foxbat155

This is a great news, be a good man and share with me the source ( of course I mean Soviet not export data link documentation ). Yes Hungarian it's B what doesn't change anything because data link is the same. Regards.

Well, I didn't say that MiGs data link is te same class like those from Su (but honestly we really don't know what he can because we don't have appropriate documentation ). Photo shows cockpit of Hungarian aircraft, lack of IFF panel have different reason. Hungarian aircrafts got in late 90's western IFF and his panel was fitted above weapon panel on cockpit's left side and the original Soviet was deleted.

German modified aircraft in place of data link panel got big western IFF panel and TACAN panel. Original Soviet data link panel for 9.12/9.13/9.51 variants. Data link panel for export aircrafts, here on MiG-29A 9.12. The same panel like above on MiG-29UB 9.51. Although original Soviet and export panel looks similar, in reality those aircraft have different types of data link equipment with different capabilities.

German aircrafts modified to G variant after reunion had data link removed. All others early variants should have data link, ordinary 9.12 (A) or 9.13 (S) or 9.51 (UB). Only difference is that Soviet AF aircraft had a bit more complex and sophisticated data link compare to export machines.

I hope this will answer for most your questions:

Here is SRO-2/SRZO-2 manual (djvu file), enjoy: http://www.filedropper.com/327e0ea8124dd754fa942193039caaca1

SRO-2 and SRZO-2 generally is the same device. Between them is only one difference: SRO-2 is a "answer" device and is able only response for IFF system inquiry. SRZO-2 is "question" and "answer" device, she is able response for others inquiry and formulate "question" signal. "Question" signal can by transmitted by fire control radar only. So all MiG-21 variants with radar: MiG-21PF/PFM/R/S/SM/SMT/M/MT/MF/bis are equiped with SRZO-2, variants with gun rangefinder: MiG-21F/F-13/U/US/UM have SRO-2. When technicians saying about earlier/later model they probably means SRO-2/SRZO-2 and SRO-2M/SRZO-2M.

Well in most russian publications her's nickname stated as "утконос" what means literally "duck's nose". "Platypus" is for Su-34. Yes airframe changes were significant, but electronic equipment was very similar ( we talking of course about first "simple" MiG-27 variant ).

For heaven's sake give him little time, he need find information and scan this. If you are so impatient maybe you can show someting from your archive?. Sorry your datacard contains many untrue informations. MiG-21M/MF NEVER had ASP-5 gunsight ( only F/F-13, U, some US ), no difference in search range between RP-21M i RP-21MA and both are search radars not rangefinders, IFF system is SRZO-2 not SRO-2 (find the difference ). Every ( polish or czech or soviet ) military manuals stating that ASP-PFD-21 use information from radar. Those papers are OFFICIAL military documents, I don't understand why some people deny their value as a source of information.

Well sadly I think most people will be happy with FC3 level, clickable cockpit and some systems which looks similar to reality. If this will be DCS development road in future, we can expect much more "awesome" modules. I have few ideas: DCS USS Starship Enterprise, DCS Death Star or maybe something from Klingons.....:music_whistling:

"Ground radar"- some people call this way doppler systems used for measure speed and drift angle. Duck + Ground radar means for me MiG-23BN or MiG-27. Both are ducks and both equipped with DISS-7 doppler navigation system.:joystick:

Please don't judge me so hard, just Flogger argument always works in Turkey case. Type of discussion trigger. We can agree much worse, but because others movies are more idiotic not means that "Top Gun" is good. Don't ask me about Gordon's books, I'm not him. Simple logic. Parts amount and complexity. If you are not able simulate ASP-PFD-21 correctly, why you trying to do this with AWG-9 or other complicated weapon system. NAVAIR is huge for military, others can only lick cover. But I really have hope that you have right. You can share these treasures with us in the future and then we will able assess Leathrneck work. Finally, we are customers and we should require quality.

Dreams are important part of life, so I wish you many Flogger kills with Turkey.:thumbup: Well yes my words were bit exaggerated, but ( forgive me ) Tomcat myth always make me laugh, especially trashy " Top Gun" movie. Where is the point?. I have real doubts that Leatherneck ( or any other developer ) is able to deliver so complicated sim. It's not Tomcat issue, but all really complex aircrafts. Eagle Dynamics claims that DCS it's high level simulation not game, but so far most developers have serious issues with simplest things: flight models, fan from Mi-8, gunsight in MiG-21, lots of trivial issues in F-86, P-51, bug treads are full. When you read topics people just saying stories, I heard here.. I heard there... almost no substantive discussion. Meanwhile DCS became cheap market where developers announcing new super cool " awesome" modules, without finishing old ones. Almost nobody does not demand improvements, most wants game, next Arma or Falcon 4. I want simulation, graphs, numbers because I paid for it. I don't care which aircraft will be better Tomcat, Flogger, Mirage, Fulcrum.... it does not matter. They are to be a copy of reality with all consequences and issues, NOT someone's imagination. Everyone were delighted Leatherneck's new modul, nobody asked about documentation for all important systems. Navair it's only slight part of needed documentation. Most of this papers are still secret, so we will have imagination instead facts and reality. Regards.

Sorry for a little late answer, but I'm busy man. Great graphs, thanks for post them. I choosed for comparison 5000 and 15000 feet table, added some colors for clarity. Colors: Green - stall line, Red - aircraft structural limit, Blue - turn radius zones, Yellow - best performance for sustained turn, Pink - performance values. On each graph I choosed Tomcat's best performance values for low and high speed. Results: 5000 feets ( 1524 m )low: Speed: 335 knots ( 620 km/h ); Radius: 2400 feets ( 732 m ); G load: 5,2; Corner speed: 15,2 deg/sec. 5000 feets ( 1524 m ) high: Speed: 580 knots ( 1074 km/h ); Radius: 6200 feets ( 1890 m ); G load: 5,5; Corner speed: 10 deg/sec. 15000 feets ( 4600 m ) low: Speed: 335 knots ( 620 km/h ); Radius: 3800 feets ( 2290 m ); G load: 4,7; Corner speed: 11,5 deg/sec. 15000 feets ( 4600 m ) high: Speed: 485 knots ( 900 km/h ); Radius: 7500 feets ( 2290 m ); G load: 4,6; Corner speed: 9 deg/sec. Now time for this " ex-Soviet hand-waving garbage " ( frustration? problems with those strange letters? ). From MiG-23ML aerodynamic manual I choosed graphs for: turn radius, g load, corner speed. All graphs shows sustained turn. Like previously I added some colors: Yellow - best performance for sustained turn, Pink - performance values. I set the same speed value like Tomcat have, and then I read rest from graphs: 1000 m low: Speed: 620 km/h; Radius: 800 m ( 8,5% bigger than Turkey ); G load: 4,2; Corner speed: 12 deg/sec. 1000 m high: Speed: 1074 km/h; Radius: 1550 m ( 22% smaller than Turkey ); G load: 6,8; Corner speed: 11,5 deg/sec. 5000 m low: Speed: 620 km/h; Radius: 1400 m ( 20,5% bigger than Turkey ); G load: 3,5; Corner speed: 8,6 deg/sec. 5000 high: Speed: 900 km/h; Radius: 2500 m ( 9% bigger than Turkey ); G load: 4,3; Corner speed: 7,5 deg/sec. We clearly see that Tomcat have slight better performance, so yes Flogger can't eat Turkey easily, but Turkey can't do this with 23 as well:music_whistling:. Bearing in mind that graphs have some accuracy errors, my readings have some errors, Turkey data are marked "estimated", Soviet manual concerns early ML with SUOA it's really hard make judgment. It seems that we have more equal situation than many people thought. As I said: facts can be surprise:joystick:.Regards.

Glad to see this. Some help: Some facts about both missiles. R-60/R-60K launch zones, fighter and target speed equal. R-60/R-60K launch zones, fighter/target speed ratio 0,7. R-60/R-60K launch zones depending target g load.

Turkey because it's easy target, " turkey hunting" it's means something for you?. And yes I'm fanboy - facts not wishful thinking fanboy.:thumbup: Yes lads please find some evidence. Numbers, facts, graphs not emotions and wishes. Greetings.

Gentlemen, I know you are Tomcat fanboys, but facts are facts :music_whistling:. Navy pilots called her "Turkey":megalol:. Guess why?. Dogfight it's not Tomcat's world, as I said BVR it's different story. Flogger was most agile swing wing combat aircraft ever built. I know, you don't like it, really sorry. MiG-23 was created as interceptor but became very good dogfighter as well.

F-14 was totally new aircraft in 1970, MiG-21Bis was ONLY one of the variants from big family, last variant. Bis weapon system created between 1962-64 and go series late 1965 on MiG-21S. Bis is almost the same aircraft with only slight bigger fuel tank and modernised engine. So were is secret of her big carrier?. Answer is very simple: Soviets treats MiG-21M/MF/Bis same like USA F-5A/F-5E, cheap supersonic fighter for poor allies. Flogger ( especially later variants ) will eat F-14 in dogfight easily, BVR it's different story. Better rate of climb, higher trust to weight ratio, lower wing load. I know F-14 it's beautiful aircraft but she is like big cow, and can't be change into racing horse. Tomcat was create as a interceptor for defeating Soviet naval bombers and they missiles nothing more. The same story like with MiG-25 and 31, you can tell about them lot of things but definitely they are not dogfighters.

You have right with R-13M/R-13M1, but R-60M is ALL ASPECT missile. Leatherneck mistaken constantly R-60M with R-60, those missiles looks very similar but they are totally different. Most people even don't now how recognize both variants.

Yes you have right. Precisely distance between 5 to 2 km, depending from enemy's radar power. If distance is bigger SPO-10 should show lock on direction normaly. In DCS unfortunately lock on means always four lights, what is wrong. I think it's not bug just bad implementation. I hope Letherneck will improve that. Page from pilot's manual:

MiG-15 never had any kind of RWR system. This is feature characteristic for next Mikoyan fighter - MiG-17. Starting from late series MiG-17 they fitted SPO-2 "Sirena" rear hemisphere only warning system. His antenna was mounted under white navigation light on vertical stabilizer. What is interesting this equipment was mounted only on MiG-17 and MiG-17F but never on interceptor variants like MiG-17P and PF/PFU. Regards.

Hi, As always great video. I want only correct small thing this relates developers work, not your video. Like we know from your video, counter do not show distance from NDB emitter. I don't know why developers not implemented in game, but in reality almost all MiG-21 equipped with ARK-10 or ARK-10M radio compass had this capability. Only some poor variants for Arabic countries lack it. For example a drawing from original MiG-21M pilot manual: Inside red rectangle we can see element with description: " ARK-10 radio compass distance reader". Below photo of real cockpit: This reader can be found even in oldest variant - MiG-21F. I hope for quick fix this problem in DCS MiG-21.

Done! I got my key !!!!. Good luck Leatherneck, i wish you guys big success.

Three fast scans: and few photos............ Photos from: www.hunavia.hu