303_Kermit

I figured that out. In case of P-47 with broken landing gear, one has to retract landing gear (put a lever in correct position, no worry if it actually retracts or not) and ask for repair. Repair will be performed, Landing gear will be lowered automatically after the repair is done, and then aircraft will be placed on AF "gently". My best regards. See you on 4Ya Overlord

You forget to add that a fuselage has also changed. It's longer than in MiG-15. And no - it's not obvious and easy job to do. As for amount of job: -One has to calculate vertical stability from the beginning. (basic) -mass distribution changes (that's hard problem, since it affects stability and requires other work) -Recalculate wings durability, and stiffness (complicated, requires static tests - expensive, + huge amount of difficult work for engineers team. It's easier to built new plane sometimes) -New swept wings = new stall behaviour, new flatter behaviour, whole new aeroelastic characteristics, changes in stability. (Huge amount of work for engineers, great risk of failure, and a lot of test : static and in flight) -New horizontal stab. and elevator (flatter tests, once again recalculate stability, redefine steering range, new transsonic characteristics) - big job. Lot of tests in tunel and in flight. -new behaviour by transsonic (much bigger than in MiG-15) speeds -> wing airflow affects elevator in completely new way. Characteristics in subsonic range of speeds, and transonic speeds must fulfill requirements. Some changes that help in one range of speeds - disturb other characteristics by o other range of speeds. Crucial milestone of work - and in many cases a place of many failures (like in F-100 or F-104). Trials, calculations, wind tunnel tests, flight tests. All tasks and changes are impossible for me to point out , but it's well described in couple publications. Those that I pointed out aren't even all the most important ones. I just wanted to show you briefly the amount of job done "just to change wings and horizontal stab." There are no (and can't be) different opinions about the temperature by which the water boils. MiG-17 was a complicated task for engineers, and they were pioneers in their job. Nobody done it before. Nobody to ask for advice. MiG-15 and MiG-17 look similar, but are not. ... any sources for that info? What MiG's or what Lim's ? When and were produced? That is not what I meant, when I wrote "It won't be in any way similar to MiG-15..." I sense that you never flew DCS MiG-15bis. otherwise a sentence "MiG-17F is allowed to dive with full thrust without any limits" - would be enough for you to know that they're completely different animals. Yes. From 15 to 17 you can jump easily. and Yes - MiG-17F isn't just a MiG-15bis with afterburner. It's a huge jump You're just repeating what was already written here. @foxbat155 had cleared the subject beyond doubts. Read posts before you write something. About numbers built - was already spoken here. In many aspects About variants and their porpoises - was already spoken here. In many aspects My best regards

I'm proud to finish a Technical university in Rzeszow. My professors were engineers from M-18, TS-11, Lim-2/5/6. prof. Klepacki, prof. Kopecki. Of course. It doesn't make me an expert form Lim's, but I am an aircraft engineer. I may go wrong about small details, but nobody today can say about all the details regarding Lim production. Sources about Lim's are terribly inconsistent. Many original documents aren't anymore. Most western books base on inaccurate sources. (it's enough to say that wikipedia says that there were 60 Lim-5M and 40 Lim-6). And I remember other books that mentioned whole different numbers (or saying that actually Lim-6 was only a prototype). The mess is even bigger when one realise that a tail part of Lim-5 .... was replaceable with the one from Lim-2. And in military bases in purpose of well... various other reasons (understandable only if you're born in comunism) they were replaced repeatedly. Such planes were called by its pilots as far as I recall Lim-2,5 (or something like that). I knew personally a pilot who stated, that they became such mutants from Mielec factory. Many other planes were built not according to any mentioned above standards (like Lims without double carriage but with extra tanks). Also I know that there were at least couple variants of wing with conformal tanks. To make the matter more complicated, planes used to be rebuilt during main repairs (performed in WSK PZL Mielec) and according to current demand up- or downgraded. It looks good and clear only in the books I'm afraid.

Wrong: Lim-5M, 5P -> Lim6M (Lim-5 wasn't modified to 6M standard. They were too old) (no new Tail) Lim-6bis is new built (has new Tail ) -> see foto Lim-6 was only prototype. Not sure how many built (if ever more than one) so "Lim-6--> Lim-6bis series 4 " is not possible. 6bis is new built, and 6 wasn't built in a numbers. After initial tests the extra tanks were removed. 4. You're wrong. I'm not talking about AS varian't (never heard about one, wasn't that interested). It was MiG-17F with modification pack called "AS". it's not the same. null

Well... Lots of mistakes here: 1. Lim-5 was still a frontline fighter, (some say fighter-bomber) with added A2G capability (limited). Lim-5 = MiG-17F - that is true. MiG-21 bis also carry some bombs. In spite of it - it's frontline fighter 2. Lim-6M are rebuilt Lim-5M to standard of Lim-6bis (built in series. Lim-6 stayed as a trial) 3. It's actually opposite, as I wrote above. It's worth to mention that Lim-6bis in comparison to Lim-5M has: -Syrena-2 and SRO-2 (RWR and IFF) -Front armor plate 10mm (640x666 - 29,3kg) -Front armor glass (60mm-12,65kg) -seat armor plate (16mm 305x450mm - 16kg) -head armor plate ( bended armor plate 280mmx320mm) -added an extra 2x wing pylons -breaking parachute in Lim-6bis. Lim-6M has no parachute - the main visible difference between 6M and 6bis 4. .Original MiG-17F was NEVER armed with R-3S missiles - almost true. I mentioned a modification pack called "AS" for MiG-17F. It was used used in CCCP only (it was offered to other WP members, but wasn't warm accepted, since new MiG-s were already available) 5. Thank you for correcting me. Yes I made a mistake - I mistaked A MiG-17PF (Fresco D) with MiG-17PM (Fresco E) see fotos. Sorry . Had those pictures deep in my mind in "Technika Wojskowa" and I was sure they were Lim's. Thanks again for being precise. 6. At the beginning - yes it should be a MiG 15 with afterburner. First modification was a additional fuselage section. Very soon it became clear that it's not enough. Actual flight test took more time as development of MiG-19. Whole new Wing. new design implemented whole new - structure and aerodynamics . Wings are stiffer and have more swept angle. New Elevator - redesigned to keep effectiveness in transonic speeds (unlike MiG-15). - Leed to whole new design. (Aerodynamic and structure) 7. Thanks for the info.

there's many versions of these plane. Quite well known (there's plenty of documentation in Germany and Poland) was Lim-5M / Lim-5P (frontline fighter / Interceptor) Lim-6M/Lim-6bis (ground attack capabilities expanded). an F variant was armed (in a modification used only in CCCP) with 2xK-13 Missiles. a PF (or Polish Lim-5p) was armed with 2xRS-2US (4xRS-2US for Lim-5p). MiG-17F has nothing to do with MiG-15. It looks almost the same, yes. But is longer, has different wings (more swept) different elevator, over 33KN thrust, and G suit installation. It won't be in any way similar to MiG-15... It's like a comparison of WRC car to "wilage racer". and one more thing. Lim-5p (MiG-17PF) on foto. do you see a cannon? Beware what you wish for.

Sometimes it's better to remain silent It was 1965. There are 3'rd gen fighters coming into Vietnam, when VPAF becomes couple first outdated MiG-17. There are no great effects at first. Nobody expects it. Pilots are not properly trained, and there's lack of proper tactics. Soon arrive a North Korea voluntears. They bring own tactic, and experience. At the beginning VPAF posess only 17 fighters. They're send against hundreds of US fighters and bombers. Very soon surprised USN and USAF pilots discovered , that one can't outturn, can't outdive, and can't outclimb a Gen I fighter. Somehow 6 planes is sometimes enough to force 200 planes mission to abort. Soon more MiG-17 comes to VPAF. Losses build up. Then came 23 August 1967. 10 PLAF MiG-17F lead by Nguyễn Nhật Chiêu intercepts 52 US Fighters led by famous Col. Robin Olds. USA looses 3 Aircraft. 3 airman are captured and 2 others are dead. A story seldom told. Isn't it? VPAF costs? 1 damaged MiG-21 (no MiG-17 was scratched, in spite playing a role of a bait) Colonel Robin Olds learned that Seventh Air Force intelligence had watched North Vietnamese MiG fighters practicing their new tactics for ten days prior to the battle of 23 August, but had not passed that information on to the 8th Tactical Fighter Wing and other units. Thus, it soon became clear to U.S commanders that the reason the North Vietnamese repeatedly stood down their fighter force was because they were working on their new tactic. Between August 1967 and February 1968, the North Vietnamese Air Force achieved a kill ratio of 1.1:1 against the USAF, with the loss of 20 aircraft for 22 victories. In the same period of time, Operation Rolling Thunder had cost the United States approximately $900 million ($5,640 million at 2010 prices) with the loss of more than 700 aircraft. Something must be done. USAF gives specification for F-4E - they need their guns back. USN comes with another approach. A first group of instructors came to a Miramar California. A place later called a Fightertown. TOP GUN is born. Compared to MiG-15 - MiG-17 has stiffer wings, and can dive with full thrust without losing wings or steering capability. Bigger thrust gives him such agility , that first USA fighter capable to match its turn rate is... F-16A. If you want to learn more about MiG-17 search in Google for "have doughnut" secret flight tests program. There's also film in YT. See what US pilots told about MiG-17 and you'll understand. DCS Without MiG-17 isn't complete. (source of info - Wikipedia and Bill Gunstons "F-4 Phantom II")

All Vietam era skins please!!!

-"Mom , I will grow up, and I'm going to be a pilot" -"Son... you can't do both"

What a topic... Personality of AI. Impressive. I'love to have him bit sarcastic - funny like in the WSO blues With my best regards

J79-GE-17A / C / E - main difference smoke trail. Different other variants were also tested - since those data come from tests I'm just wondering about precise specification of tested planes. That's all

To add the confusion there's a ton of various engine modifications for F-4E. They affected throttle response, engine smoke behaviour, thrust. Question: is there the same engine in compared planes? Is the slot a reason for better performance, or is there something else?

I quoted a statement of Phantom II Pilot of Vietnam War era. I can find it precisely if you like. I also doubted it. In other book however I red, that Phantom II pilots were not quite liked by other USN pilots and colleagues. If the 2 statements (from 2 different books) are real , or somehow connected - I can't tell. It is however a very interesting story.

Probably some of you guys are overestimating AiM-7. Their overall efficiency in Vietnam was ~3%. To make it worse AN/APQ-120 had a tendency to loose contact in STT mode. In fact in Vietnam one field mod of F-4 was very popular. A switch that fixes radar antenna in forward position (Like FLOOD mode in modern planes of '80). That allows AiM-7 to keep track . Pilots called that mode "Boresight" In Bill Gunston's book most pilots coment's looked like "Shooting missiles is a lot of fun, but pose no threat for PLAF pilots" About aerial dogfights - before inventing TOP Gun there was a month (August 1967 to be more precise), when USA ( can't recall if USAF or USN) Lost 8 Phantom's II without shooting down a single MiG (any type). It was a consequence of introducing a new PLAF Tactics in low flight lvl flights. Funny fact is, that CIA knew about new tactics and PLAF preparations, but.... considered these news to be ... to important to share it with USAF / USN or USMC, and classified it.

F4D - 422planes in "The most numerous planes missing in DCS" list... I don't think it makes any sense. And if you know a history of development of F-4 Phantom II you may understand, that in fact the both construction are somehow strangely connected.

Quite funny mistake. 5,2 F-4 All variants and most produced variant F-4E 1,37 so why F-4D? Also there's a lot of inconsistency: Meteor (Gloster?) is counted as all variants together, as F-4 - only one specific. So ether: 3,97 meteor 5,2 F-4 or 1,55 Meteor F.8 1,37 F-4E otherwise whole list is just rubbish.

As far as I red and watched - F-4 will be a challenge. To be honest, I didn't found any warbird challenging, but I flew only P-47 and Bf-109. Mastering MiG-15 was big challenge, but it's not so difficult to fly if you just want to perform basic flight. F-4 seems to be wild beast.

I wouldn't expect much from it. In instructional movie for pilots (well available in YT) one may find that radar of F-4J, detects target 5m² RCS from 39nm in search mode. (MiG-21 has RCS 3m²). F-4E will be significantly weaker, since it's antenna is much smaller (because of M61A1 Vulcan). From the same reason F-4E has no doppler radar. Lack of space in the nose. Also I wouldn't risk of naming it BVR since interception ranges for AiM-7E of tgt 4m² head on in tests were -F4 at 10kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 6,8nm, missile flight time 15s. miss 3ft -F4 and tgt co-alt, 300ft lunch 6nm., miss 7ft -F4 at 45100ft (launch at 1,8Ma), tgt co-alt, 2xlunch 12,8nm & 11,4nm,. miss 4,7ft and 31,8ft tgt moving perpendicular -F4 at 7,8kft , tgt on 200ft, lunch 2nm,. direct hit I suggest practicing BFM, Double Attack, Loose deuce, Fluid Four, Combat spread and so on. Phantom it's a Pilots plane, not a laptop. To score you need to come close.

I would buy IL-28 I'd like to see '50 in DCS alive. My best regards

So... After 6 moths of enjoying P-47 -One can steep dive, but manual prop pitch control is needed. You may cath FW-190D9 long after dive Warning: Manifold raises with the speed during dive, you may destroy your engine. So always manifold down to 42lb. before prolonged dive -I bought 747 throttle quadrant. To use full potential of P-47 one has to move every lever individually -A proper sequence is needed to move levers. 1. From 2550 / 42 -> 2700 / 55 : First add RPM -> add Manifold -> check carb.air temp. 2. From 2700 / 55 -> 2700 / 64: Press in water -> check Manifold -> add Manifold -> check Carb.Air.temp -Throttling back always in reverted order -> Manifold down -> rpm down -One can fly above 2700 / 75 on low altitude. In low air temp (below 16°C) i was able to fly 10 minutes like so. After landing you need to repair or change aircraft. -The higher you fly the bigger ther risk that you exceed carb air temp. It raises with the altitude - so if you checked and set 2700 / 64 at 25.000ft and you see that carb.air.temp. "is barely in its limits" you will surely destroy your engine while further climb to 30.000ft. I wish you fun and success in P-47. It's great plane

Those are not to stabilize , but to help reduce lost of lift due to swept wing design.

Yes, but there is no glare in our planes (except of MiG-21 which is really beautifully made - there is a glare. In other cases - Spitfire, L-39, Bf-109, FW-190, MiG-15, F-86 there's hideous white-ish bitmap and the sunlight goes through pilot body on the other side of canopy. Pilot body is for the light transparent - that's the source of main "light" aberration. Incidence angle always equals reflection angle. Most cockpit "Glare" in DCS has no explanation - Most of "pseudo" glare shall be covered by pilots body. Sun reflection: First three rays goes through - windshield is transparent. Ray 4-6 reflection. So we shall expect some light reflex on our right side if the sun is on ~11 o'clock. In no case one shall expect such behaviour when the sun is on 9 o'clock. There is no glare and no sun reflex in cockpit. Only some aberration. What we have is not realistic and disturbes much more than a real glare and sun reflection in real life. And a glare looks like that: - it appears on canopy when u observe a perimeter into direction of the sun - not the opposite as it is in DCS there's no such thing in DCS. White milk bitmap has nothing in common neither with reflex nor with glare. Other example - Glare created (for example) by wet surface - again. Doesn't explain DCS aberration - white milk on the dark side of canopy. Notice here P-51 Reflections of cockpit instrument. They're visible for pilot in second seat, but not for the pilot in front seat, (the reason is explained in 1-st picture). - As it is the case of DCS. (Reflections of cockpit instruments are static bitmap placed in wrong places - L39, MiG-15, MiG-21)

No... I solved a problem long time ago. The reason was an overboost 2-3 min before. One can ride with 50lb and 2300-2550 without any restrictions. (other than temperatures of cyl. heads, and carb.air) To fly P-47 at it's full potential I bought 747 throttle quadrant. Problem solved.

Scratches like the one in F-15C are completely ok. Dirt - that's the other thing. Cleaning canopy is saint in aviation. MiG-21 used to have nice smell of alcohol every morning. Anyx the glider I flew always smell from some windshield cleaning product. The other case is, that most humans has two eyes. We see stereoscopic. That is why we can focus our sight on object - either outside the windshield, or on the dirt on the windshield. In DCS there's no such option. Human eye can't focus on most important objects. We can't focus our sight on the things outside the canopy because we see a flat picture. Interesting , but even in VR in spite of the stereoscopic sight - problem stays the same - because dirt and reflexes is represented in DCS by hideous , old bitmap. That is why we have to see contacts and dirt just as well - in reality that is not the case. We can focus our eyes outside the canopy. As for a glare - I never experienced it in the way as it's in DCS. It's always on the wrong side of canopy. The "milk" spoiled over canopy appears in reality only if a canopy material is "polluted" those who had some physics lab surely remember. The light dissipates in a heterogeneous medium. That means - if in the glass there's something more than it should be. It may happen if glass (or perspex or any other material) is old - chemical and foto-chemical reactions may change transparency of a windshield. But it's not a normal state. Also - in reality we can always use "sun glasses" - it was always subject in a briefing on our AF. If sun operates intensively, you have to remember about the proper glasses. And magically a glare is also not the problem. Finally.... If sun operates on my 9 o'clock there's never a glare on my 3 in real plane. The reason is simple: my body is not transparent. In DCS kinda... is. With my best regards GUF

True *- Clear Glas mod was perfect. Some reflexes are there, but aren't disturbing