foxbat155

Well, looks like Mr. Wenyong forgot many things as the really are. MiG-21 hydraulic system peak pressure without any flow is rated 215 kg/m2, normal working pressure is 180kg/m2 with typical 35l/min flow (when pump is new, flow at end of pump's service life is about 25l/min). Here photo of F-86 emergency pump: Here emergency NP-25T pump from MiG-21 family: They looks completely different. Conclusion: F-86 wasn't eated by MiG-21.

Hi, I will send you a link later today, right now I'm at work. Could you please take photos from front, back, left/right side, up and below. 20-30 pictures, what is important with a ruler ( measuring tape) or another object with known dimensions, I need this for dimensions calculation. Important as well is to use a normal lens not a wide one. I'm sure your phone has two cameras: wide and standard, please use a standard one. Thank you and congratulations, I always was dreaming about my own ASP gunsight, maybe when I will perfect my ASP's 3D model I will print one. Regards.

Yes, I have few things about, but mostly polish language. I can share with you, no problem at all, do you able doo for me some amount of photos with gunsight and ruler?. Regards.

Due to aerodynamic reasons single drop is not recommended, and due weapon system construction single bomb drop is impossible. Pylons have special sensor which enforce simultaneous drop of pair of bombs. In order to save ordnance during normal "peace" service, was developed special simple device which was imitating bomb presence under one of pylons, so bomb from second pylon in pair can be drop in single mode. Device had form of simple metal plate with suspension lugs, bomb drop sensor pusher and side locks which were keeping device in place after bomb locks opening. Usually one pylon had "imitation device", second had light type of training bomb like P-50 or P-75, or light combat bomb like FAB-100, ZAB-100 etc. So wasn't possible hang 4 bombs and drop them with single mode because second pylon in pair was always occupied by "imitation device".

Looks great. Example of fine 3D art.

Mi-24D and Mi-24V have CCRP with KPS-53AV gunsight, but unfortunately in P variant this device was removed.

Raduga-Sh have two pairs of doors for lens protection, first (visible from outside) are made from metal, then second pair made with armoured transparent glass.

Yea, you right, I should use word channels.

Raduga-Sh radio guidance system have 10 available radio frequencies, so 10 helicopters is able attack one target or group of close targets without risk of mutual interference of fired missiles. Those frequencies need to be select before fire of course, i'm not sure here, but probably on the ground before take-off.

One missile in the same time per helicopter, up to 10 helicopters attacking one target in the same time.

Already we were discussing this few times on this forum, K-13 is NOT a AIM-9B copy, Soviets used Sidewinder missile as a sample and built similar thing, R-3 variant was reverse engineered for test purposes, serial production variant R-3S had more differencies than similarities, different engine with longer burn time, completely new gas generator and because of that twice longer guided flight time, different IR detector gimbal construction and because of this bigger scan angles, completely different gyro rollerons construction, rolleron blokade not existing on AIM-9 etc. K-13 (R-3S) is not a copy, but based on AIM-9.

Well, we have so many exotic stuff in already existing modules, so compared to them SPO-15 is very trivial, I'm personaly dissapointed that developers decided to go with SPO-10, I really like idea of Bieryoza's display hanght over the gunsight . And lack of a hood for blind flying is a double shame.

Well, im not trying prove anything because I don't have to. Photos shows true, Mi-24P with SPO-15 were in RuAF service for almost last 30 years. Even if those machines weren't in Soviet service and were produced for export, at the moment when they were introduced into RuAF service, after appropriate persons signed appropriate documents they became domestic. That fact, and you cannot denied this, especially that all of them are named Mi-24P and rwr is a only diffenrence between them. That's why argument "we doing domestic variant" is questionable.

Of course, I cannot say only by the picture this machine was intended for export or not, important is her service within Soviet and then Russian Air Force. Mi-24P production was terminated in 1989, so for sure she had service during soviets times. The best part is, that you cannot state definitelly that she is NOT a domestic variant, serial number probably will help. Fact is, that SPO-15 equipped P's were flying in many places, including home country. Yes, most P's had SPO-10, but SPO-15 had use as well, so no reason to not take advantage from more modern system, which is historically proper, no sci-fi here. That's why I believe that background of this decision is far from official statements.

Here we go, first from google search: SPO-15 we have right now in FC3 aircrafts have very little common with real system.

Not only export P's were equipped with SPO-15, some amount of Soviet 24P's had that system aswell, pictures are easy to find over web. Developers choosed SPO-10 equipped variant, officialy because this was most common case, but in my opinion real reasons were different: probably SPO-15 docs are still confidental in Russia, and SPO-10 is far easier to develop due to it's simplificity.

Gunner's sight for sure will have a bulb and glass reflector....and that's all :). This is PKV, the same simple collimator like we have in Mi-8 module.

Very precise numbers of soviet losses in Afghanistan War are known since 90's. No need read some colorized, tabloid style stories. Through 10 years of war Soviets loss 118 aircrafts and 333 helicopters, these numbers include everything: combat losses, accidents, machines destroyed on ground etc. From 1979 to 1989, and Stingers were in use from 1986...., even in first days of use, one aircraft/helicopter was hit ( which not means automatically being a shot down ) for every 20 fired missiles, when all Soviet aircrafts operated in Afghanistan have been equipped with flare dispensers this ratio goes down 1 to 600. So any stories about "Stinger effect" are exagerated, this is kind of American myth from that time. Soviets pilots were more affraid 12,7 and 14,5 mm AA, like all these Stingers, Red Eyes, Strielas and chinese copies of everything.

Yea, you right, I should add info about engines, so: Su-17/Su17K - AL-7F Su-17M/Su-20/Su-17M2/Su-17M3/Su-17M4/Su-22M4/ Su-17UM,/Su-17UM3/Su-22UM3K - AL-21F3 Su-22/Su-22U/Su-22M/Su-22M3/Su-22UM3 - R-29B-300.

Su-17 Family tree is a bit complicated, so I did diagram. I hope this will explain most confusions.

Beamscanner, we already had here discussion about this. Russian specialists from "Fazothron" ( radar creator ) called RP-23 a "pulse doppler with external coherency" and they considered this device as a "pulse doppler". Believe me or not but they don't care what was said by some dude from USA, so please give a break.... .

Fishbed had 4 generations; 1. generation: F, F-13 type 72, F-13 type 74, U type 400, U type 600, 2. generation: PF, PFS, PFM, FL, R, US, 3. generation: S, SM, SMT, M, MF, MT, UM, 4. generation: BIS type 75A, BIS type 75B

This must be written: Many people comparing Soviet RSBN to western TACAN system but those are totally DIFFERENT stuff. TACAN is "only" radio beacon receiver with distance measuring channel, RSBN ( under this name we have several systems like RSBN-2S, RSBN-5S, RSBN-6S, A-321, A-324 etc) is a navigation calculating complex, which use "dead reckoning" concept. In every RSBN type main basic mode is automonous mode when system is calculating aircraft position with data taken from aircraft's systems ( like speed, drifts, course, etc), but because this kind of navigation have growing error during flight time ( because all of on-board instrument have some own error, and those errors are cumulating in RSBN) navigation complex need some kind of correction and this correction in RSBN system is provided by ground radio-stations in "correction" mode. RSBN-5S in "correction" mode have accuracy 200 m in distance measurement and 2 deg in angular measurement. So generally RSBN is calculating aircraft's position all the time and when radio signal is achievable then RSBN correcting own calculations.

Yes, Ramsay have right, RSBN-5S works with true geographic radials not with magnetic radials. Course system KSI feeding RSBN-5S with magnetic radials and then those are changed to geographical in magnetic correction device. Of course this system is not super precise, but precise enough in late 60's. Many Soviets aircrafts of that era had the same, identical RSBN-5S system, so shouldn't be any differences in work between them ( L-39, MiG-21Bis, Su-15T/TM, Su-17/M/Su-20). So far only L-39 have proper implementation, still few things can be improved, but generally L-39 is a point of reference for (I hope) future Bis improvements in navigation area.

Soviets didn't have to and what is more important didn't wanna to convince anybody because till today docs about those old radars are secret. For sure they wanted keep in secret almost all theys achievments because then is much easier suprise and defeat people/nations thinking stereotypes. They get the same goals with different way. Well, that your right to do this, and I'm sure that NIIR ( S-23 creator) have the same way of thinking about Lincolns Lab theorems. They called this radar: doppler-pulse with external coherency and I respect this, especially that in DCS is impossible to catch differences between radar with external and internal coherency due game engine limitations. Do you have any technical description of S-23 radar ( no important which variant) ?