Toryu

All US airlines? Besides cargo-operators and troop-charters, there are no US airlines flying along that route, unless you count codeshare-flights. So far, nothing suggested the whole mess down there to turn crazy. Airlines have been flying through troubled airspace for long times. In any case, somebody went one step too far and has to be made accountable.

And how many US airlines do you think were affected by that order? Probably zero. Other airlines have routed their traffic through this area as well. According to that logic, half of Africa and most of the Middle East would be off-limits as well.

TSFC steht für Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption - kurz gesagt wieviel Treibstoff du pro Schubeinheit und Zeiteinheit bei einer bestimmten Leistungseinstellung verbrauchst. Versuch einfach, dort "0" einzutragen. Kann sein, dass das mit einem Schubwert von Null kollidiert - zur Not den Schub auf "klein" (0.0001) und den TSFC ebenfalls auf "klein".

I'd second that request!

Stratos, is this a question regarding possible campaigns or what-if aircraft? Wiring-in an AA-2 capability is not the hardest modification to put an airframe through. The use would be questionable (given the fact that with the later MiG-17 there was a much more capable aircraft available), but it certainly would be possible. The F-86 only got the modiication relatively late, when the F-86 was not the US' top-notch fighter anymore. Sort of a mid-life upgrade for friendly nations that couldn't afford the latest fighters...

Beauty!

Don't think so - "my enemy's ememy is my friend".

IIRC, Eric Brown even said that Vmca was only achieved after being airbourne (the two-seater was worse d/t larger side-area ahead of the CoG). Lots of 262-crashes might be traced back to this issue. There is a range of massflow where centrifugal engines make sense (lower end, as in small business-jets). Above that, there's mixed axial/ radial compression (the last compressor-stage being radial usually) and above that, there's purely axial designs. Most first-gen jets were. Nobody knew how to build jets properly and how to fly and maintain them well enough to make it safe. Scary days, indeed!

I've found that flying Jaguar A or F-100s (underpowered as hell) or similar jets, really teaches you to manage your energy. If you step up to airplanes with more power (albeit not necessarily more turning-capability), you'll feel like a bad mofo. Usually, once either ammo or fuel are out, AI planes tend to fly straight and level to their homebase, which makes plinking them out of the sky pretty easy. I guess the Voodoo is a great aircraft for learning to fly well - gotta re-install the fighter-versions and give it a try or two!

The OLD pilots knew about it. In 1945, there were few old pilots left - the Luftwaffe consisted mostly of unexperienced pilots that had only few hours and barely knew the normal-flight procedures (fun fact: the Luftwaffe did not use check-lists!) of their operational aircraft. In order to grasp the idea of energy-fighting, one has to fly a couple of sorties, seeing it's impact at first hand. In 1945, there was not enough fuel, nor was there enough time and ressources to be wasted on training missions at the front-line squadrons. In Korea, there were lots of WW2-experienced pilots around to dwell on. They also had made-up squadron-structures that allowed for training dogfights. Hence the high quality of the average pilot. Pilots just out of training weren't quite that hot. After Korea, with crash-numbers mounting (the macho-behaviour that many pilots hat at those times was not exactly safe), dogfighting got out of favour and the intercept-culture was more and more forced upon fighter-squadrons. That was understandable from a safety (i.e. "peace-time flying") point of view. What safes aircraft under peace-circumstances might cost you a lot of aircraft in actual fighting. It took a while for that lesson to sink in and for results happening - see Top Gun and other specialized training institutions.. Training is a cultural thing - cultures that are less likely to accept criticism (albeit constructive criticism), are more likely to suck at flying. No matter if it's safety-culture in civil aviation, or fighting-efficiency in military flying.

CAP is not "Freie Jagd" - that would be "Fighter-Sweep". CAP is a racetrack-shaped patrol-pattern around a certain point/ area. Fighter-Sweep is more like going on a free tour and shooting up stuff (in the air and on the ground if nobody comes up to fight). Sorry, but that's BS. 200 holes (mostly of shrapnel) - maybe. But certainly not 200 cal-50 hits. That's also valid for the stories of P-47s coming home with several dozens of 20mm-strikes.

Look at the average experience of the plain-vanilla 262-driver in 1944 or '45* and then compare that with the expertise and determination that went into the ACM-programme that taught pilots how to employ the F-4 as a fighter. It took nearly a decade before pilots on a broad basis learned to fly the F-4 effectively. Only some squadrons had made their own efforts into that direction - with mixed results. IIRC, there were over 100 F-4s lost due to loss of control in the first 10 years of service accorss the three branches of US-service, flying the F-4. The Luftwaffe never had a similar programme during the war. All the experience was on squadron-level and older, more experienced pilots showed the green guys how to fly. With new tactics arising in jets, there was no experience to dwell on. I think the performance-difference was the main reason for this tactic. This way, they at least got to shoot at some other guy every once in a while. Being a soviet fighter-pilot in 1941 was not a nice job. Did they use the same standards as in WW2? Then again, if propaganda ("becoming a hero") and promotion favoured fighter-pilots and air-kills, then it's nothing out of the ordinary to have an increased amount of kill-claims. The romantisation of fighter-pilots has ever-since been out of proportion. Unless you shoot-down a bomber that is out to nuke a city, killing a single plane is way less influential to the outcome of war than flying a good CAS or strike-mission. _ * Most JV44 pilots found it difficult to employ effective tactics in the 262, as the speed-difference was so large to other aircraft. In jet vs jet fights, that issue was resolved, and new tactics evolved that could cope with the vast range of specific excess-powers available to different fighters. The "unload and separate"-maneuver is not specifically new (should be a no-brainer to think of that), but nobody really approached dogfights on a scientific base until the mid-sixties, when beople started taking an energy-approach to get rid of the vast speed-differences and differences in turn-rates.

I wouldn't put too much into those "force to turn"-stories. You don't know anything about the 262's fuel-state. Maybe they had to get away from their pursuers in order to land. Landing the 262 wasn't all that much of an easy thing with constant enemy fighter CAPs above your airfield. Mix in a long, flat approach (thanks to Mtt. forgetting to put airbrakes on that thing) and you'll have a nice-heart rate. There was no place to run for a 262-pilot. Also, the russians liked to tell stories. The 37mm *could* possibly penetrate the DB60x in a head-on attack and thus the pilot wasn't safe behind it. Anyway, spraying the liquid-cooled engine with any caliber, you'll drastically shorten the remaining flight-time of the 109 due to the engine overheating after losing all it's coolant. Head-on attacks are not for the faint-hearted and pilots usually tried to avoid them for two reasons: - collision-avoidance (target-fixiation is a bad thing) - your chances are reduced, as the other guy actually gets to shoot back at you! Again, only really experienced/ self-assured pilots would attack in head-ons. The number of those is probably single-digit as well, as many "old" pilots tended to not be too bold (I had to put that saying in here - sorry! ). Many successful german pilots would be rather conservative in chosing when to attack and when to not accept a fight. You CAN be more aggressive (especially american pilots seemed to be a bit more on the aggressive side), but surviving a couple of hundred to a few thousand missions against numerical/ qualitative superiority won't be granted...

Right now, a draw is enough for both, Germany and USA. (4 points each, Ghana and Portugal have 1 point each) Then again, if Ghana wins and the US-team scores less than a draw, it will get interesting... It's probably the closest and most thrilling group to be in, right now. Technically, Portugal isn't completly out yet, but their chances are prelly low, as with the 4 goals they got by ze Germans and the other two by the Americans, they're far behind in the goal-statistics.

The percentage of people that are able to do that is in the single-digit range. Everybody else is just happy when they eventually hit a barn-door. Thus, there is no need for weaponry that favours those long-range shots. Instead, make sure that as few hits as possible send the other guy down in flames. That is achieved with larger calibrs and more chemical energy. Israeli pilots converting from Mirages to Phantoms thought the M61 was inferior, compared to the DEFA guns. The M61 had a better spray-pattern, but it lost in both, chemical energy and firing-time.

That is only an issue when someone takes a flawed approach to his attack. Spraying the other guy from half a mile out just doesn't work. Get in close and fire only when the other guy fills-out your windscreen. That makes sure you hit something. Larger calibers with respective HE-shells need few hits to get the kill done. The trend to larger calibers during the jet-age proves the german, russian, british and japanese approach on caliber-selection right.

Just see it from the bright side: Your team did better than the current champion

Zagreb has a VOR (in fact, there was a nasty mid-air collision between a Trident and a DC-9 in the 70s over exactly that VOR). It's normal to have intesecting traffic over a VOR. With lots of wind, contrails get pushed aside. Mix-in a windshear and you'll have that checkerboard-pattern.

The Me 262 - while being ahead of it's time at EIS - was a dead-end in fighter-development. As was the Meteor. If you look at the general configuration of those aircraft, little was to follow: the SUD Vautour and the Yak-25 and -28 had podded engines below their wings. Most other fighters had their engines buried within the fuselage for minimal drag. The reason why the Meteor was so successful was because lots of countries wanted to enter jet-flying and needed an affordable aircraft. It also offered night-fighting and recce-capability, which was highly valuable at the time, when prop-aircraft became obsolete ever-more quickly. Also, the Meteor could be fitted with more and more powerful engines over time, which helped hide it's weaknesses. The 262 with it's axial-flow engines was somewhat out of the loop, as it took quite some time until somebody could build reliable and more powerful axial-flow engines. Integrating radial-flow engines (there were plenty available!) into the 262's nacelles would not have worked feasibly.

A new definition of Blitzkrieg

The US civil war is not really comparable. This is not about taxation, slaves or anything of the likes. It's about a religious fight of who is closer to one's god. One side uses oppression over the other, and both sides see the jihad as a means of achieving and defending power. The slurs between sunnis and shias have been going on for centuries now. There is little of a chance that we'll see the end of that BS today. Non-objective causes of war are hard to break (even though "objective" causes will produce issues too - see WW1). There's no way of trying to search for a solution with objective arguments. It's always a pity, seeing people blow each other up in a war that has been started hundreds of years ago, for a cause that nobody has a dog to fight for today. The main difference between both parties is who is the rightful successor of Mohammed. Guys that are long dead since, but somehow there's lots of people that are willing to die for this cause. Maybe it's like Volker Pispers said: "If you have an enemy, your day's gonna have some structure!" Kind of reminds me of some of the awfully bright people in Northern Ireland, though.

I wonder why nobody bombed the Saudis any Qataris yet. Their royal palaces are inhabitated by arguably the finest collection of scum on Earth. No money, no guns => byebye ISIS.

Holy moly! What a game!

As fallenphoenix pointed out, it's on a pylon. Thinking twice, a conformal pod on the lower fuselage might create integration-problems with the landing-gear kinematic/ doors. The pod looks about similar in size as a 600gal tank.

I wonder if that weapons-pod could also be fitted to the inner wing-pylons. Probably a couple of modifications would be necessary, in order to optimize the gross R/C.