303_Kermit

Yes, some 20 years ago to become 3- (C-) on 5'th (or 6th?) semester.

Shown pictures IMO are rather a case of flow SU-17 M3 vs M4. MiG 21 cone isn't wide enough to create phenomena shown in lower left or right picture. Cone is fixed far before inlet, and geometry shall prohibit shown patern. I write "shall" because one has to calculate angled shockwave. To do that you need cone geometry and Ma number. The rest is actually quite simple. Just use the drawing and simple equation: Equation works also for convex corners. Calculate yourself if you don't believe me, or use a chart if you lazy like me. Calculate as long as you wish and you'll never find an "excessive air" in MiG-21 Inlet. My best regards PS. I still do believe that one can and shall describe it using simple words and simple language. It tells the people that you actually understand what you tell. Not just quoting someone

As far as I understood, you're agree with me... In quite complicated way I'm trying to avoid too much complicated words. The older I am the more I admire people who have ability to put difficult science in simple words. Nothing wrong with that, right? As for shockwave inside engine inlet with cone it looks like that, sorry for simplification:

As I said SR-71 is not the best example because it's a Turboramjet. A unique construction, not quite good example here. As for a Concorde and other supersonic jet engines -> if inlet fails it's adjustment angle there's a risk of sudden compressor stall and destruction of an engine. It is also explained in a YT I posted here. Solution used in MiG-21 (cone) was also used in Su-17M2, M3 and allowed him to reach also about Ma=2, in Su17M4 cone was fixed in position. In spite of these it was able to reach Ma =1,75. You shall trouble yourself and watch a movie I posted. There is no risk of feeding a Jet engine with too much air. it's explained in movie. So surge doors are opening in right direction. You may block an airflow by letting perpendicular shockwave inside an inlet. It blocks an airflow, causing Pressure drop inside an air intake and may cause a sudden compressor stall. In many cases it may cause total destruction of an engine, and / or deformation of an inlet. Once again: there's no possibility of excessive air in jet engine. It's rather opposite problem. Leatherneck explanation is (in terms of fluid mechanics) like... Flat Earth society.

I see that supersonic flow isn't unknown subject for you, also a physics of a shock-wave is not strange to you, so I won't pretend smarter than I am, and I I'll avoid boring (and not so basic) explanations. Basic fluid mechanic and airflow inside of Jet engine demands, that all air that wents inside an engine must be subsonic. So No matter how fast you go, inside of an air inlet airflow must stay subsonic. It's simple. There are many quite nice explanations on how it works. I found out quite nice video. See for example these one here. https://youtu.be/636ANEHgEOo?t=81 Explanation about how works an inlet of MiG-21 starts in 4:30. Basically such type of an inlet works fine for Ma >> 2. (Here a foto of Blackbird in given YT video is not exactly a good choice, but that's completely other subject and another story). my best regards 303_Kermit

Sure. First problem (that I'm aware of) appears by Ma >> 1. There is no possibility of reaching CL max on dynamic altitude. The biggest reason of it is fast build up of a drag (while increasing AoA) which prohibits exploiting bigger AoA. In other words you may pull a stick but everything you get is loss of speed. Independently there may be other reasons of stall at big Ma numbers. Due to a gradually decreasing directional stability (on dynamic altitude while increasing Ma number), there is a possibility of uncontrolled, big angle side-slip. description of plane Behavior is given on chart: H - (first line from the top) altitude Ma - Ma number (2,1 in those test) delta v (thrird line) - rotation around vertical axis (+ is counter-clockwise) delta l (4-th line) - rotation around longitudinal axis delta h (5-th line) - rotation around horizontal axis omega x, y, z - rotation speeds in rad / s. usually x is longitudinal axis, y horizontal, and z vertical nz, ny - G in horizontal axis (left right), nz - classic G , in vertical axis. The result of these phenomena was a stall. It occurred on so called "dynamical altitude". High Ma (>>1) stall, on lower (static) altitudes is not much different, however there are more reasons for stall on high altitudes since there is no (or rather is much smaller) aerodynamic damping of plane oscillations. On approach to a speed of instability plane starts side oscillations from wing to wing. Oscillations become intenser by closing to critical speed. Main source of instability is gyroscopic moment of an engine. Depending on pilot skill MiG-21 were repeatedly exceeding maximum allowed speed. There are many relations available in YT With my respect 303_Kermit

Egypt become in 1965 45 to 50 MiG-21 FL. Syria in 1961 become 36 F-13 and around 15 FL, Iraq become around 60 MiG-21 F-13 in 1963-66. in '66 Iraq ordered 60 more "PF". They are described as inferior to our bis in various ways. "R-2L Spin scan radar was not operational at speeds over Ma =1.2 because of cooling system". After 6 day war Egypt ordered a number of PFS, in late '69 Egipt started to become MF (110 according to some sources) and PFM (SPS). I found also an information about some bis in Egipt, but with annotation, that they were flown by russian pilots. Colleague asked about weapon mostly used. I answered. He didn't asked about structure of arab Air forces, but about wapon used on them. Your answer is wery precise and surely all you wrote is precise truth, but I belive.... You missed the subject With my regards Source: "Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 units in combat"

Would you buy a new car that's broken? Or Ice creams with salmonella? Or maybe would you like to buy flat-screen with some broken pixels? For a guy who buys MiG-21 from Letherneck it's not an old module. It's brand new, and he has right to expect it to work properly. If it's not possible, and MiG-21 is considered "out of date" like old sausage, consider similar procedure. Remove outdated product from the shelf. Otherwise it's unfair. Anyway. A subject of the topic was "how's Letherneck sims?" I gave a fair feedback. I don't demand anything. I give a fair customer review. Compared to Heatblur, Rasbam or other 3'rd party they're IMO not recommended.

Except SAU not working properly, ARU not even in slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m) pulling hard with ARU in manual mode set in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G. Plane is able to sustain 9,8 G (it was reduced couple months ago from previous bigger value). However many MiG-21 pilots reported exceding G over "11" without damaging a plane in DCS MiG sustain just 9,8G. If you pull 8,5 G crazy ARU may cause exceding G to over 10 and brake your... Wing tips (sic!) instead of bending your wing, but it's ok. You can fly (and land) MiG-21 without wings anyway. Other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting unguided rockets with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy. It gives you precise hit point for FAB's with wind correction. A ballistic table For manual bombing with various dive angles and sight deflection angles doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since I play DCS, Letherneck / Magnitude never attempted to correct these issues. Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie). If you report any problem the answer is "It's old module so we're not supporting it - in fact you shall be graceful for everything we make around it anyway. You shall not expect any support for an oldest DCS module. Currently all resources are directed towards F-4U anyway. No MiG-21 major updates before F-4U release." Except that, it's a legendary plane, and most neglected module in DCS With my best regards Kermit

Mostly used variant of MiG-21 in Syria, Egipt and Iraq was FL. It's India built PFM-isch MiG-21. Please note a 4 pylons and no integral gun. Also much weaker engine than the one in bis. Originally in they carried R-3S. Iraq -modified their planes to carry Matra 550 Magic Syria - lost dozens of their MiG-21 to Israeli F-15, Kfir's, Mirage III Egipt - rather bought MiG-23MS (downgraded MiG-23 with R-3S missiles and a radar RP-22 Almaz(sometimes called Sphire in various sources) from MiG-21bis. A2G - everything except Grom missile. and of course - no cannon

You won't be a challenge you'll become a practice target. Me262 isn't a bomber, and surely unarmed recon is not a reason to buy a module. The other problem is, that there's no recon implemented in DCS. P-38! B-17! B-24!

Huey! + "Jumping jack flash" in a loop

I would be very cautious with Israeli combat reports. They're seriously confusing. I do believe it's on purpose. Nothing strange about it to be honest. There are full of stories, when you never know what plane pilot flew. You may only assume or suppose, that it's Phantom, because pilot once says "we" and on the other time during the same story says "me". Glory to the Kheil HaAvir, but they're not quite... Most reliable source of information. They're rather a source of various MiG-parts. F-4J has Pulse doppler radar. Navy had much better device since they resigned from M-61A1 Vulcan in the nose. That's why, without gun in the nose their radar has bigger antenna and it's a quite different device, than USAF F-4E Pulse radar. F4E posese a ground clutter filter. It helps detecting airborne tgts if they fly lower, but not close to the ground, by limitting and separating signals that comes back from the same direction, but after different time period. So If AGL is big enough you may detect someone who flies lower. Most cases however MK 1 Eyeball will be more effective considering detection range of APQ-120 I'm amazed by something another. 9:57 "There was a water in Datalink compartment". F-4J had datalink on board? My best regards Kermit

I love these plane

Agree. Just to complement: TPQ System was extensively used in Vietnam , especially during rain season. It allowed to attack targets in north Vietnam in spite of heavy cloud cover. F-4 having a Vulcan onboard had to sacrifice quite a lot of avionics. For a start Navy had bigger radar antenna, also IR sensor is not present in USAF planes (not that it's a big lost). As for Navy: F-4J was first fighter in the world with look down /shoot down capabilities There's more about it, but somehow I assume you know quite well about it. My best regards Kermit

"The General Electric AN/TPQ-1O Course Directing Central was a light-weight, two-unit, helicopter transportable, ground based bombing system developed for use by the United States Marine Corps to provide highly accurate, day/night all weather close air support. This self-contained system was designed to guide an aircraft, equipped with the proper control equipment, to a release point for accurate all-weather delivery of ordnance and supplies to a preselected target. The AN/TPQ-10 and its operators were known as an ‘’Air Support Radar Team’’ (ASRT) and were employed by the Marine Air Support Squadrons within the Aviation Combat Element." by Wikipedia (eng.)

Different 8 (thicker and wider) tyres, stiff, thicker wings. Rear cockpit has side consoles (Navy has not). J79GE-8 vs GE-15 , AN/APQ-99 vs 100, also US Navy had a device that allowed them to bomb targets through cloud cover. It included TPQ-10 ground radar, ballistic computer, and reciver device onboard Phantom II / Intruder / "Hump" equipped Skyhawk E/F and later also A-7

I wanted to write "No wonder they flew over 20 000 combat sorties", but then I checked that F-100 did 360 000 combat sorties. So... Was it because of high alt profile of 105's flights? Or because F-105's made in Vietnam mostly A2G sorties without AiM-9 under wings? “I manoeuvred to superimpose my pitot boom over the MiG, squeezed the trigger and saw the 20 mm rounds sparkling along the left fuselage and wing root of the MiG. His left wing folded over the tail and in an abrupt left turn he went into a cloud at about 2500 ft"

USN Phantoms IMO are prettiest planes of all times

I'd like you to show me how you make sandwich before engagement. There are couple way to cooperate in dogfight. There are a certain rules for it - it helps a little. Having a "Game plan" certainly helps. Defining Hot-cold directions before T/O, short and precise communication, mostly - it's a lot of flight hours spent online - not offline with your squad mates.

Not nearly as frustrating as early F-105 armed with early M-61 Vulcan. Usually jamming after about 200 rounds. Pilots used to use a pitot tube to aim.

After I read Bill Gunston "F-4 Phantom" I want F-4B more than any other plane!

I think the proper book to answer that question is only flight manual of P-4E (proper prod. series). There are usually a lot of such information. I'm sure Heatblure posses all the necessary info. I ordered also bill gunston's monography about F-4. I'll post as soon as I found something new. I'm not the only one crazy about F-4... Good to hear With my best regards Kermit

F4 Phantom II vs MiG-21 USAF and VPAF in The Vietnam War Peter Davies. About F4E (Vietnam) "(...)In addition to a nose mounted gun, the aircraft had J79-GE-17C engines, uprated to 17900LBS maximum thrust. However like previous 79's the engines still emitted thick black smoke trail except of afterburner. These made the aircraft visible for up to 30 miles. Fixes were developed, but never implemented during the war. The new nose was adopted following the pitment of the lighter more compact AN/APQ-120 solid state radar and antenna which was heavily insulated against gunfire vibration. [...]RAT and wing folding mechanisms were removed (I quote, but kill me If I understand) "Although, the slats and the extra weight of the gun and number 7 fuel tank reduced maximum speed to below Ma = 2 crews welcomed the new wing configuration, as it made the Phantom 2 almost spin proof." [...] (and) Finally (in?) F-4J increased control effectiveness. " (It was also placed in chapter about F-4E) "the F4 radar was very difficult to use in its standard mode. we had serious problems getting a radar lock on a maneuvering tgt., that then it allowed a missile to be launched. As a solution to our issues with the APQ-72, the radars in our jets were modified so that with a flick of a switch they could be slaved in azimuth and elevation to the nose of the aircraft, creating a narrow , forward pointing beam." (Crews called it BORESIGHT mode) "The B/C/D F4 radios were often criticized. In designing the AN/ARC-105KF radio, Collins radio corporation struggled with electromagnetic interference and placement of antennas, particularly in aircraft tail. During maneuvering flight the tail mounted antenna may be blocked by the airframe, interrupting transmissions. In the F4, rain leaking into the cockpit was channeled directly to the radio and access to it or its battery. " Most statements comes from pilots quotations. The book itself I would say is a bit... Hurray - USA ? With my best regards Kermit

Offense not taken. Thanks for info. English is not my first language. As for further text . Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't going to convince you , that "bis" is the same plane as F-13 or PF(M). I just pointed, that with some imagination you may create such scenario. Remove gun ammo, give RS-2US and R-3S, disable additional pylons and you have something similar to PF. It is in no way identical to PF, but it's best we have. It's some sensible adjustment.