303_Kermit

There's only one way to prove you wrong. Do you fly Enigma? I'll be glad to show you what is a sandwich, pincer movement in rolls dice variant, or grinder You'll probably change your mind.

Why there's no "C" ? Also multiple choices poll would be more adequate. I would vote for B,C,D,E,J,G Do you know that F-4E (Vietnam war type) wasn't able to reach Ma=2 ? Was slower than MiG-21 just like British variants... most powerful and slowest Phantoms

Did I hit a weak spot of F-16 geek? You make my day. Thanks. True... MiG 21 is so easy to fly, that almost every video "First time on MiG-21" starts from crash - usual on both: takeoff and landing Also videos about RSBN approach are quite... Amusing. Yes no brainer it is. As far as I read about F-4E, the earliest variants are being mentioned in Vietnam since 1968. F-4E was upgraded multiple times. Engines (early ones were smoking badly) radio, radio-navigation systems. All true, but it's also true (according of Heatblur declaration) That they are going to introduce 2 variants of F-4E clasic and late. Also they are going to give us a F-4 family, so there's hope for B,C,D, J ... all served in Vietnam As for MiG-21. In Vietnam served MiG-21 in Variants: F-13, PFL(?), PFM, (M?), MF (those are most popular) We have none of them in DCS Right? Well.... not quite. Bis was one of first official mods to DCS. Therefore it was assumed, that she has to fulfill a full spectrum of Mikoyan fighters. The first example of these idea are missiles carried by bis in DCS. No MiG-21 bis could ever carry RS-2US. The reason is incompatible radar. For RS-2US you need radar from PF/PFM. Placing those early missiles on bis (R-55, RS-2US, R-3S) was in purpose of allowing to simulate some early cold war scenarios. The biggest advantage of bis is of course EPR, but surprisingly basic performances of MiG-21 stayed the same from F-13 to bis. Speed and time of climb to maximum altitude. As for Vietnam map - That's the last true air-war in History. After that enemy air forces used to be annihilated in 12-24 hours. 3'rd World War never started (thank you Allah, Yehowa, Christ, Zeus, Odin) so "Fulda Gap" was never an arena of air combat operations. Anyway... Fulda gap is more a subject for Tank-Sim enthusiasts than DCS. With my best respect to all fans of F-4, MiG-21 & all those interested in Vietnam War history, and Vietnam Map for DCS Kermit

Proper alignment is realized per data link between a pair of Su-27 before lunch... And to be honest I'm sure I saw it multiple times on various sources, including Wikipedia, and Bill Gunston articles, but I'm unable to give you a reliable source of these information right now. I may search if someone's interested... I realize that for DCS one need more details to change anything. I just want to point here that it is possible... From quite a long time already. Other thing is that PESA/AESA arrays use more sophisticated methods to avoid interferency. Someone tried to explain it to me once, but I fell asleep in the middle... With my eyes opened

As much as I want to agree... WTF are you talking about? How Fox -1 can be ever equal to Fox-3? It's not the same and it won't be unless ED introuces full potential of R-27 and Su27. Originally R-27ER can be guided by a radar of other plane. I other words: You may fly low to be safe. You may prepare yourself for "notch" or "crank", do STT a target, and your wingman can lunch R-27ER for it in stratosphere, being accelerated to Ma=1,6. Theres no such thing in DCS as far as I can tell. Otherwise SATAL would be finaly very interesting... For once. In DCS only equal plane for F-16 is F-16... I have it uninstalled. Waiting for better times ... On Enigma With my best regards Green Ugly Fellow

All true. I'm reading "F-105 vs MiG-17 over Vietnam". I was amazed, by pilots complaining that... "M-61 Vulcan is too acurate. You may shoot out a single piece of enemy plane. By A2G we used to wave a pedals to create some dispersion"

True. But they weren't able to satisfy ED. Anyway... Who would fly F8F against MiG-15? I seriously doubt.

hic acurem aqua, hic aqua revertitur. With my best respect

Probably the reason for my hysteria is because It is a Phantom.... I wait for it since i'm 12 and I played F16 Fighting Falcon on C64.... I waited so long. I hope he will be perfect. So I can uninstall all other modules (except of UH-1)

Church is a place to "belive". Not aerodynamics. Here is a nice article and film about how the vortexes I talk about are created. There's an airfoil moving up and down, and of course it's about Karmans vortex: https://fyfluiddynamics.com/2015/10/flow-visualization-can-be-a-valuable-tool-for/?doing_wp_cron=1654384116.9519119262695312500000 By high AoA the vortexes are created. On the film you may see Vortexes building up on upper (and lower) surface and sliding down along the airfoil. They are not "static"- so they're not the one I wrote about. The Vortex I'm talking about is more complicated. Another example here. https://www.iahrmedialibrary.net/the-library/methods-in-hydraulics/fluid-mechanics/flow-induced-vibrations-karman-vortex/270 There's more about it in NACA reports, I'll try to find something more precise soon. Here is another visualization of Vortex - also not static. but it gives a good idea what I'm talking about Please pay attention, that in spite of having laminar flow on the upper surface, the airflow is far from nice pictures you're all accustomed to. Here are 2 traces of static vortex 2:33 the vortex builds in the corner , is barely visible, and the flow is in different direction ,but that is actually static vortex. It'looks like that: https://www.iahrmedialibrary.net/the-library/methods-in-hydraulics/fluid-mechanics/flow-separation/272 Here is also example of Static vortex, but it's just a foto: These vortex is very small. But it's the same principle. It makes the shape of a solid (here's a car) more "aerodynamic" . Vortex itself consumes very little energy from the flow, and works positive. These vortexes may build up also on the trailing part of the flow and they usually lower the drag. The Vortex on Phantom was huge, and grows bigger after flaps were extended. I shall search for films of Phantoms in foggy or rain conditions - it may create a visualisation sometimes. One more thing. These time no vortexes. Look how the flow of fluid (the air is also a fluid in aerodynamic sense) changes only because of different speed. Thats Reynolds number. If you're inpatient move to 4:30 and enjoy. https://www.iahrmedialibrary.net/the-library/methods-in-hydraulics/fluid-mechanics/stratified-flow/939 I'm not saying that charts presented above are fake or incorrect. I'm trying to say, that interpretations of them, and possible connection(s) between STRT and Slats are beyond subjects possible for you to determine here. Not because you're not intelligent, but because you need far more data to definitely answer the question. And in first case, you don't even know what data you need to be able to specify a full and correct answer, because it's far more complicated than you think. With my best regards 303_Kermit PS. @Hummingbird I may provide more information in any subject connected to fluid mechanic and aerodynamic, but I'd like to make it on prv. I'm not sure if everything I have I can legally publish. I'm terribly sorry

It's no big deal. F-14 Tomcat A-B has it also (D had Electronics onboard to correct a problem). The reason of these phenomena is a lack of the airflow (or rather detached airflow) over upper part of the airfoil on High AoA. I assume that it's well known how it works. Adding a slats changed characteristics, but didn't solve a problem. To solve a problem one need Fly-by wire. F-4E biggest difference was while landing and take -off: The C & D model had the non-slotted stabs. On take off the normal procedure was to hold full back stick and go full burner. When the plane rotated, you eased off the back stick after lift off when you reached the climb attitude. On landing you usually hit full back stick just at touchdown. For in-flight maneuvering there was plenty of elevator authority, but on and near the ground, you were limited. The Air Force E model had the slotted stab with more downward lift. You could make a normal burner take off and pull back stick at take off speed. You could also land the plane normally with a flare.

Warsaw pact instrument flying is actually much easier than NATO one. There are two methods. For ARC (NDB) approach - "System" For RSBN/PRMG approach - "Box" "System" approach you may find here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M6TKQl6HQw

Start form original flight manual, cause the one in DCS is useless. Chuck is only bit better, but it's incomplete and has some errors. Plane itself is hard to fly, and it's made to fly with EWR operator support. If you're very experienced, you find it as a challenge to fly and fight. If you're beginner in DCS, you're going to have a hard time. I wish you patience, and good luck. Search for a squad flying MiG-21. Usually such guys posses detailed knowledge, experience and sources you look for. Good luck. Unfortunately there's no perfect book about MiG-21. Nobody made a book about full spectrum of MiG-21 without serious mistakes. I found also no honest book about the plane. Some books are excessivly flattering, others are overly critical - up to pure hatred to the plane itself . PS. I'd like to share with you my sources, but they're in Polish language

I shall wrote, that slats are constructed - means calculated for a specific AoA. You're catching a single words from what I write. English is not my first language. Well the point with the slats is, that Coanda effect which basically they use, needs specific parameter of airstream blowing through slat opening. Too much - and airflow won't "glue" to the upper surface. It blows it away. Too little - the same. That is why for slats - to "design" them (I hate these word), to calculate them - engineer needs a speed (usually it's a landing speed) , AoA, and of course prepared basic shape of a wing to calculate the reynolds number, because coanda effect strongly depends from it. That's what I meant. Hummingbird. The drawings are very nice ( I mean the lower ones). I wish Airflow and Aerodnymics is so simple in real life.... You see. Most of "virtual airflow sim" or "virtual wind tunnel" use simplified aerodynamics. To calculate things they use assumption that the air has no viscosity, and no compressibility. Sometimes it's enough to become some rough estimation. Not in these time. Example? Just from angle of attack on your drawings I can say that the data on it are ment to describe Cl/AoA for Airfoil (with and without slat) - not for a wing. Because a shape of a wing makes the curves more "flat". Some wings has 25° critical AoA without slats. Others needs slats to rich such AoA. They both may even have the same airfoil, but work on different reynolds number. Anyway... you asked why STRT is better with slats and I gave you explanation. Probably it's not as simple one as you may expect. CL/CD Chart - the one above, "Maximum Thrust - Combat configuration..." is interesting. With some additional data, one may use it to approximate STRT. Means, one may check if the chart CL/CD suits STRT chart. Some simplifications are needed, like a constant thrust in all speeds and AoA, or constant weight of a plane. Also as always in Aerodynamics it's necessary to calculate an error, but there are the ways to check if both data - CL/CD and STRT/TAS suit together. With my best regards 303_Kermit

I remember it was mentioned on "Plane Construction" workshops as curiosity. I can check my old pdf. ... some of them are 25 years old It's a trip down memory lane for me. Anyway. maybe i didn't stated it clear enough - The phenomena lowers the drag. There are couple old cars with rubbish bodywork, but in spite of it - good Cx was archived, the reason was the same. I thought that connection between STRT and the Phenomena I described is quite easy to understand

I'm trying you to explain that slats in Phantom caused a Phenomena i described. It wasn't a original purpose of engineers - it was unexpected. I can reassure you I know how slats work, I know the Coanda effect, and what's more I can calculate a proper size of a slat opening, and other parameters necessary to construct a slated wing. I know that slats work only for some designed speed and angle of attack. The thing you can't understand is, that Phenomena I described was a byproduct - unexpected surprise for engineers. I'm not trying you to explain how slats work, because I expect you to know such basics. I assume that people here knows what Wikipedia is and I expect that very basic understanding of fluid mechanic is possessed. I'm explaining only things you won't find in Wiki. With my best regards 303_Kermit PS No slats can add you +25° to critical AoA. You went bit to far.

Ok I try to explain . Sorry for putting crappy paintings, but I couldn't find anything more elegant in Internet. Sorry. Now One photo says 1000 words right? Lets try that. Two cases. First - Phantom without slats. No comments needed i think. Second - static Vortex. Consumes very little amount of energy from the airstream, under some conditions it works as a "Extra airfoil" - in simple words the airflow behaves like it's flowing around much bigger , thicker profile. The phenomena is stable, but appears and disappears quite rapidly. That is why you get STRT improvement.

"Thrust-limited turning performance" See there's the difference . For some of you turning performance is TRT+Cornering speed. In real life there's much more. One of the parameter is stability, next is lower vibrations (in Phantom very real problem), and there are much more. See also they mentioned "thrust limited" they didn't pusch it to the limits. TRT and cornering speed wasn't a subject of test... Probably. If I see rapport there is a chance I find some things you can't see in it. Other case is, that when I use a word "Vortex " some of you think about Mirage or any other delta. It's not that "Vortex". The Vortex I mentioned has much to do with the slats. It also explains why in Phantom on high AoA smoke (if there is one) travels from trailing edge to the leading edge. As I mentioned Phantom is very specific plane. Slats can give you couple (3°-4°) extra AoA, they give some Cl (not as much in case of swept leading edge) but in case of Phantom there's more into it. Slats came to make Phantom a little bit less difficult to fly. Phantom could turn quite well with or without them, but he was even more difficult to fly than MiG-21. Adverse Yaw, buffeting, stick light when going subsonic from supersonic - name the problem, and be sure in some point Phantom has it. You can't explain Phantom just by sentence "yep - slats gave F-4 more maneuverability". It's huge underestimation. Go trough "Aircrew interview" channel there are at least 4 (maybe more) interviews with Phantoms Pilots. They all say how hard it was to push Phantom up to his limits. Charts are necessary of course, but you're scratching just the top of the iceberg not knowing that there's much more underwater. It's like that. Phantom isn't a flying brick, but it's a "pilots" plane. God damn difficult to fly. It's not the F-16, he won't fly alone, you have to work hard for success. The point is not how high TRT Phantom may archive. The point is how long can you sustain a stable turn at corner speed without loosing control, or falling outside parameters. That is why slats came to Phantom

Aerodnymics of Phantom is much more complicated. It's not the slats you shall concentrate on, but static vortex (I'm not sure about correct English name) - Very unique aerodynamic phenomena that appears on F-4 Phantom wing at certain AoA. That's the reason of very special characteristics. not the slats

Not exactly true. First Phantom posses a Wing with swept leading edge but it isn't called a "swept" wing. I've met with expressions like "cropped delta" and others, but to be honest - the solution was never used before or after. Phantom is unique. If you want to learn something about low speed (subsonic) aerodynamics (in very simple language) I suggest a book made by eng. Roskam "Airplane design part III: Layout design of ...." Page 177, chapter "Effect of sweep on lift curve slope". For other aerodynamic literature i'm afraid there's higher mathematics needed (transformations opposite to la place transformations for a start) Unfortunately drag Isn't so simple as lift. First... because constants from Bernoulli equation aren't actually constant. Drag coefficient (in these case) depends on speed, humidity, and other factors. Drag force is even more complicated. Today we used to use CFD for such cases, but it's not always correct. Anyway - Drag of Swept wing has different nature in both cases (swept vs straight) true, but in straight wing slats work better - they're (much) more efficient. Swept wing makes many things more complicated. In subsonic speeds they give almost no advantage. My Professor used to say "if swept leading edge would be so brilliant in low speed airflow, Spitfire would have one". There is a reason why Phantom II was nicknamed "the triumph of thrust over aerodynamics." That was surprising 70 years ago. Reason is actually quite simple. You may find even videos on YT with explanation. Rubbish. In almost every sentence. 1. Slats never decrease drag, they usually improve Cd/Cl ratio. 2. Slats used to work in laminar part of the flow. The point of changing the flow from laminar to turbulent may be actually calculated from the only known case of solution of Navier-Stockes equation (all other solutions are unknown). Usually it's first subject of Fluid Mechanics laboratory. 3-rd semester in my University. Back to the slats - Airflow through slats is usually laminar, true. It doesn't mean though, that the drag is lower. You're just changing one kind of drag to other ("friction drag" to "shape drag") usually (in these case ) summary drag is even bigger. With my best regards master engineer 303_Kermit

The Upper chart (sustained G turn) show 15,25°/s TRT at sea lvl by 575KCAS - the lower one (F-4E with slats vs F-4E without) - 20°/s at sea lvl by Ma=0,6. It's strange from 2 reasons: 1-st the difference is huge 2-nd Slats add Lift, but also a Drag - and a lot of it. Everyone who enjoyed a aerobatic in a plane with a slats on it may confirm - if slats jumped out at the beginning of the loop - the feeling is like someone pulled a handbrake - you won't make full loop. I'm sure that slats help a lot by instantaneous turn, but in a constant turn they bring no profit. It make only sense if the lower chart (F-4E with slats vs F-4E without slats) shows instantaneous turn capabilities. With my best regards 303_Kermit

Q: What variants will the Heatblur F-4 Phantom include? A: The first release will be DCS: F-4E, the iconic land based variant of the Phantom. We will be launching two variants of the -E; a “classic era” F-4E (blocks 36-45 with updates retrofitted in 1974 and before, including new slats, DSCG and AGM-65) as well as an upgraded (DMAS) version of the aircraft in one package. So it will be a post Vietnam Phantom

As Far as I recall there are going to be 2 variants of F-4E (God bless Heatblur) - Classic Vietnam Era and Late. That may be a hint

Same here. I fly MiG-21 and don't get me wrong - I still love the plane, but F-4 blows my mind. I kinda liked all the planes in DCS buy i never felt that's the one - that is MY PLANE... Now I know what I've been waiting for.

23mm with 172g bullet from NS -23 gives 47,900 J Kinetic Energy; 2,8g HE + 3,3g incediary 37mm HEI-T from N37 (~500g bullet mass) gives about 80 000 J Kinetic Energy, Conventional HEI-T shell filled with 37g of HEI, self-destruction nose fuzes A-37, A-37U or B-37 fitted Maybe 10x more explosives is the reason why it has 10x bigger explosive power? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stop being lazy. Data are available in internet. Instead of writing "I think..." actually start thinking. Instead of typing "In my opinion ... " build opinion on available sources. Source: http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_37mm.html http://www.russianammo.org/Russian_Ammunition_Page_25mm.html With my best regards Kermit