scaflight

and he explicitly stated they wouldn't be that overt. Which you then replied to, so you would know about it. No real grounds for thinking it's a Draken if he refutes it like that.

And it's work that stands out compared to some other developers! I don't mean that in a snarky way, I simply mean that your products and your dedication and support mean I feel 100% more at ease purchasing something you've made than something someone else has made. :)

You must spread some reputation around before giving it to renhanxue again.

OH! Well that makes a ton of sense! Now if only Cobra could state something definitive about the extent to which the pod and radar ECM systems have application in the game. As it is, the pod and passive/intermittent appear to be windowdressing.

:megalol: I'm not sure what you're saying here.

I assume you tried a single pair of bombs on different pylon pairs, instead of two pairs of bombs on mixed pylons? The Syrian video shows only the first, not the latter.

That's a really nice example, thank you BY. But what is the connection with the jamming filters? Does the TU-16 jamming represent intermittent or continuous?

I see you live in Sweden. In the event that you want to perform some measurements yourself, you could contact Finland's aviation museum outside of Helsinki. They have one lying around AFAIK. Same with the Norwegian aviation museum in Bodø, though that's a long way to travel. Out of curiousity, what are you doing with the measurements? Edit: I actually found the Mig-21 in Sweden, so disregard the above.

Well, why would there be? If you are asking specifically for a fuel jettisoning system, then consider the weight penalties incurred by installing such a system within what is a critically thin wing. Also consider the design's age, and whether you are expecting the safety culture of 1) modern and 2) civilian aviation to apply to a Soviet military jet. The Mig-21 predates fuel jettisoning system regulations by a long shot. If you look at modern aircraft built by the 'West', they observe the FAA's regulation on fuel jettisoning systems (section 25.1001, current), but this wasn't a regulation before 1965. The reasons behind regulating for, and incurring the production costs of, fuel jettisoning systems are largely related to passenger safety, and go hand in hand with regulations for takeoff and landing weight. I don't actually know the max structural landing weight of the Mig-21, but on page 32 of LN's manual we are allowed in exceptional cases to make a landing with a weight of 7300kg. The manual does not tell us whether we would have to have the aircraft overhauled after that, which doesn't allow me to infer any max structural landing weight. But whatever - this isn't a passenger jet, and our employer has lots of spares. Let's assume 7300kg max struct landing weight. So run a short scenario. You take off with 100% fuel and are carrying stores when disaster strikes and you need to land. You jettison stores, and your aircraft is now @ 5330kg empty + 70kg pilot + 2850l fuel (x0.78 = 2225kg) = 7625kg. Burning 400l/315kg fuel at or near 100% throttle is done 130 seconds, 100 seconds in normal afterburner. With combat afterburner where you're just pouring the fuel into the engine, you are at 7300kg in 75 seconds. If for some reason time is your main concern. Which it seldom is* except in cases of severe illness, at which point I think any sane plane-building engineer says you're ****ed regardless. :) *this may be a hypocritical statement given my avatar's message.

Wouldn't cater to "all tastes" if we received two jets in addition to the F-14, now would it ;) A WWII-era plane has been so heavily hinted towards that it's a little beyond reasonable now to think otherwise. Unfortunately there's no 'clue compilation' thread or any way to promote those posts that do a good job of dispelling confusion and doubt. So we're forced to revisit old questions and subjects within the thread constantly. Informing the masses is a sisyphean task!

S-... How many of them area there? Because... if the simulators are all hooked up to computers, running FSX, then you could conceivably replace FSX with DCS, and connect the computer to the internet. And if you got other Viggen pilots to go to the other simulators, you could all fly together in multiplayer! :shocking: That would be amazeballs

Oh goodness! That is perfect! What are the three lights that come on intermittently? Seen right of the Höjd (altitude) gauge, underneath its neighbouring gauge. Slightly below center. They're associated with some pretty hefty mechanical clunks, and seem to correspond to throttle movement.

(deleted because wrong :))

This is definitely what has been done on Syria's Fishbeds. You could give them a call and ask them how they're weighing the pros and cons of it all, but I'm not sure whether you'd get any answers. We can make a multitude of guesses, but none that are particularly informed. Some reasons could be saving fuel (in turn increasing loiter times which matters a lot), limiting metal fatigue (old Fishbeds, old wings), a desire for proportionate response through lower explosive yield (which given the barrel bombing is not very likely), or saving ammunition. The latter is of course counterintuitive, unless you acknowledge that a Fishbed is very inaccurate, but that an aerial bombardment still produces a psychological effect. And that individual bases have their own supply situations. Who knows, really.

A dynamic campaign would probably see a considerable influx of BMS vets. :)

So, to get away from the useless speculations about other aircraft: what kind of loadouts could we expect for eg. the AJ?

^ The soot and smudge on the cowling and fuselage there makes me god damned moist. Rudel, I will be demanding nothing short of perfection. Age, wear and tear!

Regarding your premise here: Big public servers trying to accommodate for every single module aren't really suitable. Not for this aircraft, hardly for any aircraft. I think established scenarios with a mix between PVP and PVE will yield you a better flying experience under more realistic conditions. :) The LN team is at work with 3 new aircraft + semi-small sceneries, so it is safe to say that they have absolutely no plan to upgrade the 21.

Wait, w-... I think this went over the head of a few people. :/

It's -safe- to say they're caught up in the beta right now, guys. :D

sim_guy: Update is on page 121 of Aircraft Speculation thread. Post #1206 Post #1210

Buried in the Aircraft Speculation thread. Maybe around page 130. If you go to Cobra's user profile I think it's around his 1,218th post or something. I'm being ODDLY specific for someone not willing to get you the source, I realize that and apologize :D

They have delayed that. Cobra didn't specify a new date. They'll be busy with Fishbed 1.5 beta first, so that'll definitely sap a good week or so. Cobra expressed that both new modules should be announced and released before the end of 2015.

Feisty: I disagree that "RSBN Mode Land/navigation/descend" should take any priority when changes are made. I mean, looking down in the cockpit is what you do when you're using those modes. :D

I have an X-52 pro, and I reckon I was more satisfied with the previous arrangement. I absolutely concur that generally -adding- toggles is best - on, off, and on/off. Furthermore I would like to echo Grunf's (#29) call for the weapon selector. Great job otherwise, Cobra and LN! :)