Jump to content

Wolf_ofthe_North

Members
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Wolf_ofthe_North

  • Birthday 01/02/1985

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    F-86F, F-14B, FCS
  • Location
    USA
  • Interests
    Korean War Aviation, WWII Aviation, History

Recent Profile Visitors

768 profile views
  1. SLmod spits out a .lua file. There are also lua to JSON converters that you can run as well. Look for SLSC mod. Good luck!
  2. As someone who plays about 20 hours a week dogfighting in the F-86, my hunch is that once the bullet issue is fixed the gunsight will work.
  3. Sorry if my rambling through the primary source material added to the confusion, so I'll try to be more specific here: 1. The MiG-15bis had problems with both uncontrolled spin and roll. 2. It had an automatic airbrake that deployed at .92mach to deal with uncontrolled roll. 3. Uncontrolled spin is a different animal. I've attached an image which shows how the MiG design bureau tried to test the airframe and alleviate the spin problems. I'll quote the inset which is taken from Foxbatfiles.com: "MiG I-310 prototype S-02 during its V-VS Scientific Research Institute flight trials in late 1948. The black cannisters beneath the wings are "anti-spin" rockets used to help the pilot recover from spins. This aircraft and its pilot, S. Bogdanov, were lost when it failed to recover from a test spin. (FoxbatFiles.com)" Sabre v. MiG, p. 16. Osprey Publishing 2014. Matters are not aided by the fact that pilots of this era seem to use the terms equivocally. From Kramarenko's Air Combat Over the Easter Front and Korea, p.145 Pen and Sword 2008: [The sabres] flipped and went into a dive, and transmitting to Goglev (the third pair leader): "Cover the commander!" I followed them. Seeing that a Sabre was diving doggedly at an angle of nearly 60 degrees, I aimed and shot off a burst. The shells exploded around his cockpit area and I clearly saw a smoky cloud above it. The Sabre increased its diving angle and dropped away, but at this moment Goulyy transmitted: "I'm spinning!" I look back and see his plane nearly upside down. I order: "Let out the brakes and pull out of it!" I see Goulyy pull his plane out of its overturned attitude and then we leave off diving, climb to one side, and come back again..." p. 133: "The Sabres, not expecting this, find themselves above me but far behind, and begin chasing me. What to do? Climbing is not an option: the Sabres [because they are higher] will close quickly and open fire. I keep descending at a maximum speed but at a height of about 7,000 meters (my speed was more than 1,000 km/hour) the plane begins to spin. The control levers don't work. I bring the speed down a bit by using the airbrakes: the plane straightens out but the Sabres exploit my reduction in speed and close in fast." Wolf's note: I believe in both instances Kramarenko is describing wing-drop but in neither instance did the planes enter an accelerated stall. See also Zabelin interview: — Could you compare the Sabre and the MiG. I know that there was a high speed problem – valezka (wingdropping). Yes. Weak wing. You should expect it as you passed 900 kilometers per hour. A lot of pilots were killed by it, but I wasn’t afraid – it was sufficient to give opposite rudder. Then you had to reduce throttle. But the source material seems to suggest these may be two different but related phenomenon: Sabre v. MiG p. 25: 1. Wing Drop/Valezkha/Uncontrolled Roll While the top speed of the two jets seemed equally matched, at high altitudes it is Mach that counts, and the MiG-15 suffered from a relatively low critical Mach number (VNE) of 0.92. Above this speed directional stability deteriorated markedly, resulting in yawing (“snaking”) from side to side – something the jet’s unboosted rudder could not correct. Even the hydraulically boosted ailerons were hard to actuate at high speeds, taking both hands to move (as if the stick was “stuck in cement”), and resulting in an excruciatingly slow roll rate. Most critically, because of the MiG-15’s light construction and poor quality control at the various assembly plants building the aircraft, the wings rarely matched! And near critical Mach, they tended to “warp” due to insufficient stiffness and inconsistent sonic wave attachments, resulting in sudden uncommanded rolling moments (called valezhka, or “wing drop”) that could only be controlled by slowing down. 2. Snaking, yawing, sudden departure from controlled flight causing unrecoverable spins: Additionally, above 0.92M, the unboosted elevators experienced control reversal due to sonic wave attachment to the tailplane surface, dramatically changing its control dynamics. Frequently, this would cause sharp pitch-up moments if any “back stick” was applied to pull out of high-speed dives or to initiate a defensive turn. Many times – in at least 56 cases documented during combat – the MiG was seen to “depart controlled flight”, the aircraft pitching up violently into a high speed stall and the yawing moment causing it to “swap ends” and snap into a spin. These were frequently unrecoverable, resulting in the loss of 40 aircraft. In numerous other instances the sharp pitch-up would cause an “over-G” in which G-forces in excess of those for which the airframe was stressed would bend and distort the empennage – some were even seen to shed wings or tail assemblies. Thus I believe there should be two ways to produce the MiG-15bis' historically dangerous spin characteristics: 1. ignore the wing drop effect until you enter a spin 2. apply too much back-stick at high speeds. If I may, I believe the following short youtube clip is illustrative: You're going to see the plane enter an accelerated stall on the left wing. This is most closely related to the wing-drop phenomenon. (Annoying, ok, but recoverable.) But then you're going to see the plane REALLY spin, and my primary argument is that this is not modeled correctly in the DCS MiG-15bis as is. You're not surviving that by deploying airbrakes and reducing throttle because the Bis did not have boosted elevators or rudder, just ailerons. I could be wrong but I think it's an interesting topic to discuss.
  4. I'm bored so I'll continue. 3: https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2013/april/04/mig-15-flying-the-enemy-fighter 4. This is a video summary of Operation Moolah which offers contradictory evidence: At 9:05: "The MiG is most effective as a combat fighter at lower speeds, where its lower thrust-loading allows greater manuverability [than at higher speeds]." The study included the following relevant desirables: 2. High rate of climb 3. Rapid acceleration from low speeds 4. Short turning radius Operation Moolah also indicated the following undesirable characteristics: 1. Uncontrolability at high mach number 2. Poor rearward visibility 3. Poor lateral directional stability at high altitudes 4. Slow rate of roll. 5. Equipment requires constant pilot attention. Notice that poor stalling characteristics did NOT make it onto Moolah's list. Contradicts my main point, but hey, we have to stay honest. 5. United States Air Force Operations in the Korean Conflict 1952-1953 (declassified) https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/101-150/AFD-090529-031.pdf p. 56/101 "The MiG was unstable at high altitudes and at high speeds. p. 60/101 "[F86-E] Sabres demonstrated the ability to out-turn the MiG at altitudes below 30,000ft." p. 61 "There were a good many pilot reports that the MIG was unstable at high speeds, subject to unintentional spins, especially at altitudes above 35,000ft, and very difficult to bring out of a spin. During 1951-52, 32 instances were reported in which a MiG was observed to go into a spin for causes other than battle damage. In a shorter but more intensely studied period between September 1952 and April 1953, there were 24 instances of MiG spins--12 of which were assessed as accidental and 11 of which resulted in losses to the enemy. In the first half of May 1953 when there were seven incidents in which the MiGs went into inadvertent spins from manuevers at or above 35,000ft, and in most instances, the pilot immediately ejected." 6. "The Jet that Shocked the West" Air & Space Magazine, Dec. 2013, p. 2:
  5. 1. This is from Sabre v. MiG-15 by Warren Thompson and Thomas Dildey, published by Osprey in 2014 and is mostly related to the Initial design compromises/considerations of the MiG-15: While the top speed of the two jets seemed equally matched, at high altitudes it is Mach that counts, and the MiG-15 suffered from a relatively low critical Mach number (VNE) of 0.92. Above this speed directional stability deteriorated markedly, resulting in yawing (“snaking”) from side to side – something the jet’s unboosted rudder could not correct. Even the hydraulically boosted ailerons were hard to actuate at high speeds, taking both hands to move (as if the stick was “stuck in cement”), and resulting in an excruciatingly slow roll rate. Most critically, because of the MiG-15’s light construction and poor quality control at the various assembly plants building the aircraft, the wings rarely matched! And near critical Mach, they tended to “warp” due to insufficient stiffness and inconsistent sonic wave attachments, resulting in sudden uncommanded rolling moments (called valezhka, or “wing drop”) that could only be controlled by slowing down. Additionally, above 0.92M, the unboosted elevators experienced control reversal due to sonic wave attachment to the tailplane surface, dramatically changing its control dynamics. Frequently, this would cause sharp pitch-up moments if any “back stick” was applied to pull out of high-speed dives or to initiate a defensive turn. Many times – in at least 56 cases documented during combat – the MiG was seen to “depart controlled flight”, the aircraft pitching up violently into a high speed stall and the yawing moment causing it to “swap ends” and snap into a spin. These were frequently unrecoverable, resulting in the loss of 40 aircraft. In numerous other instances the sharp pitch-up would cause an “over-G” in which G-forces in excess of those for which the airframe was stressed would bend and distort the empennage – some were even seen to shed wings or tail assemblies. This issue became so critical that the MiG-15bis was soon retrofitted with a new Mach indicator – the M-0.92 – that had an automatic trigger deploying the speedbrakes at 0.92M to slow the jet to below “red line” so that it would not “self-destruct”. In the interim, the early MiG-15s were limited by a flight manual restriction to 1,100km/h (683.5mph). In high altitude maneuvering at slower speeds the MiG had a noticeable turning advantage over the Sabre. The lighter wing loadings of the early MiG-15 gave it a tighter, faster turn and the more powerful VK-1A engine of the MiG-15bis ensured that the later model could sustain its turn longer, losing less altitude, and was able to zoom and power its way back up, out of reach, to heights beyond the Sabre’s ceiling. However, once below 30,000ft (9,144m), if the MiG pilot turned so aggressively that he shed airspeed, the Sabre’s leading edge slats provided a great advantage. In a turning fight below 330mph IAS (530km/h) the MiG pilot was doomed. Wolf's Note: This is specifically in comparison with the A-5 which had slats, rather than the fixed 6-3 wing we have modeled in DCS. MiG-15 design This combination resulted in significant “spanwise flow”, where the air is deflected outwards towards the wingtip, thus reducing lift, decreasing aileron effectiveness and causing premature stall at the wingtip. Consequently, two tall, full chord “wing fences” were needed to keep the airflow going parallel to the longitudinal axis of the aircraft. The horizontal stabilizer was swept 40 degrees, and being structurally difficult to fit atop the fin, it was set two-thirds up the vertical stabilizer and mounted as far aft as possible. This was to provide the greatest possible pitching moment (for pulling G and turning tightly) so that the fighter was as maneuverable as possible for air-to-air combat. The prototype – designated I-310 (serial S-01) – was first flown on December 30, 1947 by V. N. Yuganov, and not surprisingly it was found to be “generally satisfactory, but pulling too much G caused a sudden flick into a spin [due to limited yaw stability/ control] and there were problems with yaw and roll”. Additionally, the deep-set cockpit – done to minimize the height, size and resultant form drag from the low-profile bubble canopy – resulted in very poor forward visibility at slow speeds, such as on final approach for landing. 2. This is from an interview with Vladimir Zabelin, who was credited with 9 kills and the Order of Lenin during the Korean War describing tactics: — You said that you shot all your planes in horizontal maneuvers? When I talked to the pilot of the division that replaced us, if I remember correctly it was 97th Division from Baku (97th IAD returned to the USSR simultaneously with the pilots of ther 190th IAD, therefore it was 216th IAD that arrived from Baku in August 1952. I. Seidov), I told them: — However strange it may be, I shot them down in horizontal maneuvers. But what was it exactly? There is no way to make me fight them in sustained turns. Then he easily would have made it to my tail. When I made it to their tails, they knew that their only escape was in horizontal maneuvers. Everybody knew that this type of maneuvers was much better in Sabres than in MiGs, and the Americans used it very often. Another choice for them was to make a half roll and go straight down – the MiG couldn’t catch them. I knew that they were going to use these maneuvers and waited for them to initiate. I usually chased them from behind and a bit below. Their rear-looking radar identified us at a distance of about 2 kilometers. It warned the pilot of our presence in his rear sphere, and I almost felt that he was going to start turning. There was no other option for him. When he began to roll, I tried to intercept him. If I did not shoot him down during his first 1\3 of a turn, I had to abort the attack and zoom away. http://www.airforce.ru/history/cold_war/zabelin/chapter5_en.htm I will post more later, but if you spend a significant amount of time in DCS PvP with MiG and Sabre, you will see that MiGs love fighting Sabres in sustained turns because on doghouse charts, the MiG-15bis has an advantage over the F-86F-35. However, as you can see above, this is precisely the opposite of the approach taken by accomplished Soviet MiG-15bis pilots. In the words of Zabelin, this is something that "everybody knew."
  6. The current in-game lua has them with an exit velocity of 830 m/s when research has shown it should be at least 870 m/s and more likely 890 m/s. More troubling than this is the inaccurately modeled ballistic characteristics of each round. This was pointed out by Curly in another thread, but basically he dug out books that indicate there should be waay less drop both before and after the transonic shockwave.
  7. I concur that the deadly spin and stall characteristics that we read so much about in the primary source material are not modeled in DCS MiG-15. It is very stable at slow speed regimes, in fact, that's where the majority of MiG players prefer to fight PvP. The literature I've come across seems to suggest a MiG would not want to get low and slow precisely because of the unpredictable stall characteristics. In real life, the MiG-15bis also had an airbrake that automatically deployed at .92-.95 mach, and that is also not modeled correctly.
  8. I would agree as well. The most glaring issue is that no fighter pilot is going to fly into combat with a compass situated where it is. One of the advantages of the Sabre is its superior cockpit ergonomic design and superior visibility over the MiG. It seems like Belsimtek went out of its way to put the compass in the most annoying (yet admittedly historically accurate in rare circumstances) position.
  9. Me too God it's annoying when Jester can't switch modes in a dogfight because of his desire to mash buttons.
  10. Well that seems like it could be a problem....
  11. For 1950 standards it was cutting edge technology, introducing the all-flying tail, that was critically important at keeping the jet stable beyond red-line speeds. Also in development since November 1949 was a major improvement to enhance controllability at and beyond critical Mach number. Called the “all-flying tail” or “stabilator” (combination horizontal stabilizer and elevator), it was introduced on the NA-170/F-86E. Fully hydraulically powered and complete with an “artificial feel” system for tactile control force feedback to the pilot, the “all-flying tail” was relatively simple and very effective, permitting full control beyond “red line”. Impressed, the USAF ordered 111 F-86Es in January 1950. "...aerodynamically, the Sabre was a very “slick” (low drag) design enabling excellent acceleration downhill, even with a Flight Manual imposed “Limit Mach” (later known as Velocity Never Exceed [V Sabres v. MiGs, 1950-1953 Korea Dildey and Thompson © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com 2013, p. 14 NE]) of 0.95M. It remained stable beyond “red-line”, although flight control was “touchy” in that regime. While control reversal was felt by pilots when above VNE, the F-86A’s hydraulically-boosted elevators – and later the F-86E’s “irreversible, all-flying” stabilator – minimized its effects to such an extent that it was fully controllable even on the other side of “red line.” Id. p 21 So considering it had full control beyond .95 Mach, yeah I'd say we can conclude the rudder was an integral part of a pretty effective piece of technology, the All-Flying tail. Something it's counterpart, the MiG-15bis, did not have.
×
×
  • Create New...