Jump to content

Bremspropeller

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Bremspropeller

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 01/01/1900

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm wondering whether the -95 would be a reasonable stand-in for the very early Navy Tomcats, deployed in the mid 70s. I know there are some external differences, but capability wise they shouldn't differ too much, should they?
  2. I think the Greeks (and Spanish?) had a special Mod that enabled heaters on the wing-pylons. And as it turns out, so did the Equadorians: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Ecuador-Air-Force/Dassault-Mirage-F1JA/1806421/L Note the Python 4/5 missile. They also had Python 3s. Dassault usually offered a high level of customisation, so one version of a Mirage might have totally different loadout-options than another. The remaining questions wold be whether those loadouts were cleared and obtainable for any other customer as well, since you'd still need to procu
  3. Hi folks, a lot is being talked about optimum speed for max rate and minimum radius (I'm not quite there yet, still trying to master the airplane in steady state flying before putting gs onto the jet and flying her in (heavy) buffet), but there seems to be little talk - unless I have missed it - about the normal, operational flying part. That is max economical speeds, minumun fuel consumption, best holding speeds, optimum climb and descent and so on. Is there a source where I can get some info on the optimum airspeeds (well, AoA) and Mach for climbout, cruise, loiter, d
  4. A couple of cents: - your throttle-movements are way too coarse and your closure/ overtake rate is way too high - try to get stable behind the tanker at close distance first and then, slowly (1-2kt overtake) get closer to the basket - don't stab for the drogue, but fly sight-picture onto the pod* - lowering the seat might help, but so does leaning down/ forward with trackIR or in VR - I use the cruise-HUD, because it gives me the heading-carrot which you can use as a reference to the hose-pod on the tanker - I have my wings in auto You might wan
  5. I'd already be happy if the tanker didn't reel the drogue in so quickly. It would be cool, if the hoses were out all the time and you'd just be cleared in.
  6. Wird sich nun des Windschutzrahmens angenommen, oder nicht? Schlampig umgesetzt. Schade.
  7. @Hiromachi the variable incidence of the F-8J's wing should be 5°, instead of 7° of the earliner models' wing. Check those two NATOPS excerpts: The flaps and aileron-droop depends on the mod-stage depicted. I think an aircraft with a -420 motor should probably also have AFC 544 incorporated. My guess is that the reduced flap-travel and reduced aileron-droop helped in MRT wave-off performance (less drag).
  8. The F-8J's ViW had only 5° of incidence. Just like the F-8E(FN). Edit: I guess they'll have to chose a technical configuration. I think AFC 544 should be the configuration to go for. Decreased flap and aileron-droop should make for better wave-off capabilities.
  9. The CE should be pretty similar to the initial french C version, but lacking A-G telemetry (datalink)-functions. They were wired for Sidewinders instead of the Magics and they could carry a four-bomb MER under the fuselage. The CE could carry the Syrel, Barax and Caiman pods (the letter wasn't procured), had a downsized TACAN box and it could carry the cannon-pod CC420 under the fuselage and/ or under each wing. Apart from the Sidewinder-integration, the first batch didn't have all the modifications. Likewise for the BE vs the B. The EE had an INS and lost 140l of fuel volume
  10. It was an interceptor with a secondary fighter-bomber capability. But please, people, tell us more about the F-4 in this MiG-23 thread!
  11. Not quite sure there. The CE should be quite similar to the initial french F1C. They might have been upgraded, though (not talking about the M upgrade). One question I'm curious about is whether the IR probe actually requires a fuselage-plug (my sources imply so, but don't seem to actually mention it). Also, if such a plug is installed, can the probe be removed? There is a duckton of pictures of F1CEs and there seem to be some with and some without probes.
  12. The screenshots we've seen so far are quite curious, showing several configurations of RWR, IFR probe and the "libyan" aircraft has the additional dorsal radiocompass-antenna. The IFR probe doesn't fit quite to the aircraft, though. As does the RWR. The F1M would have colour-displays, so it's probably more advanced than the EQ6 - despite coming with a different set of toys and no Exocet-integration.
×
×
  • Create New...