Fishbreath

On the ABRIS' NAV mode screen, there's a calculated estimated time of arrival. There's also a mode for estimated time to waypoint on the PVI-800 panel.

You can land it with full internal fuel less one pattern's worth, but it's vastly more difficult than with the rated loads. (I find I have to level off in ground effect at the threshold, and very slowly let it settle. Takes a ton of runway, but I can get it down.)

Is this similar to the bug with the A-10A's Maverick slewing? Maybe if so, we'll finally see that one fixed alongside this one.

Best range cruise is actually 600-650 kmh IAS. Climb speed is 870kmh TAS.

I seem to recall hearing that 4x twin R-60 launchers is not a loadout the actual MiG can take, so it doesn't work when you try to load it in the game.

I've been up to Mach 2.05 at 11,000 meters. You have to be at high altitude to see Mach 2, and subsonic and low supersonic acceleration is poor at altitude. If you're able, go supersonic at 7,000 meters or so, and try to stay supersonic until you've reached about 10,000 meters. You should be able to hit top speed pretty easily there. If you can't do a supersonic climb from lower altitude, make sure you're starting no lower than the recommended climb speed (870kmh true airspeed). The faster you're going, the faster you'll accelerate past the difficult transonic and low supersonic regimes.

Storing a target point with the Shkval/PVI doesn't capture target elevation data. (I don't think the forum ever determined if this was correct behavior or not; it's still in 'we don't know' territory as far as I'm aware.) In the absence of elevation data, the Shkval makes assumptions about the target's elevation that may not hold. I haven't done enough mountainous flying lately, but I think that saving targets with the datalink does keep elevation data and slew back onto the saved point correctly. Just another odd little Russian hardware idiosyncrasy.

Hey, Shark-Bait, I'm just speaking the only language you seem to understand. I'm perfectly happy to have a reasonable conversation, but I'm not the one who called himself a savant and everyone else in the thread morons. Unfortunately, you're wrong here, and since you seem to react to that sentence like a vampire does to garlic, I predict this conversation isn't going anywhere, and that you belong on my ignore list. Anyway, one more time: 1) 250-350m is the best range for accuracy on maneuvering targets. 2) The radar has trouble providing lock/ranging information on targets within 500m. 3) Since AUTO mode is the one you'll be in most of the time, and since it gets hard to flip switches once you're in close with a maneuvering target, it makes sense that the fewest switch flips to select the gun gets you a reticule setup which is most useful in close-range dogfights against maneuvering targets. 4) Since you can be much more methodical in your approach to a bomber, if you want to use the gun at longer ranges, you can switch to MAN and follow the more complicated, less dogfight-ready manual ranging procedure.

First off, cut the attitude crap. Nobody likes a smart-aleck. This is entirely consistent with using the sight as recommended. As you're closing in, align the target with the pipper. As soon as the pipper frames the target—that is, the target is 300m distant—begin firing. The next page is available for me. It goes on to say: "[...] reticule still remains in the field of view); the best precision in firing is achieved within the range of 250-350m." It further goes on to describe the process for attacking a target with the fixed net sight. The way people respond to 'aggression' is by thinking you're a bit of a dick. Your arguments are based on a reading of the operating instructions document. (I don't know its provenance exactly; I do seem to recall hearing that it was provided to NATO pilots as an insight into the -21bis' capabilities.) There are some cases where I'm more than willing to allow that Leatherneck may have gotten something wrong, but they're MiG-21 experts and you aren't, and in this case, there is no evidence in your favor beyond 'things should work this way'. I've had enough experience with simulated Russian military hardware to understand that you just can't say that about it.

Yup, if you leave it off, it doesn't write tracks.

You can definitely adjust the Shkval's brightness and contrast with the knobs—if you turn brightness all the way down, then turn contrast all the way up, then adjust brightness until you can see an image, you can see at night. (It shouldn't work, because there's noise in the video system that isn't modeled, but it's a handy way to pretend we have a Ka-50N.)

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?