Fishbreath

The MiG-21bis RL operating manual that's been floating around for a while (one source) claims that the real MiG's gyro gunsight is indeed locked to 300m, and that best results are obtained between 250m and 350m firing range.

I have a , but no tracks yet. Haven't had a lot of flying time lately, and what I do have, I've been putting into more fun things than characterizing minor bugs.

Someone ought to try landing, then reloading to a clean loadout, then reloading to a heavy loadout and trying again—is it all drag over the whole 'session' in the aircraft, or is it just the last loadout?

My mission editor's speeds and heights are in metric. 8000 meters and 800kmh they can do without burners.

117: your callsign 1: number of targets BRA: target call given in bearing-range-altitude format, relative to you. (The alternative is bullseye.) 265: bearing 130: range 11000: altitude flanking: target aspect. Cold: retreating, flanking: crossing, hot: approaching.

The first run of tests starts at about 2:50, and the second run starts at about 8:40. The actual results are a lot more inconclusive than it felt—I could tell it felt heavier the second time around. The initial AoA in the turn is the best indicator for me: starting a 4g turn was ~6 AoA the first run, and a 3.7g turn took 7 or 8 the second time.

My landing was so bad I 1) cut it out of the video and 2) would tend to think I might not make it five laps. :P

User is a forum member who posts in the Russian forums.

I lean toward there being a drag issue—rearm/refuel applying the drag for the old stores and the new ones. I took off with two R-13s, then did an acceleration test at 750-800 meters, then did a full circle at 4g, then jettisoned the R-13s and landed. I landed and rearmed/refueled, made sure to hit the nose cone switch, then took off again and did the same test. Climb out was a little less energetic, and although acceleration didn't feel too different (I'll time it once the video is done), the turn felt wallowy. Not super-wallowy, but certainly more like I was carrying four missiles than two. The obvious test would be to take off and repeat the test with four missiles, but I don't have time for that tonight. Video with annotations coming later. I forgot to save the track file.

Take it up with Messrs. Mikoyan and Gurevich. :P

You use SAU Landing Modes Disengage to turn off the landing modes. (It's on the SAU control panel.)

What are the maximum recommended landing speeds? I've been landing with nearly full internal fuel, and as such touching down with speeds in the 320-330kmh range. The tires are fine when I touch down and start to roll out, but as soon as I even so much as touch the brakes, the rear tires pop. ABS is on, unless on is down, and my procedure hasn't changed much. Is it just less forgiving in terms of speed now?

I'll +1 that, but I think a slider would be super-nifty, a la P-51 takeoff assist.

Spawning in hangars has problems all around, IIRC. Try it from the ramp?

I gave 1.10u3 a try. There's still a small amount of 'nosewheel steering effect' at low speed, but significantly less—turning onto the runway at low speed requires differential braking. I also find it easier to control. I think it was Corrigan who commented that the previous fake NWS effect required you to take into account the NWS effect and the differential braking effect when making steady-state turns now, but since turns are nearly all differential braking, it's less trouble to combine the two. You just set your pedals for the turn you want and hit the brake.

1.10u3 demonstrates the same issues with directed landing mode. Fortunately, I'm getting better at reading the deviation bars. :P

It's in front of the stick, near the pitot heat switches, IIRC.

It seems like there's no way, though, to copy one deactivated instance of an aircraft within a small radius of a designated point, at a given altitude distinct from the deactivated group's altitude. My change allows that. Doesn't have to make it into the main release, but it doubled the possibilities for me in my shooting range mission.

B isn't a braking chute at all—it wouldn't provide any slowdown. Braking chutes aren't similar to thrust reversers, they are simple thrust reversers. Consider that the MiG, which needs more braking than the Su-25, has only one braking chute, placed directly behind the engine, while the Su-25 has two chutes—again, behind each engine.

Blowing into your own sail does work—see the Mythbusters video, which is pretty solid practical evidence. (It's much less efficient than just using the blowing object as a jet, which is why it takes 95% throttle to move the MiG backward.) They even end up having directional control. This is wrong. Pick up a Kleenex or a piece of paper, then blow at it. If you adjust the angle slightly, so that you're blowing on the paper from slightly below its surface normal, you can feel the airflow hitting you in the eyes. Same effect with a parachute.

I'm with Corrigan—I feel like it's basically the same case. It's an unintuitive and seemingly impossible result, but physics is occasionally unintuitive and seemingly impossible. :P

Yeah, my gut reaction to 'strange nothing has been said about a date' is 'you must be new here'. :-P

'proceed' is how the switch's descent mode position is labeled.

Not a lot of good competition for modern fighters yet, but you have Vipers if you're feeling up to going toe-to-toe with AMRAAMs, and Tigers and Phantoms for fights you can win more easily. :P

£27 is $43. It's not that much cheaper, is it?