn die Modder wegfallen. Ob er dann allerdings die Kunden lange genug halten kann, um sein DLC-Zeug unters Volk zu mischen, ist eine andere Frage. Früher oder später muss TK sich so wie so etwas neues einfallen lassen. Es kann also durchaus sein, dass er jetzt versucht, das tote Pferd noch in maximalem Umfang auszunehmen. Solange keine wirkliche Alternative existiert (und das ist mMn nicht der Fall), kann er sich das in gewissem Umfang auch erlauben. Das ist schlecht für die Community, aber welcher Spieleentwickler schert sich heute noch großartig um die Community? Betriebswirtschaftliche Beweggründe sind auch hier das Maß aller Dinge.

Veraltet ja, aber der Aspekt "lite" ist mMn gerade der Grund, warum sich SF so lange gehalten hat. Welcher potentielle Spielekäufer (nicht die-hard Flightsmfan!) will denn heute noch großartig Handbücher lesen? Wie soll man mit einer halbwegs passablen Systemtiefe denn derart viele Flugzeuge umsetzen, wie es derzeit der Fall ist? Wenn ich eine DCS-ähnliche Struktur möchte, muss ich länger auf weniger Flugzeuge warten. Ich bin mir noch immer nicht sicher, ob DCS der angekündigte und aufgehypete Erfolg werden wird. Warum? Weil zu wenig Flugzeuge der gleichen Epoche gleichzeitig verfügbar sind. Eine P-51 und eine MiG-21bis sind eben doch recht wenig für ein Szenario außerhalb von "Krim '89". Wenn jemand eine halbwegs glaubwürdige Simulation einer F-4 (da kommt schon das nächste Problem: Welches Modell? Welcher Mod-Standard?) machen will, braucht er dafür grob geschätzt 1-1,5 Jahre. Ob sich DCS bei diesem Tempo lange halten kann, ist fragwürdig. Da müsste es schon eine Explosion an 3rd-Party Anbietern geben, die sich dann auch noch untereinander gut absprechen bezüglich ihrer Angebote und Entwicklungen. TK mag einen wichtigen Stamm seiner Kundschaft vergrault haben - die Modder. Am Ende ist jeder Modder aber auch "nur" ein zahlender Kunde, der mit seinem Freeware-Angebot die Gewinnmarge von TW schmälern könnte. Er kann es sich leisten, ein paar Modder zu vergraulen, wenn dafür drei mal so viele Neukunden kommen, die u.Ust. nicht einmal vom "freien" Modangebot wissen.

"Umbrella" means "Regenschirm", not "Schirm". "Regenschirm" is related to the french "parapluie", wherein there's already the word "para", as in "parachute". The Germans germanized "parachute" into "Fallschirm" (which is, like "Regenschirm" just a literal translation from the French), whereas the lazy anglophones just kept the word that was already there. French blokes - inventing your language!

Well, actually, it does

The problem with pilot-accounts is that they are highly subjective and not based on factual (physical) information.

A few minor corrections: * I guess this function requires data-link to the GCI-station.

How long did the initial Su-7s last in those regiments? Were they replaced by MiG-21s? What was the Su-7's avionics outfit? What was it's armament? The MiG-21 was not always a fighter. It was put into service as tactical/ front-line interceptor. The soviets didn't have "fighters" in the westerns sense back then. They almost totally focused on the defensive intercept-mission. Only later, when experiences from actaul wars (middle-east) and own considerations (the MiG-21 got behind the edge technology-wise during the late 60s/ early 70s) reflected on the MiG-21's role, the airplne got true, and increasing, A-G capability. That is the post-PFM models. The F-104A is a pure interceptor (for use in ADC, later in the ANG), with no A-G capability whatsoever - except for the gun, which wasn't fitted at first. It also didn't last very long, as it was (right from the start intended) to be replaced by the F-106. The ADC and PVO (the PVO being an own armed-forces branch) were the dedicated homeland-defenders. Then again, there were other "front-line" units, (TAC/ USAFE / PACAF) that employed dual-roles (mostly equipped with F-100s at that time). The "dual-role" F-104C (the plane the 104 was intended to be) came a couple of months after the ADC-version and was put into TAC service.

The basic MiG-21 was an interceptor, not a fighter - albeit for use in the VVS, not in the PVO. Later models got an ever-increasing *true* A-G capability, thus turning it into a light tactical fighter/ recce (21R) / nuclear bomber (21SMT). The Su-7 was also not a fighter, but an attack-aircraft. It's A-A capability is comparable to western light attack-aircraft (though for different reasons). So the auto-pilot was basicly two-stage? First stage engages stability-augmantation and the second stage engages the actual auto-pilot?

Any news on the helvetic Mirages? :)

I guess it would depend on the conditions... A fine approach under adverse conditions, snagging wire #4, would propably get a good grade anyway.

Looks like you're right. Maybe I mixed it up with the Israelis having one slatted F-4E during the YKW.

It's not about just hanging-on a couple of Atolls, but putting in fighter-equipment, which the Su-9 had and the Su-7 didn't. The 9 was basicly a similar iteration as the very early MiG-21, which also had one or two swept-wing prototypes. MiG went for delta-wings on the definitive interceptor, just as did Su. Do you have any surces on the differences between the Su-7 and 9? To me, it looks like they have a lot in common. The MiG-23 was just as much an interceptor as any MiG-"fighter" before or after. It wasn't designed to "mix it" (which doesn't prevent it's pilots from doing so). Neither was the Phantom. In the west, however, fighter-designs improved and got more pilot-friendly (cockpit-layout, view outside, HOTAS, HUD, etc), while the WP-birds still retained their GCI-only menthality.

Source: http://a4skyhawk.org/2e/flt-ops.htm No mention of #4-wire grade-reductions.

Wouldn't that make a Su-9 (albeit with swept wings) out of it? The VVS very seldomly pushed it's fighters to the limits (hence their questionable design-features, or rather the lack thereof). The US propably flew the MiGs to the limits on a more frequent basis than they were within the WP, where the main emphasis was on GCI and intercept-procedures. Dogfighting-capability was not a premier design-goal of the soviet fighters. hence the crappy view/ cockpit-layout, etc.

Testpilots have no big problems flying all kinds of airplanes. Cramped cockpits or different instrument-units don't provide huge problems, as aircraft are flown by the pubished numbers anyway. Depends. It was quite valuable for CAS in South-Vietnam and could provide a quite good sortie-rate due to it's simplicity. When going "north", however, it lacked payload/ range and the vital electronical components to survive.

On high aspect-ratio, straight wings, small changes in AoA lead to comparatively large changes in CL. A slight gust or AoA-change thus could throw-off your approach easily.

The Su is propably a pretty good contender at low altitudes(although it suffers from the same issues as does the MiG-19, mainly longitudinal stability-issues at high AoA). One thing, though: I've had a discussion with MiGBuster about the relative performance of F-4s and F-104s in air-combat some time ago, wherein he put up an important point: Just being the better maneuvering-platform (Starfighter) isn't enough, when you can ONLY bring a gun to the game (we're talking of a self-defense scenario on a strike-mission). Whereas the F-4 could squeeze-off four Sidewinders (plus maybe two ballistic Sparrows) and go home afterwards (no guns in SEA-Rhinos untill 1968), the F-104 would have to get into gun-range, first - using afterburner and thus precious fuel. Now, there have been multiple gun-only kills by F-105s, but that aircraft had been known for it's non-maneuverability. It's doubtful, that MiGs might have stayed in-range, had the strikes been flown by more capable A-A platforms. The F-104 had a good radar-gunsight combo, though, so deflection-shooting at least gives you a limited all-aspect capability. The Su-7 is in a similar situation: Very few hardpoints and (AFAIK), none for A-A missiles. Therefore, the Su would have had counted on guns only, which is a pretty bad thing, concerning it's low-fuel situation. Then, there was no LCOS in the Su-7, so anything else than "dead six"-shooting was a game of luck/ talent. Only about 1-2% of all pilots are natural deflection-shooters. Thus, the Su-7 (though being a good general-performer) would have made a rather poor interceptor. It might have been a good fighter-bomber killer for low altitudes (where the early MiG-21 sucked), but it's limited combat-radius was a spoiler. The long afterburner ignition-time doesn't help either...

That's not a very exact remark, as there are lots of uncertainties: At which speeds/ gross-weight/ altitude did that happen? What was each aircraft's configuration? Did the pilot max-out the plane? The term "outturning" is relative. During the US' evaluation of the MiG-21, there was an F-104C, that spiral-climbed away from the MiG, sustaining 4gs in the process. Everybody knows, that an F-104 normally won't out-turn a MiG-21, but that's what just happened. There's also the trial, where an F-104G (worst T/W of the family) out-scissor-rolled an F-5E (energetically a good MiG-21F-simulator). Relative aircraft-performance isn't static and there are portions, where the "general picture" can be reversed. 90°/s is not a good roll-rate for a fighter. The F-8 should at least have double the rate. Concerning the g-limits: Stress-limits (specially overstress-limits) are also not quite static accross the fleet. Depending on production-quality, some aircraft may have a vastly better ultimate load (can take more Gs) than others of the same lot. Then there's the fatigue-history of the aircraft. There were some incidents of pilots pulling off the wing-assembly on F-8s (sometimes at "just" 6g), because the planes were generally operating in a high-g environment. Then, there was an RF-8 that made it home after doing a frantic 11g break-turn (evading a SAM) - every panel on the outer-wing was boken, but the plane made it back! There was a low-time Luftwaffe F-104G, that lost a wing during a moderate weapons-delivery pullout (pilot K). It turned out, that Lockheed had mis-calculated the fatigue-cycles of the wings (figuring one 4g-pull per flight on average, while in the actual bombing-range-pattern, every CORNER was flown with ~4g!). Then, there was a Luftwaffe F-104G, that took more than 12gs on a low-level pullout and lived to tell the story... Those are just a couple of examples where aircraft under- or overperformed in therms of the amount of g-load taken.

Also, the Mig's engine is very slow to respond on throttle-movements. A J79 takes 4 seconds from flight-idle to military power, while a R-11 may take up to 14 seconds! That's a considerable edge when maneuvering right there! An important issue that might also be of interest is roll-rate: The F-8 is a pretty handy roller, while the F-4 is somewhat slower and the MiG-21 generally is slowest. Roll is not an important performance-figure at first glance, but it allows you to change the direction of your lift-vector quickly and as such it's very welcome for jinking and offensive maneuvering. Concerning the top-speed issue, I'm not completey sold. At high altitudes, the F-8 does have an edge due to it's higher top-speed/ attainable Mach. However: - attaining top-speed takes lots of time, thus if the enemy is not purely subsonic (MiG-17 or early MiG-21 below 15.000ft), you might not have that signifigant effect at hand at any time - fighters are speed-limited (generally below 15-20kft) and the Mach-limit (where the F-8 wins hands-down!) changes into a much more conservative IAS-limit (usually 750KIAS) - cD-curves may differ largely in the transonic region - both planes have fixed air-intakes, so the F-8's acceleration is not going to be very stellar above M1.5 Just looking at the MiG-19's three-side view, one can see that it had severe (longitudinal) stability-issues. Those highly-swept wings cry "pitch-up" pretty loudly. That's another edge for the F-8, along with it's LE-droops. BTW: "aerodynamic center" should be "center of pressure" in my post above...

160mph at the top-end of the speed-sprectrum is actually quite useless, as most dogfights never go supersonic (the turn-rate suffers largely, due to the aft-moving aerodynamic center). Also, going subsonic and pulling Gs, one might overstress the airframe (a couple of F-4s have been lost that way, it's a problem for ANY aircraft). The MiG-19 is sort of controversial. The israelis thought it was the most dangerous of all MiGs, due to it's good subsonic acceleration and pretty good high-speed turn. The US thought it was useless. Then again, there was only a hand-full of MiG-19s in Vietnam. The MiG-21 has a delta-wing, which is always better for instantaneous turns than plain swept wings. Deltas suck at sustained turn, though, due to their increased amount of drag. If you want a good EM-estimation about the different aircraft, pure T/W-consideration isn't gonna give you much. What you need is specific excess power, which is v*(T-D)/W. v is in TAS. Generally, with increased experience on the type, the F-4 was considered the better overall-dogfighter than the F-8, but you had to know how to handle it. The F-8 was much easier to be "good" in.

The early MiG-21s were actually limited by their weak (reversible) hydraulic-system. The control-forces got so high at high speeds, that safe operation at low altitudes (< 15.000ft) required speed-limitations to below 600KIAS. Later, that problem was cured, and the Migs could go all the way to Mmo. Acceleration is a function of excess-power. With bombracks and other stuff dangling from the aircraft, F-4s and F-105s usually had a disadvantage. They also had a disadvantage concerning their pilot-training and tactics. Most F-4 pilots of that time had had their initial ACM-training syllabus on the F-4 (maybe 5-10 hops) and that was thought to be enough to send them overseas. Those pilots had no clue how to handle the aircraft A-A effectively. Only the 8th FW did possess serious A-A capability, and thus they were (almost exclusively) given the task of escort- or CAP missions. I wouldn't call the MiG-21 pilots "experienced", as they mostly engaged under GCI-orders. The MiG-17 pilots propably were better in actual dogfights. The slatted F-4E wasn't used in combat (IIRC, there was only a single, slatted airframe in SEA). But even the unslatted F-4s could hold it's own - the pilot-quality is of much more importance than the airplane's performance. Same is true about the F-8, or any aircraft for that matter.

Yep, that panel looks pretty much like the standard one of SFP1. Pity about that panel (in-game) is that it omits the most important gauge of them all, the APC-gauge! (Automatic Pitch Control) It's labelled "Equvalent Angle Of Attack" ("23"). This is, what a (later) standard Luftwaffe F-104G panel looked like: The APC-gauge sits right at the top-center, next to the VSI. In SFP1, that's where the Compressor Inlet Temperature gauge is placed.

The CF-104 cockpit differs greatly from the F-104G cockpit (the CF's being the better outfit IMHO). The RWR was a rather late addition to the CF fleet, so many cockpit-restaurations might not show it. Get David Bashow's book about the canadian Starfighters. ( http://www.amazon.com/Starfighter-Retrospective-Canadian-Aviation-1961-1986/dp/0919195121 ) HIGHLY recommended.