foxbat155

Yes, that switch change from main filament ( No. 1 ) to emergency filament in case of no. 1 failure. No difference between them in light quality. Honestly, I never heard name ASP-PFD-M ( according manuals MiG-21's had ASP-PF-21, ASP-PFD-21 ( early, late ) and ASP-PFD-21A ). Considering, that we have MiG-21Bis module, yes we should have late "full" reticle. I even was thinking about made new texture for this reticle. I checked "papers" and photos, and I made mistake in my last post. Reticle story: ASP-PF "partial pattern", ASP-PFD "full" reticle and later with new missiles, again "partial" reticle with new pattern.

Just small explanation. "Abbreviated form" was first reticle used in ASP-PFD from 1968 to 1972. After 1972, when new missiles show-up ( R-60, R-13M ), gunsight got additional transparent range scale and this new "full" reticle. During 70's many early ASP-PFD were modernized to late standard ( WP M's and MF's and Soviet SM's and SMT's) .

Yep, that's FAB-250 from M-54 model (FAB-250M-54).

MiG-19P hype:D. Weapon system diagram with description: If you wanna see ASP-5 gunsight from closer distance: Some crazy french gentleman disassembles this massive Soviet device. Generally I wanna recommend that channel. Lot of electronics inside view, civil, military, Western, Eastern.

You right,this is S-5 launcher, but for 8 rockets. Like Vincent wrote name for that stuff is ORO-57K.

As a additional option, why not. Yes sir, that correct name for this variant.

Few more words about SPO-2 and MiG-19P/PM. In internet you can find photos wich shows something like here: Monument with MiG-19P and on the vertical stabilizer something what looks like SPO-2 antenna, ....but that's not a SPO:music_whistling:. MiG's-19P/PM were first Soviet supersonic interceptors and Soviets were looking for ways to improve theys intercepts capabilites. Part of aircrafts had first Soviet GCI system- "Gorizont" ( antenna simmilar to ARK antenna close cockpit canopy ), other aicrafts had "Globus-2" or "Globus-2M" equipment. That "Globus" was kind of transponder for cooperation with ground PVO radars. "Globus-2M" antenna was very simmilar to SPO-2 antenna, just she was bit smaller and had slighty different shape. Page from manual: Only MiG-19P prototypes had SPO system because those aircrafts were rebuilt from oridinary MiG-19S.

Well, I don't wanna be a smartass, but Gordon mistaken many times in his books. Late MiG-19S had SRO-2 not SRZO-2, this last can be used only by aircraft with fire control radars. Why?. SPO-2 is IFF with only "answer" mode, answer for interrogation signal. SRZO-2 have additional mode "question" and this signal can be transmitted only by radar. So for full IFF capability ( "question" and "answer" ) aircraft must be equip with fire control radar. That why eg. radar-less MiG-21 (F, F-13, U/US/UM ) have SRO-2, variants with radar (PF,PFS,PFM,R,S,SM,SMT,M,MF, Bis ) SRZO-2. But anyway this have nothing to do with MiG-19P/PM because RP-5 radar didn't had interrogation channel. MiG-19P manual says cleary: SRO-2, and this is not problem at all because this aircraft fights always in visual range. Very early aircrafts had SRO-1, that's true, but after 1957/1958 they get SRO-2.

Overstratos, you probably mistaken with SRO-1 ( early IFF system ). Something like SPO-1 never existed. Soviet RWR chronology: 1. SPO-2 "Siren-2", 2. SPO-3 "Siren-3", 3. SPO-10 "Siren-3M", 4. SPO-15 "Bierioza". I don't wanna say that you have no right, but I never saw a foto of MiG-19P/PM with SPO-2 antenna. MiG-19S vertical stabilizer with antenna: MiG-19P without antenna: This photo shows stabilizer from late aircraft, modernized with R-3S missiles.

That's bad side of MiG-19P choice, because this variant ( and MiG-19PM ) didn't had any RWR. What is funny all radar-less variants ( MiG-19, MiG-19S, MiG-19SW ) had a rear hemisphere only SPO-2 RWR. She was working in 2-3 cm wave band and warned pilot about radar or radio rangefinder lock from rear. Honestly no idea why interceptors didn't get that stuff, but this was common in SU in that era: the same story was with MiG-17 ( interceptors without, radar-less aircraft with RWR ).:music_whistling:

Smallest sustained turn radius for MiG-19 (all variants at 5000 m ) is 920 m with IAS 480 km/h ( TAS 620 km/h ) time 34 sec., g-load 3,4. Smallest unsustained turn radius for the same speed IAS 480 km/h with g-load about 6 is 390 m. Quickest sustained turn radius ( at 5000 m ) is 1250 m with IAS 710 km/h (TAS 920 km/h ) time 31 sec., g-load 5,4. All cases on full afterburner of course.

I don't think that 75B was ever used for pure interceptions in SU, because was considered as fighter-bomber and served in limited quantity only in WWS units, not PVO. Other countries is different story, they used 75B for this, because they had no choice. If you wanna gather some info about Soviet GCI, you have to find this book: Over 700 pages, history, equipment, organization, tactics etc. Well, I think it's depend from point of view. Soviets considered automated interceptions as over twice more effective compared to traditional voice guidance, and that's why they built so big and complicated system. Guidance officer always oversaw interception progress, and was able to change in every moment commands, tactics etc, so there was a lot space for flexibility.

We not talking about GCI generally, but regarding MiG-21 bis. In Soviet air defence doctrine all interceptions were done by automatic system АСУ "Воздух" (or later "Воздух-1M"). АСУ stand from "Automatic Guidance System"."Воздух" based mainly on ground radar stations, but was able gather data from AWACS ( Tu-126 ), Tu-126 was flying "Воздух" station and by modified ARL-SML was able guidance fighters in automatic mode. Ground operator just assigned target to figher, all rest was done automaticaly by ground computer from "Каскад" system and sent by Lazur to fighter. One "Каскад" set was able count and send data to three fighters in the same time. Of course MiG-21Bis AFCS wasn't able steer aircraft automaticaly, but many other Soviet PVO fighters had this capability. Manual modes existed only for case when automatics failure. Lazur was automatic, but just data link, small part of big system. Here page from Lazur manual: "Values of course, speed, flight altitude and single commands relayed to aircrafts, are calculated automaticaly by counting instruments from "Каскад" equipment or manually by manual command feeder (2ЛАУ-1)" First variant of "Воздух" started in 1960 and based on analog computing systems, newer digitalized "Воздух-1M" started in 1971.

GCI is a automated guidance (made by computer system ), this what you talking about is just voice guidance.

We don't have GCI in game, so I was thinking he asking about real things...:thumbup::music_whistling:

Well, you don't have to tune anything because data link is already pre-tuned by ground service. Even if during mission will show up channels change need, it's done automaticaly ( manual mode for ARL-SM is secondary, in case of automatics failure ). Soviet aircrafts had bit different data link variant: ARL-SML and those aircraft could be GCI by AWACS (Tu-126) as well. How look GCI procedure: -after takeoff pilot reports readiness for mission, -GCI gives command to turn on data link, -when connection is established GCI assigns target and starts sending data to fighter, -special guindance instrument shows to pilot direction and altitude which he should maintain, -additional pointers on others instruments shows desired speed, engine rpm etc, -when fighter will reach counted by GCI point in space pilot receives signal to turn on radar, and from that moment all rest is in his hands. Some aircrafts like MiG-23P, Su-15TM, MiG-25P/PD and other are able do all operations completely automaticaly without pilot help.

That's would be great, totally refreshed module with two variants !. :pilotfly::joystick:

Hi, First, I wanna express my regret that LN team split :(, I hope that moment will start better future for both teams. Because now module belongs MAGNITUDE 3, and for now and near future will be only income source, maybe it's time to re-think module philosophy. Dolphin announced many changes in module for better, what I consider as very good and strong signal for community. But I was thinking maybe is good idea (and proper time for this) develop air defence variant of MiG-21bis - type 75A. Both aircrafts share about 98 % of systems, all weaponry is the same, only difference is lack of RSBN and presence of ARL-SM data link (and some changes in cockpit of course ). Navigation with use only ARK is not problem at all (especially when ARK will be improved to achieve "reality" standard), many people (including me) will really enjoy the GCI interceptions. In my opinion second Bis variant will increase module attractiveness, what will give needed incomes for new team. So far this approach passed the test in L-39 or C-101, why not try this with MiG-21Bis. Cheers.:smartass:

Fox one you right, this is for DUAS vanes on the pitot :music_whistling:, but this was nice try anyway:D.I suggested to wrong description.

Hi, It seems that purely accidently I have found the answer to the question: How are the true (not local UUA-1 angle ) AOA for the MiG-21. I found a guy who sells different parts of the MiG-21. One of those things is: It's a device used to calibrate the DUA-3 sensor , inside the storage packaging we have sticker, with interesting information on it. The main inscription reads: "Deviation angles of the vanes corresponding alpha and beta angles for duas", first box "protractor indications", and then "alpha angles" and "beta angles." I understand that up to 12º48´ indications are non-linear and then linear with a constant ratio. If my way of thinking is correct, this means that above 12º48´ UUA-1 relation to the true AOA is fixed at 1.28 (counted after conversion from seconds to hundredths). So 33º UUA-1 critical angle ( stall limit ) is 25,8º true AOA and the maximum safe angle of 28º UUA-1 is the 21,9º true AOA. Now we have in module about 16-17º true AOA.

Yes, that correct. For illumination only, if I remember correctly left is red, right is white.

I wanna add one thing. Maximum rate of climb: -maximum trust -115 m/s -full afterburner -180 m/s ..and 3x30 mm guns. I cannot wait:joystick::D.

Original Soviet MiG-19/MiG-19S have the same capability, up to 4 launchers. Only difference is that early aircrafts had weapon pylon located deep under wing right before landing flap, late MiG-19S ( sometimes called MiG-19SF ) had weapon pylon moved forward like on the photo. Chinese J-6 was copy of those late MiG-19SF.

This is chinese variant of Soviet ORO-57 launcher with 8 S-5 FFAR's.

Before L150 installed, all Su-33 of course had Beryoza RWR, just indication was on HUD not on separate display like in others aircrafts. Similar situation was on Su-25T.