Toryu

There are also third-party A-6s for DL on the SF1 section and on C5. Some do have a pit, so no need for fiddling with the CAT-files.

Germany used to have NCO Pilots up into the 70s. The programme was, however, discontinued. During the war (WW2), there even used to be pilots with Private-ranks. When the Starfighter-Crisis hit, the NCOs were slowly phased out with the ending of their regular careers as one result. This was due to Germany's three-branched educational system, as NCOs usually had come out of a lower educational grade (2nd branch as opposed to the officers' 1st branch).

They hear of a crash and forget about it two days later. It's not the 1970s anmore, when people would get sweaty palms, when hearing the words "DC-10" (and even then, this was not a major issue). The Superjet is also not just a "russian" airliner - it is composed of numerous sub-contractors' work form the West. The cockpit is made by Thales (that's why it looks like an Airbus-rip off at first, second and third glance). The FBW is from Liebherr and the engines are made by a colaboration of SNECMA (the guys that build CFM56 engines together with GE) and Saturn (a russian company). This airplane is not your father's russian airliner. I will agree that airliners that aren't built by western companies have a somewhat rougher start than designs by well-established companies. But history has shown that new competitors can self-establish themselves quite quickly.

Why? There could be about a million reasons for an airliner to crash. CFIT being one of the more propable ones.

More like Original: Copy:

They sell kits. The aircraft seen in the video is restored with the help of these kits.

This aircraft flies with the chinese Ash-82 copy. There's currently only one Fw 190 flying with the original BMW 801 engine, which is the Flying Heritage Collection's Fw 190A-5.

I'll try it anyway. Thanks Ludo

There already is (has been?) a Mirage IIIC-Mod (done by Ludo as well ). That's why I'm asking. Looks like the IIIC and IIICJ share the same LOD (and therefore mapping ?!?).

Well, I wouldn't be me if I didn't ask: Is there any reason why this pack won't work with the free Mirage IIIC?

Storm, I remember you posting a screenie with this Bravo carrying three Zuni-pods on the center-line store. How'd you do that?

BTW: The photo-section of the NFWS on the Skyhawk-Assn's website does back-up Fringe's information. Right up to 1977, the slats on most pictures are wired shut, afterwards they're re-activated http://a4skyhawk.org/3e/nfws/nfws.htm

Fringe, do you have the AoA over Mach graphs for the P408 engines as well?

Ze good old Me 263

I actually do have a NATOPS of the E/F/G (although only for the -6 and -8 engines) here :) Just made a quick and dirty-search for performance-related stuff yesterday night. I'll have to re-read that again, though :D I haven't found anything about different departure-tendencies or pitchup tendencies, though. I have read some pilot-input and other then Pax-River evaluations, they're pretty conclusive on the roll-onset being pretty much controlable, gradual and noticeable in advance. NATOPS states, that at 5 KIAS above stallspeed (or was is 5 units AOA below stall? It really was late last night :D ), you'd need full aileron to counter the roll...

Is the Foxtrott-template different to the Echo? Haven't skinned much in SF yet - in IL-2, differences between subversions were usually pretty minor on the templates.

Dito Gepard. Die Mehrzahl der dt. Bevölkerung sieht das meiner Erfahrung nach auch wie Grass. Nur unsere Medienlandschaft scheint eine andere Wahrnehmung zu haben... Ich erinner an Klaus Cleber, der für sein Achmadineschad-Interview derbe Schelte einstecken musste :Facepalm:

Fringe, do you have more info on the performance-differences between bolted and unbolted slats? Looks like the the bolted-shut modification came along with the Blue Angels modification. With the BAs, there certainly was little fancy for an asymmetrical slat-deployment during formation-aerobatics. With the occasional Mike and Tee versions flying around in the AGGR squadrons, the policy was propably also a standardization- and safety-issue (at least during the 80s).

Looks great! "FG.2" suggests there was an FG.1 ? Spinners, would you care to making a German Marineflieger version of the Echo in Norm 76? Would kinda look like this Tony: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Tornado_MFG1_landing_RAF_Mildenhall_1984.JPEG Or this Zip: http://www.aviation4u.de/gallery/Mixed/fremd/M.Klaver22%2B95.jpg MFG 1-insignia: http://www.firesan-seg.de/F-104/mfg-1a.gif

You can't just put your French Fries frying fat-sauce into an aircraft's tank, just because it burns just as fine. The fuel used now is a compromise between heating-value (basicly the amout of heat-energy it can produce per volumetric unit), flammability, weight and lots more. Once you're trying to get off fossils, you're gonna run into some trouble: Fossil fuel is nice, because it contains a lot of specific energy (heating-value) at a given volume (weight). You can amout about the same thermodynamic efficiency on synthetic fuels - no issue there. You'll pay for that by an increased amount of emissions (be it either COx or NOx). In the face of "Green Energy", emissions is what you want to avoid. The current goal of devellopment is basicly cutting the COx-emissions by half, while doubling the amout of traffic over the next 20-30 years. So basicly, the aim is to quarter the amount of COx emissions. This is simply not achievable by using synthetic fuel due to their larger emission-output. Another issue is the certification-process. We have achieved a point where gasoline-based air-travel has pretty much matured in economical feasibility (high-density PAX-loads) and safety. Introducing a new, different type of fuel would require total start from bottom-up. There are no regulations or certification-standards for (e.g.) Hydrogen-powered aircraft. Why? Because the miltary hasn't gone there yet (NO experience whatsoever) and propably never will! Civil aviation won't take an adventerous first step there, that's for sure. We're currenly at a point where engine-designs may take as long as twenty years from the first design-efforts to the time of break-even. We've seen an enormous amount of inter-industrial risk-sharing since the late Seventies. Nobody will scream "Geronimo" and come up with a well-working new off-shelf plan for aircraft-propulsion, that not only maintains today's standards of air-travel, but even passes that. Unless there's a big breakthrough in development of new high-energetic AND safe AND efficient AND low-emission fuels, or we're gonna be stuck in the hydrocarbon-fuel alley for quite some time.

Done: The GE90-115B powers the Boeing 777-300ER and -200F. With a MTOW of roughly 350t, they both exceed the MTOW of the early B747s. Running on synthethic kerosene is not so much a matter of power-density, but a drawback in emissions.

Less MX-intensice: yes. More forgiving to fly: no. Most Starfighter crashes weren't loss of control-related, but mission related (CFIT, Bird Strike, etc) or had an engine-component (AB-blowout on take-off, compressor-stall at low alt., etc). The Huns, however, were falling from the skies to lots of inherent control-issues (Sabre-dance, adverse yaw, inertia-coupling). Denmark wasn't too pleased about the Hun at all...

...an most importantly: no gas to play. The Mirages only had the gasbags they brought from their bases - no inflight refuelling-capability whatsoever. Discussing the option of lenthening the runway at PS is moot in my opinion, as supplying that airfield with parts, fuel and ammo would not have been an easy task at all. Whether the Argentinians would have based Mirages at PS - given their paranoia about Chile launching an attack - is another flashing questionmark. They would propably have based A-4s at PS.

Looks cool - finally a proof that there ARE aircraft that don't look sh1tty in SEA-camo That almost cries-out for a South Vietnamese Skyhawk

The issue on the MiG isn't so much it's low-tech heritage, but it's castration of A-A capabilities by evermore integrating the airframe into the USSR's interceptor and air-defense network. The Eastern Block's understanding of an interceptor was hugely different from the western idea. The USSR saw it's interceptors more like mobile and forward-deployable SAM-stations (I'm oversimplyfiing to a degree, off course). At the time the US and western European countries started geting their aircraft "smart" and digital, the russians were still keeping their fighters on the leash - they have never quite "freed" them. An intelligently-designed "simple" aircraft is still a very potent adversary - especially when used up to it's best capabilities. "The primitive can be a weapon, too!" - Adolf Galland