Maverick Su-35S

On the 5th page here I've posted that if you'd try to modify the impostors.lua file the game won't recognize the model enlargement effect anymore...! Well guess what, I've tested to see what happens if I don't modify the file at all and simply open the original/ontouched one with notepad on Windows 10 and just save it (CTRL+S) without touching anything. After simply saving the file, without any kind of modifications I saw that the size of it had changed for no logical reason. The original file has 1020 bytes, but after you open it with notepad and save it with no modifications it will have 1023 bytes although it's content is exactly the original and apparently after this happens, the game no longer recognizes the file. Don't know why this happens..., if it's only me, then probably my Windows 10 notepad is doing something weird when it saves the file. I just want to play with those values in it a little bit until I can find the lowest possible values for the size of the enlarged model while still being able to spot the target from realistic distances for a naked eye, but I can't find a way around the file saving issue. Any clues? Thanks!

Yes, in singleplayer...! I've loaded a mission of mine, I've re-saved it just in case it might need to be re-saved if the model enlargement has been modified and no matter what I try, the modification doesn't occur, instead the model enlargement no longer seems to function in game, although at options you can choose between different values, none have any more effect during gameplay. Only after I put the original file back, it works again and once I modify a value by a tiny bit, it behaves like it doesn't have any more effect. Don't know how you managed to modify the file (I guess you used notepad) and change a value as you desired and noticed the change during gameplay, but I'm glad at least it works for someone else!

Did any of you try to modify a value in the impostors.lua file and see what happens? Something's strange cause no matter what value you try to modify and no matter what amount, after saving the file and try seeing any difference in the game, all objects appear as if the model enlargement is set to NONE. I tried setting a different value at options then re-putting the value that I modified and still the objects appear like there's no more model enlargement or as if the file would be compromised. Even if you put back the original values back, it still doesn't want to work anymore! So the impostors.lua is like a virgin..., cause once touched, it's not recognizable anymore! Weird!

Something happened since 1.5.1 or 1.5.0, where with model enlargement set to SMALL and not more, you were able to spot any type of air or ground unit from more realistic distances (perhaps even greater than realistic), but something changed since 1.5.2 and made it almost impossible to spot aircraft (the ground units appear clearly visible though) once you reach the distance from where the visual model transfers from 3D to that 2D like shape, that's where things go weird and the aircraft disappears completely just to reappear into a big ugly dot, then to re-disappear and stuff like that. The SMALL value doesn't make any difference from NONE, the MEDIUM is kind of still not enough to help you spot the target although you look in it's direction and when it appears it's kind of exaggerated in dimensions, while the LARGE value is too exaggerated anyway. By knowing how it was made in 1.5.1, it should be brought back cause it was very good (almost perfect) in comparison to what it's now!

I don't know what more else you found wrong about the F-86F AI in terms of being overpowered, but the only thing that seems to go wrong is it's overpowered engine. If you're in a fight with it, you should see (with F2 key probably) how the F-86 AI accelerates forward. I didn't chronometer it's speed variation, but you'll see that it accelerates almost as an F-15 in afterburner with no loadout. How the AI turns in comparison to a player's F-86, I don't know, I haven't seen a very big difference, but probably the sensation that it turns on a die is only due to the fact that the engine outputs a lot of abnormal thrust, which combined with the angle of attack the AI aircraft has (because the engine's thrust force adds a force component to the lift force due to the angle of attack) and due to the higher airspeed it has when chasing you it will have a much greater turn rate. It all makes sense why it seems to turn so quick and tighter, but this has nothing to do with the aerodynamics of the F-86's AI alone which look authentic, but only with the higher thrust effects of the engine! It's probably on the fixing list!

I agree with taking more time to fix this rather than rushing for the tournament and encountering problems in midfight! Thanks for the info!

Yes, this is the MIG vs F-86 thread, for this we need to know! Thanks!

Can we be announced about the scheduled tournament within 3-5 days before it takes place? Thanks!

THANK YOU "Dolphin887"! It's so good to hear that! The pitching moment or pitching rate accelerations as behavior of the MIG-21 when passing through stall AoA (at least for positive stall AoA) with full negative elevator deflection (full aft stick) and pitching moment at or near 90 deg. AoA must be re-evaluated, because the tracks that I've provided in the first post already proves it! Best wishes! Keep up the good work!

Don't know if this question might've been asked before, sorry if it might've been answered already: Can we have model enlargement as SMALL instead of OFF? Although even "SMALL" value might be making an aircraft/vehicle visible from a distance slightly higher than in real life, it is more realistic than being "OFF". With OFF, it's very difficult (becomes almost invisible) to spot an aircraft in dogfight if it's further than 1,5 - 2km from your point of view. I didn't find any regulation taking this into account (at least not in the provided .pdf), yet I still hope we could use the "SMALL" model enlargement value. Best wishes!

Yes, I started the topic in order to make clear the problem that the MIG-21 seems to have regarding the pitch accelerations (in aerodynamics/flight dynamics, this is directly reflected into Cm (pitching moment coef.)) variations between certain AoA. If needed, I'll provide a chart with the pitching moment (or Cm if wanted) variation with alpha on the MIG-21 for full aft stick (with an initial pitch trim position) in order to illustrate the way it looks "from outside". Now I don't want to look wise, but I really felt that I can't even begin to talk without telling what I know (and I'm not some dumb who just showed up sharing his basic knowledge about flight mechanics and mechanics in general) about how a statically stable aircraft (the MIG-21 is a strong example) would react in every condition. Thanks!

Thanks Grimes, Ok, so I should use the Do Script File! I was using Do script (as it was set for DCS 1.2.16) by initializing the "mistv3_7_48.lua" and only applying the needed command in the Do script box (if not group 'xxx', then mistrespawnGroup 'xxx'...end or something like that). I later found that although I get an error sound and message about the script when it activates, it still does the job like nothing happened, so I might leave it as it is even if the error shows up every time or I will try creating a ".lua" file in which to write the respawn command and run it using Do Script File as you suggest! Thanks again, good day!

Fixed...! Used the provided MIG-21 registry deletion file which forced it to not appear as existing anymore (yet lost one deactivation point because the error didn't even let it deactivate). Re-installed it, re-applied the key and now it works fine! Thanks you!

Hi there, Thanks for the links! Sorry I didn't find these topics before, but now I have part of my answers in them. Now I'm having trouble even with deactivating the MIG-21 (in order to re-install it as fresh), but hopefully I'll find what I need in the links that you provided! Cheers!

Hi, I've bought the MIG-21 shortly after it was on sales and now, after re-installing my OS and activating each module that I own, including the MIG-21, I tried going to multiplayer (single player also) and was asked again to re-activate the MIG-21...! Ok, I tried reactivating it (although I've already done it) and it used one more activation for granted (or for no logical reason) and told that it is successful (the same way as the first time) but still didn't want to continue because it asked to re-activate again...! I pressed retry again and again re-copied the code (tried from in game and also from site) and again it told the activation was successful and then again asked me to re-activate, yet this time it didn't use any more activation points, but again didn't want to continue and kept on asking me for the activation...! Don't know what to do, I've sent an error report so hopefully someone can take a look into it. What is the reason why would such a thing happen only for the Leatherneck MIG-21? Thanks!

Hello, Sorry for my noob questions: I've tried playing some missions from DCS 1.2.16 (which use "mistv3_7_48.lua") under DCS Open beta 1.51 and after I load the same mist file into the open beta on those missions, I get an error on desktop regarding the script. The first listed issue within the open beta is "27372 - Initialization Script File fails to run. Notes: The Do Script box should work, its just not running init script files." and might be regarding the problem that I experience. 1. Does the note tell that the mission should be working fine if everything's alright within the script box even if there is no script file being initialized and so because I try to initialize the mentioned script file I get the problem? 2. If I may need to initialize a newer version of MIST file in order to have the dead groups respawned (that's all I need the script for), will the MIST V55 work and how will I be able to download the MIST V55 from the link in the first post? Do I need to sign up on "Github.com" or what should I do in order to download this script file? Many thanks!

Look guys, I apologize for my bad mood, but I just don't know how to explain (at least from what I learned, not something out of my own beliefs) that there are 3 types of system stability (in 2 separate categories), which have been defined as a convention which everyone agrees with. The two categories are: static stability and dynamic stability! Each of them (separate or together) can provide one of the three stability regimes: stable, neutral stability (known as relaxed stability) and unstable. So there's a total of 6 possible situations: a) statically stable, statically neutral/relaxed, statically unstable; b) dynamically stable, dynamically neutral/relaxed and dynamically unstable. The dynamic stability is defined through a series of conventional (known) modes of oscillation, and is almost always present next to the static stability of a system. Our concern only regards the static stability of an aircraft so we should not even think of the dynamic stability (which is more related to time and frequency) which indeed might superimpose with the static stability at some random situation or make a confusion between the two! As far as I know, an aircraft is told to be statically stable if it has the tendency towards decreasing the AoA, WHEN the pitch control (horizontal tail or canard) is at it's null position (a position of 0 deflection told by the manual) or the AoA would go to another equilibrium value according to a new elevator position. Hence, this is what we call a statically stable aircraft (longitudinal stability as our concern), or an aircraft which still has a tiny fraction of static stability still available. If the elevator/canard is at 0 deflection and the AoA remains at rest in any preset position, then the aircraft is told to be statically relaxed (neutral static stability), not having the tendency to vary any new AoA value when the elevator is brought to 0. The third situation, which everyone seems to share so rapidly/easily is about having the elevator at 0 deflection and the aircraft's AoA tends to increase by itself uncommanded towards the critical AoA and beyond..., is when the aircraft is told to be statically unstable and won't return to a controlled flight whatsoever..., and THIS IS NOT the case with the Flanker nor the F-16 eighter (even if you don't believe it at first). Someone here said that even the F-14 and MIG-29 are unstable aircraft too, so..., this leaves me out of any other word! Please remember this: "If the AoA will always find another equilibrium value according to a new elevator position and will return to the original value when the elevator is brought to it's original position, THAT AIRCRAFT IS STILL STATICALLY STABLE", it is not unstable, which is the case with our Flanker too and it's very easy to test this in game without telling a single word about it. It is still within a statically stable flight, what the heck...! If the AoA won't stop at a random equilibrium value when the elevator is brought to 0 deflection, which is the case for statically relaxed condition, and keeps on building up continuously even with the consequence of going past beyond 90 deg. AoA, that's the only condition for an aircraft to be called unstable, otherwise the word "unstable" is used by many as a pretext for the high pitch response of the aircraft for slight elevator deflections (which seems very unusual to them) and so they to call it unstable for that cause, while in reality it is still flying with some static stability left because the AoA stops at some point according to a new elevator position and the aircraft is fairly controllable and still flying more or less well (according to the new AoA due to elevator deflection), otherwise the AoA would continue building up until the plane would be flying tail forward. I don't know how to better explain this, but it is just as simple as it is defined. I don't know how would someone else (who has the knowledge) describe aircraft static instability if anything else than something that won't find an equilibrium on it's own unless there is a CONSTANT intervention (from an automated system or man) that would always and constantly try to "find" an elevator position for which the AoA would stay in a so called "equilibrium", yet that would require the elevator to constantly make quite noticeable adjustments in order to not let the AoA vary (as it tends to do) and in that kind of situation you'll ALWAYS see that aircraft flying in a pitch oscillatory trajectory, and no matter how small the amplitude might be, it will be exactly as in the case with the pendulum, the computer just CAN'T find an elevator position (cause there isn't any) for which the AoA wouldn't vary anymore..., the same way, a robot CAN'T find a constant position for which the pendulum would find equilibrium (unless there's friction of course). By definition, THAT'S INSTABILITY FOLKS...! Nothing of the latter is attributed to the Flanker's behavior with ASC ON, neither in real flight or in DCS. The only purpose of the flight control system that filters the pitch rates, AoA rates and AoA values is to give the pilot a lot less headache while flying the aircraft, because it's a fighter pilot in a fighter aircraft and wants to be more concerned on how to defeat the enemy and fly the plane to the edge of it's flight envelope carefree rather than fighting more with his own plane in order to have coordinated and well controlled manoeuvres even when the aircraft is still statically stable..., THAT'S the reason of the fly by wire electro-mechanical system in general, to help the pilot have more precise control, NOT because the plane would be unstable! Take for example the CAS on the F-15 or the SAS on the A-10, try them off and see the difference..., and they are all statically stable designs! It will lead you to the feeling that it's "unstable" in pitch or yaw with those stability systems off, but the planes would have the same static margin that they were born with...!

Application for Registration Nickname: Maverick Su-35S Your profile at ED forum: http://forums.eagle.ru/member.php?u=108689 Chosen plane type: MiG-15bis Country of residence: Romania Time: GMT+2 Language of communication: English Confirmation of familiarization with regulations of the tournament and the obligation to comply with them: Familiarized with regulations of this tournament, oblige myself to comply with them.

Roger jcomm, that's simply the prop's effect induced yaw as I told and as I repeat it only affects the P-factor if there's no rate of change in AoA or sideslip and I didn't say anything contrary to this! Again, this is yaw induced roll, which mainly generates a P-factor that depends on angle of sideslip and dynamic pressure and as the ball stands deflected (meaning that there are sideforces, lateral accelerations or the existence of a yaw rate that would create them) there's also a small gyro effect (precession) that takes place. I also know this and there was no need to mention it again. I feel like we're not going anywhere with this! If you feel that I don't understand something else, I'm pleased to listen, otherwise I know how these effects occur and repeat myself, the only thing that bothered me was some particular effect's magnitude when the prop is not spinning anymore (is stopped) and for instance that can only be the P-factor (cause there's no talk about gyro effects or gyro precession if there's no angular momentum) Again, this is the case when a prop is still spinning with some given rpm and I've also confirmed/told that the gyro effect (precession) is somewhat countered with the P-factor, so we're again saying the same thing and neither of us understands what does the other one try to say different;)! Thx. jcomm, cheers!

Look, you don't have to teach me about flight dynamics or stable/unstable systems cause I know them better than you think! You are wrong and contradict yourself when you talk about an unstable system which behaves like a stable one..., that means you didn't understand what instability is. By saying that you or a machine can keep a pen "upright" with constant forces, without oscillations (and I've already mentioned this), then it means you don't know what you're saying. I say again: When it passes over a certain limit, not even the robot/computer or whatever can turn it relatively stable again. You try to prove that you know things better, when actually and honestly, you don't...! This is one example that I know about which has 2 degrees of freedom (I hope you know what a degree of freedom is), and a programmed arm will keep it in a RELATIVE upright position, but not absolutely upright as you told/think!. Watch from 0:55: Now about fighter aircraft...! Do you know when a fighter aircraft actually becomes unstable (when the static stability margin becomes negative)? How would you describe the control surfaces deflections that control the stability of such an aircraft? Indeed the static stability margin may become negative, but only in some conditions that you definitely didn't mention which leaves me with the thinking that you actually don't know about. You are talking to me about fly-by-wire and active control systems and about control theory and such..., that are being used to make an unstable system behave relatively like a stable one, but it more seems that you can't handle such things, or at least this is what you make me think! Speaking of witch..., to give you a hint that your examples are contradictory to what you say, I was able to fly the Su-27 with ASC direct control ON, do well controlled manoeuvres including shooting other aircraft with the gun in a dogfight, and land as smoothly as normal. Now you should also try and fly and control the Su-27 in pitch with the ASC direct pitch control on and tell if that's unstable while flying..., if so, where..., if not, why? If you can't answer this question correctly, then we have nothing more left to talk about on this subject! Don't get me too wrong, but I actually started to loose my patience with those trying to look smarter before they know what they're actually saying, sorry...!

When the aircraft goes above a certain airspeed for which the airflow is supersonic from the nose (except in front of it where it will always be locally subsonic) to tail, then that can be called supersonic flight..., anywhere below this speed where subsonic flow regions appear anywhere on the airframe, even at the tail of the plane, then that Mach number or airspeed is called transonic, so it can no longer be attributed to a supercruise flight. The transonic regions may vary from anywhere between 1.15 to as much as 1.3+ depending for airfoil section, 3D wing's shape (aspect ratio, wing sweep, etc.) and overall airframe's shape. So in this case, some aircraft are physically supercruising only after a given Mach number while some others don't. For this reason, supercruise flights are called to be that way, by convention, only after a certain Mach number had been reached, for instance nowadays it's considered so only after Mach 1.5, which is far from 1.08 or 1.1 that some talk about! Indeed the soundwaves are falling behind the aircraft as it goes faster than exactly 1.0 and can't be heard outside the Mach Cone, yet it's still transonic...! The F-15 is only able to reach higher transonic flights with full MIL power (without AB), not supersonic.

Hi jcomm, That's adverse yaw due to roll, and although you didn't mention the blades spin direction, by what you say, they should be spinning to the right and if you were telling about P-factor, it develops from the beta (sideslip) and AoA only (the roll alone does not affect P-factor) and thus judging by this it results that the P-factor would tend to pitch the aircraft down (as the 12 o clock blade would have more lift than the 6 o clock one) and it would later counter with the gyro effect which would tend to yaw the aircraft to the right and I've already mentioned before that the P-factor and gyro effects are countering each-other (each having it's particular magnitude). The P-factor's magnitude is affected by a law described as the derivative of the P-factor to the AoA + a derivative of it to the beta angle, while the gyro effect's magnitude is affected by the derivative to AoA rate + the derivative to beta angle rate, at least the theory tells it, so one depends on the static angles, while the other depends on their rate of variation. No need for further explanations cause I know these things well too, it's the magnitude of the overall effect that bothered me from the very beginning if you understand...! They are being simulated, and they had been so from the first prop plane that appeared, the P-51D, but the overall values just seem out of the ordinary, but I take Yo-Yo's word for it and try to believe that this is realistic. Cheers jcomm!

Right Yo-yo, indeed I haven't flown nor seen a RL footage of a blades stopped aircraft gliding where the pilot would pitch or yaw the plane in that condition to encounter the kind of swirl effect that we have, and after all that I've said and told that there can't be such high variation of lift/drag ratio or of either of them separately when the blades are stalled (especially in low blade pitch), when the AoA and/or Beta of them varies, I'll take your word as it is even if I'm not fully convinced (based on what I've mentioned) that even for a prop aircraft with quite high sum of blades area to wings area ratio it would be plausible to get such swirling effects when you vary the AoA and/or sideslip. All I'm saying (being skeptical) is that the swirl effect developed in such conditions should be smaller than it is, but this is only how I see it. Thanks!

Hi Exorcet, I know you're a car aerodynamicist if I remember correctly and I'm glad to talk with you. You're right, I did not have them together and I've also mentioned myself it would normally be needed to do so, this time I only took the fuselage separately for those who believe so much in having the fuselage generate so much lift and opposed to that of the wings. I wanted to show the aberrancy of their theory by making this compromise. The initial CL.max of 0.9 was for the whole aircraft together with the elevator at 0 deflection and normally I didn't do quite a right thing adding the fuselage as a standalone body to something that already had an overall lift distribution, but I say again, I had to find a way to dismiss some ideas that the fuselage (even if the wings would have 1 deg. of positive incidence) which should create an even higher tendency for downward/negative lift, can do such things as we see. Indeed, you're right, but the MAC on which the whole wing's performances (in some areas) can be reduced to make calculations simpler and not affect reasoning, is overall cambered and has a slight washout (negative incidence gradient across the spanwise for a smoother lift distribution) as well. Either way, the F-15 (50% fuel, no weapons) has a lower wing loading AND higher CL slope than the MIG-21 (50% fuel, no weapons) and even with a cambered MAC it still flies with both the longitudinal axis and MAC's chord with a slight positive attitude angle and positive angle of attack respectively but higher than 0 (in level flight). The same thing does apply for the Su-27. Only a combination of a highly cambered airfoil and very low wing loading could possibly allow for an aircraft traveling in transonic-supersonic to fly at a negative real AoA at +1G, especially in the presence of shock stalls (which greatly degrade the lift slope and stall AoA values). I've attached a track where you can select either the F-15 or the Su-27 where you can test them or watch how they perform. I'm not saying that negative angles of attack aren't possible (talking about wing only, no need to discuss about fuselage which has very little effect anyway). In the right circumstances of camber, indicated airspeed (dependent on dynamic pressure) and wing loading, it is possible to obtain negative angles of attack flights, at positive G-loads. One good example for such situations would be the gliders which are having just the kind of high cambered MAC and very low wing loading which allows them to fly with negative AoA at or even above 1G at low subsonic Mach numbers, but I say again..., there is nowhere near that case for the MIG-21...! There is no explanation for why the MIG-21 does such a thing in our simulator, even if there were no shockwaves to separate flows (stall), there is no explanation than the fact that there is a mistake or error somewhere in the aerodynamic analysis. I'm feel sorry, but this is how it is. It might not be a huge error at all to most of us and we're all pleased with how it flies in general, but in this particular situation something shows up as not being physically right whatever we might think!

Hello everyone, I know that some don't like to see me very often while others share my thoughts and knowledge and know what I'm talking about. The MIG-21 is known to be an aircraft with quite a good longitudinal static stability margin (great arm between CG and general center of lift or pressure (CP)). Now this is perfectly reproduced by our sim up to a given AoA, after which the things start to go wrong. The longitudinal static stability (or otherwise referred to as pitch stability), as long as it's still positive, not neutral or negative (no known fighter aircraft has it negative even if you hear some ignorant saying: "Unstable aircraft, Unstable aircraft!", don't bother with him, cause he doesn't know what he's saying...), should allow an aircraft to keep reducing it's angle of attack as close to 0 lift as possible, when the elevator is at 0 (neutral). All modern fighter aircraft are being designed to have a reduced longitudinal static stability margin or very close to 0 (relaxed static stability aircraft) in order to obtain much better flight characteristics by having the elevator take part in lifting the aircraft, so a more reduced longitudinal static stability aircraft would have a more downwards deflected elevator which produces lift in the same direction as the wing, thus increasing the total lift. So far, there isn't any aircraft that would be unstable, because after all, unstable IS unstable and no computer can bring it back once it passed over a certain limit and might mostly be able to hold it only through oscillations (it's like trying to keep a pen in equilibrium on your finger) and no such thing exists for flyable aircraft, but anyway this is not our issue here and the MIG-21 doesn't do this either, I just wanted to point out the 3 different situations so no one could confuse them. The problem is that after some patches ago (don't know how many), the MIG-21's FM had been tweaked and some things have gotten better, but other things are not doing the same, and here's how it is: 1. The pitching moment has some strange behavior between certain AoA values. The first one would be exactly where the wings start stalling, which is 32-33 deg. AoA on the AoA indicator or 20 deg. of real AoA as measured more correctly. Starting from the stalling AoA and continuing to slightly increase it, an abrupt and strong pitch stability reduction occurs and according to the elevator deflection that the aircraft has at that point, the AoA accelerates rapidly to about 30-40 deg. or so where it abruptly stops! This could only be imagined as the CP would sharply move quite forward and very close to the CG (not beyond which would mean "unstable") in the range of one or 2 degrees of AoA and then coming back almost close to it's original position when the AoA reaches about 30-40 as I said. Now, although there might be some heavy flow detachments starting from the trailing edge towards the leading edge (on the upper surface for positive AoA), while part of the leading edge might still retain flow attachment due to the vortexes generated between the leading edge and root which would translate into the high loss of longitudinal static stability margin because the CP moves forward towards the vortexes, the fact that when reaching about 30-35 deg. AoA the stability margin becomes abruptly very high, which isn't right, even if we'd talk about the vortex breakdown that might occur and which would increase the pitch down moment, still the transition shouldn't be so rough. So, all I'm saying is that the transition or traveling of the center of lift or pressure "CP" shouldn't be so abrupt and should be as smooth as it can be found for the F-15 which should have quite similar static stability characteristics in reality. Another and much greater issue is that when reaching 90 deg. of AoA, which can only be reached through stall spins (which is absolutely normal for such a highly stable aircraft), after reducing the yaw rate to 0 the aircraft trims itself to 90 deg. of AoA like if it's statically relaxed there and won't budge in pitch whatever you'd try. This is also abnormal..., normally the higher the AoA (after the stall occurs) the higher the stability margin and therefore the higher the stabilizing moment should be towards reducing the angle of attack, but it seems that at 90 deg. there is no more stability margin left at all. 2. Indeed the stalled lift is no longer 0 cause that wasn't correct, but it's still very small compared to what it should've been, at least from my personal point of view. As you increase AoA and go passing through critical and start stalling, from the maximum achieved G-load, it drops to about 20-25% of what it had been shortly before stall, which still looks not OK. There should be some more...! There are a lot of CL vs AoA diagrams to be found for whole 3D wings, not just for airfoils, that could give a general feeling of how much should the lift drop after the stall and with what slope it should continue to rise as the AoA continues to rise throughout and beyond the stall up to 40-45 deg. from where it naturally starts dropping towards 0 as the AoA reaches 90. Furthermore, for a delta wing and mostly for highly swept deltas, the stall should be more docile/gradual due to the strong vortexes that are being generated between the leading edge's root and the fusealge and also, before the vortex breaks up (some 5-10 more deg. of AoA (depends from a wing to another) since the stall occurred) the lift drop beyond stall should be smaller than for a straight, high aspect ratio wing...! I tell these facts because this is my domain and there is proof for this. I'm not complaining about this, but..., there should be a lot more lift remaining after the stall occurs. Please test it: MIG-21 80..90 deg. AoA gives 0 pitching moment.trk Thank you!