foxbat155

I'm entirely sure this info is not true or in best case is some misunderstanding. All MiG-17 without letter didn't had PPK system during production, some of them got this system during overhauls, so why 15bis would get this and then further MiG-17 not?. Probably MiG-15bis had use as a PPK's testbed and this gave info about it. Manuals dated 1953/54 says nothing about PPK system, and this publishing date is after MiG-15 production end in USSR (1952).

Please be aware, that wasn't my intention to lecture you. I agree that many sources give misleading information, many names/designation are confusing. I spent a lot of time on reading books, manuals, studing photos, in order to gain knowledge about those aircrafts and I know how easy people can lost, I lost myself many times... For those who interested with, from MiG company leaflet about AS package:

Again: Lim-5M (50 aircrafts built)--> rebuilt into Lim-6bis, series 1/2/3, Lim-6 (60 aircrafts built)--> rebuilt into Lim-6bis, series 4, Lim-5P (129 aircrafts built)--> survived aircrafts were rebuilt into Lim-6M (42 aircrafts rebuilt) or Lim-6MR (12 aircrafts rebuilt). Lim-5M have NOTHING to do with Lim-6M. Here photo of Lim-5M, conformal tanks on the wings, double main undercarriage wheels. Yes, "AS" was a rework package for MiG-17 "without letter" and MiG-17F, after those works both variants were called MiG-17AS. Only A-G ordnance on the new pylons. Sorry for that :). No point argue, I spent life on study all those things.

1. Lim-5 was a frontline fighter, but Lim-5M not, this was a dedicated light attack aircraft with secondary fighter capability due to much worse flight performance, 2, 3. Nothing was oposite, in early 70's commanders of communists PolAF decided that Lim-5P interceptors are already obsolete, but because aircrafts were quite young and in good condition they decided to rebuild them to Lim-6bis standard, those aircrafts were called after that rework Lim-6M, part of Lim-6M got AFA-39 camera in external underfuselage pod, those were called Lim-6MR, there is no difference in armor between polish MiG-17 variants, all of them had SPO-2, only early production Lim-5 had SRO-1, all rest SRO-2. Lim-5M's were rebuild to Lim-6bis standard as a series 1 and 2 and 3 (aircrafts with bort number start from digit 1 or 2 or 3), Lim-6's were rebuild as a series 4, new production aircrafts as a series 5 and 6, Briefly: Lim-5--> Lim-5M--> Lim-6bis series 1/2/3 Lim-6--> Lim-6bis series 4 Lim-5P--> Lim-6M or Lim-6MR 4. Nope, AS was a attack variant with added two pylons borrowed from MiG-21 and able to carry UB-16 pods, S-24 FFAR's and bombs, but NEVER any AA missiles, AS was created in half 70's, WP pact members had own attack variants already in service for over 10 years...... 5. I didn't said those are the same aircrafts, I just said 17 borrow a lot from 15, like whole front part of fuselage, undercarriage, control system, many electrical and pneumatical systems, almost all electronics, about 90 percent of cockpit equipment, whole catapult chair on the beginning, etc.

Well, lots of false info here. 1. Lim-5M wasn't frontline fighter, but first polish attempt to build a light attack aircraft based on licence MiG-17F version called Lim-5, 2.Lim-6Bis was a final variant of few "light attack aircraft" variations on trials, like Lim-5M, Lim-6, 3.Lim-6M was a Lim-5P (MiG-17PF), rebuild into Lim-6bis standard of light attack aircraft during 70's, radar was removed, 4.Original MiG-17F was NEVER armed with R-3S missiles, few cuban MiG-17 were rebuild localy in order to use those missiles, only some chinese J-5 fighters got chinese copys of R-3S, 5.Polish Lim-5P was, similary like original Soviet PF, a pure gunfighter, and never used any AA missiles, only limited amount of Soviet PFU's had 4xRS-1U and removed guns, exclusively for Soviet PVO, 6.MiG-17 and then MiG-17F borrowed a lot from MiG-15, 7. On the photo you can see original Soviet MiG-17PF with RP-1 radar, PolAF used about 20 of them, Polish built Lim-5P was based on the later PF wariant with RP-5 radar.

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.