303_Kermit

I have an Impression that you just like to argue. No matter the reason or person. We presented you an arguments on why MiG-17 could dive without limits. However, to understand them you need, a knowledge of high speed aerodynamics, and shockwave mechanics at least. To understand that, you need a knowledge of thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. To understand that you need higher mathematics; like inverse Laplace transformations to begin with, vector calculus, and conformal mappings to understand basic language of aerodynamic. Then your statements will matter, you will understand what we're talking about, and people will care about: With my best regards Kermit

Terribly sorry to hear about your confusion.

Here you go: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_52.PDF and here: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB443/docs/area51_51.PDF Those are USAF & USN made tests in flight of Lim-5 serial number 1C-07-18, built in Poland in 1956-57. The LIS-5 engine was serial number 559128 Personally I enjoy such statements: "Every Navy pilot engaged in the project lost his first engagement with the Fresco C. The Fresco's overall performance in the ACM {Air Combat Maneuvering) environment surprised all crews concerned with the project. The AlB on the Fresco engine gives it a performance level that cannot be duplicated or realistically simulated by U.S. airplanes with similar turn capability. Thus U.S. pilots were not accustomed to fighting an airplane with such an engine/turn performance combination. The relative age of the Fresco also led to a general overconfidence by U.S. crews prior to their first engagement. " and here: "There are no U.S. Navy airplanes that can simulate the performance of the Fresco C. Consequently, the aircrews who fought the Fresco during the test had no ACM training against this type airplane. The great improvement in U.S. Navy aircrew performance after only on simulated ACM engagement dramatically illustrated the lack of realistic ACM training" In wikipedia (unfortunately only in english) there is a very good article with many sources given on it. Between them there's a statement: " The afterburner doubled the rate of climb and greatly improved vertical maneuvers. But while the plane was not designed to be supersonic, skilled pilots could just dash to supersonic speed in a shallow dive, although the aircraft would often pitch up just short of Mach 1." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-17 Below the article there's very rich compilation of sources on which the article was created. You can check them out. And finally here: from original flight instruction: The range of speeds. There are various other statements, to confirm was I wrote, but that what I gave is enough. One has to apply aerodynamic laws for transonic range of speeds. (My advice is Арзанников Аэродинамика - I use polish translation of it). MiG-17 accelerates to it's maximum speed in horizontal flight, or in shallow dive. By reaching about Ma~1 as a result of built a shockwave on wing surface plane becomes tail heavy, and exits dive. The steeper the dive, the more vigorous pitch up reaction for it. My best regards

here's more Please help to prop up

I am kindly asking all of you, to place here any founded valuable material about Northolt Airfield. It will surely help Ugra Media to put these piece of history on Normandy 2.0 map. here: RAF Northolt 1940 from German reconaisance! Plane on approach to Northolt. See houses? RAF Northolt open day

Yes. There is an Infor that: "The PPK-1 system (-1.75 to +8 G) was added only to the later batches of the MiG-15bis after the Korean War had ended" -it still lacks for any sources - on which the revelation is based. It says: That [OKB Mikoyan] started to develop G-suit. Again lack of sources, but more important no info on about actual series production. It's not that easy to convert production line to built something new. I may also make no sense, in the light of new - improved constructions. MiG-17 and MiG-19. Source of what exactly? I'm not the one who tries to prove something. Logical conversation demands, that statement must be proved. If it would be otherwise , the world would be very hard place. One could then write "I say that in galaxy Andromeda flies an great pink magic unicorn. Prove me that there isn't." With my best regards Kermit

It would be nice if you point out the proper page with info. I have of course first of mentioned books - and whole series of them It's nice lecture, but its no valid source. There's many failures in it. It's not a "First hand source" - as for example flight manual or exploitation manual. I have such books for MiG-17 - and I assume that's the single really valuable source. The other fact is, that ... I can't recall where is says about MiG-15bis being produced with G-suit installation? in the second source you mentioned I just found that: quote: "Еще два месяца активных боев с F-80, F-86 и В-29 позволили пилотам 64 ИАК сформулировать требования по улучшению МиГ- 15бис, впервые появившиеся в документах Корпуса. Главным образом летчики требовали от создателей самолета: [...] — оснастить самолет противоперегрузочным костюмом;" end quote and later: quote: "Некоторые из ранее высказанных пилотами корпуса пожеланий уже удовлетворялись. Взамен автомата регулирования топлива АРТ-1К на двигателях МиГов 64 ИАК появился АРТ-8В, тот самый «автомат минимального давления топлива», который просили еще летчики 151 ГвИАД, в Корпус стали поступать самолеты, оснащенные «Барием-М» — ответчиком системы госопознавания. 3 января 1952 г. Министерство авиационной промышленности выпустило приказ №10 «О самолете МиГ-15бис», который предписывал окрасить истребители 64 ИАК матовой краской, оснастить МиГ- 15бис тормозными щитками увеличенной площади, установить дублирующее управление катапультой и обязывал завод №153 до 15 февраля 1952 г. оснастить трехканальными УКВ радиостанциями РСИУ-ЗМ «Клен» 60 «бисов» и направить их в 64 Корпус." it rather proves my point. G-suit wasn't the feature onboard MiG-15bis... maybe in War Thunder? The other problem with these publication is lack of any given sources. In good quality publication , author is obliged to point out the source on which one or another fact was presented. As for third "source" Again - the same case. It's not the first hand source. The text is long and very interesting. Thank you for that. I like such stories. I took my time and red google translation, and still I didn't found anything about MiG-15bis being produced with G-suit installation. -Again as previous: problem with these publication is lack of any given sources. In good quality publication , author is obliged to point out the source of presented facts. Otherwise it's just pointless work. I can also made a website and write down any given storie. Without sources it has no value, other than fun. As for other statements starting from word "Attention". I really try to understand your point, but I still failed. Can you please consider posting here in less emotional way? These place is made to exchange opinions and informations. It's natural that there are people who'll disagree with you. However - I see your point. It's simple truth, that we don't see the planes the same. It's all natural. I would call it "professional bias", but I don't know if it means the same in englisch as in my native language. MiG-17 and MiG-15 are for me so different as Ferrari 458 from Audi R8... "Some say" - they look the same. Just the two supercars. But if you came to Italy and say that in public you'll be ... Like sgt. Hartmann used to say "I a world of s..t" and you better run fast I tried - it's fun With my best regards, and hope that you see my poing Green Ugly Fellow

+1

Dear Gentlemen! First of all I want to thank you for your amazing job by Normandy 2. Man has to use 1 000 words to describe one Photo. Your job is then beyond any description. I felt like becoming whole new game. Thank you for that. Being a fan of WW2 planes and history, I couldn't help myself not to travel around Great Britain and then Normandy, all the coast lines... Amazing job. I still like to take a Jeep and just ride.... What a shame that there is no "de Havilland Tiger Moth" or "Bücker Bü 131 Jungmann" in DCS P-47 was way too fast to enjoy it properly. Around London however I discovered strange aberration. To be more precise "W" of London I found to my amusement.... Let's check one after another: A Heathrow airport or Great West Aerodrome?!? Lets start from the beginning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_West_Aerodrome "The Great West Aerodrome was not an active RAF airfield, but sometimes in World War II RAF fighters or bombers needing to land, landed there, and their crew sometimes found a bed for the night in Heathrow village. " So what about Heathrow ? According Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heathrow_Airport By the time the airfield was complete, World War II had ended, and the UK Government continued to develop the site as a civil airport. The airport was opened on 25 March 1946 as London Airport. The airport was renamed Heathrow Airport in the last week of September 1966, to avoid confusion with the other two airports in London, Gatwick and Stansted. ...To my bigger amusement I didn't found ... a Northolt Airfield. Soooo.... what about Northolt? Its location: Direction Length and surface 07/25 1,684 m (5,525 ft) Grooved asphalt Northolt in 1939 had a 800-by-50-yard (732 by 46 m) concrete runway. Wikipedia names Runways: - 07/25 concrete runway (currently) - 08/26 concrete runway 800-by-50-yard (732 by 46 m) was extended 1841-yard (1684m) in February 1943 to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command. - 02/20 (smaller) runway closed in April 1944. - 31/13 runway built March 1946 Site history Built 1915 In use 1915–present During WW2 A Homebase for daytime fighter operations of: During BoB RCAF No. 229 Squadron No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron No. 504 Squadron and part of No. 264 Squadron according to https://www.ukairfieldguide.net/airfields/Northolt Battle of Britain RAF Sector Station (10th July 1940 to 31st October 1940) 1 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 18th June 1940 to 23rd July 1940, then 1st August to 9th September, and then again from the 16th August 1940 to 11th October 1940 Note: Later to become 401 RCAF Squadron. 43 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 23 July 1940 to 1st August 1940 229 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 9th September 1940 to 15th December 1940 257 Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 4th July 1940 to 15th August 1940 264 Sqdn (Boulton Paul Defiants) 29th August to 29th October 1940 302 (Poznan) Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 11th October 1940 to 23rd November 1940 303 {Kosciusko] Sqdn (Hawker Hurricanes) 22nd July 1940 to 11th October 1940 604 (RAuxAF) Sqdn (Bristol Blenheims) Later during Wartime: No. 302 Polish Fighter Squadron, No. 229 Squadron No. 615 Squadron No. 308 Polish Fighter Squadron No. 306 Polish Fighter Squadron No. 303 Polish Fighter Squadron during 1941 to form the No. 1 Polish Fighter Wing. Also Homebase for Reconnaissance squadrons: No. 16 Squadron No. 140 Squadron No. 69 Squadron with their Vickers Wellingtons modified for photographic reconnaissance that arrived later. All three reconnaissance squadrons were combined to form No. 34 (PR) Wing. Polish Fighter Squadrons based at Northolt in 1942 took part in Operation Jubilee (the raid on Dieppe) on 19 August alongside Nos. 302 and 308 from nearby RAF Heston. (that's another mystery?) Reconnaissance squadrons No. 16 Squadron and No. 140 Squadron operating Supermarine Spitfires and de Havilland Mosquitos moved to Northolt in 1944. No. 69 Squadron with their Vickers Wellingtons modified for photographic reconnaissance arrived later. All three reconnaissance squadrons were combined to form No. 34 (PR) Wing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAF_Northolt And it is not "Just another Airfield" Northolt was important: In 1943, the station became the first to fly sorties using Supermarine Spitfires (Mk IXs) in German airspace in support of bomber operations (it's kind that Wikipedia don't give the name of the squadron). On 25 March, RAF Ferry Command became RAF Transport Command and thereafter used Northolt as a London base for the transfer of new aircraft from factories to airfields. Runway 26/08 was extended in February that year to accommodate the larger transport aircraft required by the Command. Northolt continued as a Sector Fighter Station until February 1944. As a result of this and the new larger runway, the smaller 02/20 runway closed in April 1944. RAF Northolt became home to Prime Minister Winston Churchill's personal aircraft, a modified Douglas C-54 Skymaster, in June 1944. The aircraft was used to fly him to meetings with other Allied leaders. Between 20 and 21 July 1944, a converted Consolidated B-24 Liberator bomber named "Marco Polo" made the first non-stop intercontinental flight, flying from London to Washington, DC, then returning to Northolt from La Guardia Airport within 18 hours. In November of the same year, an Avro York flew non-stop from Northolt to Cairo in 10 hours and 25 minutes. A new runway, 31/13, was surveyed the following month and built in March 1946 Im curious... What period of time actually recreates Ugra media map? W of London seem to be somewhere in 1946-47, except of Northolt which is apparently in 1914, and Normandy seem to be some in July 1944... Can you please explain it to me and other WW2 DCS Fans? RAF Northolt website today: https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisation/stations/raf-northolt/ Northolt during WW2 Northolt in 1939 RAF Northolt 1945 (source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RAF_Northolt_1945.png) Northolt in 1950's Northolt in 1954 And at the end I found that: Approach chart May 1951 Northolt With my best regards Green Ugly Fellow

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.