Hiromachi

Is there any recorded instance of equipping or useing those by a MiG-21bis? Or at least MiG-21SMT/MF/M?

I managed to take picture of three Zeros. Two A6M5s and one A6M7.

We've tested prop online and offline. It seems to be more of a netcode issue so it's multiplayer related. We're tying to figure out what may be causing this behavior, since in singleplayer propeller is running smooth. As for sounds, I will ask.

I know of a few events where young pilots experienced flameout during high speed flight above 15.000 m, when trying to reach as high as they can. Incorrect throttle operation and young pilot at 18.000 m caused flameout, however he managed to stabilize flight at 10.000 m and restart the engine at 4.000 m, than successfully landing. The above is a story mentioned by one of the pilots on polish forum back in the day. Aircraft involved was no other than this MiG-21bis:

Yes. In case of mutual protection there were specific formations advised. But manual does not indicate restrictions on number of aircraft to just two, although examples and descriptions are given primarily for a pair which I assume would be most basic unit. There are at least two formations indicated - "front" which translates to combat spread ( I think ), and "schody" which means echelon (either left or right).

It's A6M5 model 52. Wing cannons are missing since they aren't modelled yet. A6M5 carried two Type 99 Mod 4 20mm cannons with 100 rounds per gun (or 125 in case of belt fed version in A6M5 model 52a variant).

Ok, this is based on SPS-141 manuals in Polish and since I'm not a native English speaker, this may be a rough translation so keep that in mind please. SPS-141 jamming pod is meant for individual and group defense of aircraft against radar guided missiles and radar guided AA guns, by the means of creating active and passive radio-electronic signal. In regard to radar guided missiles, station was mostly useful against SAMs but also air to air missiles. It created in a front hemispehere, in + / - 60 deg sector in azimuth and + / - 30 deg elevation, active noise against ground and air radars, operating in pulse, continous and quasi-continous models of wave length λ= 2,90 – 3,60 cm (f = 8,33 – 10,34 GHz). Jamming signals were of no less than 15 - 17 W strength. As mentioned above, station had two models of operation. Receiving and transmitting (now I realize, that Im not sure what you were referring to as "passive"). In receiving mode, station analyzed signals but did not crease any jamming signals. In transmition mode, station automatically adjusted to its parameters and formed analogous false signals with a proper delay. In result, enemy radar operator would observe on a radar screen false targets, which ultimately led to break of the lock (in case MiG-21 was locked). Station could operate in two programs. Program I signals were adjusted for individual defense of the aircraft, while program II signals for mutual defense of two or more aircraft. There are specific differences between the two, but I'm unable to translate that. It's too technical for me. Anyway, then there was a switch for Continous and Pulse operation. It gave priority to the type of incoming signals, which would be jammed in response. Technically station could create three types of jamming signals, depending on switch selection and type of incoming radar signals - impulse, continous and quasi-continous and mixed. Interference set A - for individual defense against radar stations of impulse type, comprised of two alternately produced jamming signals. Interference set B - for individiul defense against radar stations operating on continous or quasi-continous wave length, comprised of two jamming signals: one for angle co-ordinates and second for target selection system analyzing speeds. This allowed jamming both continous, quasi-continous and impulse types of radar stations. Finally, Interference set W (or V) - for mutual defense of two or more aircraft against radar stations operating on continous or quasi-continous wave length, comprised of alternate jamming signals (flicerking with 0,2 – 1,0 Hz frequency). It's worth mentioning, that SPS wasn't merely one station but Siren program led to a development of a number of stations. There were similar SPS-142 and SPS-143 stations which differed only in wave length operation (f = 6,67 – 8,33 GHz and f = 5,00 – 6,67 GHz respectively). Finally, manual I have, indicates that there was introduced SPS-141M station with additional antennas in rear-hemisphere and with two new programs - Program III for individual defense of an aircraft in flight below 300 m altitude, against radar guided missiles operating in continous wave. This program was aimmed specifically to confuse the missile. Program IV - designed to counter radar stations operating in quasi-continous mode, in which tracking of "on - flight" targets. I cant exactly explain what they mean by "on - flight" (originally: w których realizowane jest śledzenie celów "na przelocie"). To be fair, variety of SPS Siren jamming pods is way greater than one would think. DDR received both SPS-141 and SPS-142. Than you also have SPS-141 MVG for the aircraft like Su-22 ... I hope this helps you in understanding the system ;)

Passive / Active switch is responsible for operation mode of the jammer. In passive mode jammer is only receiving and analysing radar signal, while in active it transmits the "noise" (jamming signal). I can write you a more thorough answer about modes and programmes once I'm home, if you're interested?

It's not the passive part of SPS that is responsible for releasing chaff or flare but SPO. In automatic mode selected on ASO part of panel, countermeasures would be released based on signal strength from SPO. Nice way to get rid of countermeasures if you ask me. Early warning radar might be enough to activate the release.

I'm not sure if I understand you. SPS-141 worked last time I checked. But this ECM pod is not designed to jam enemy aircraft radars. The original SPS-141 was primarily design to operate against Hawk SAMs and it just does that. I know however that ASO installation on it could be improved though it won't make it any more useful.

No mate, it's not in a state that satisfies us. We prefer not to release modules into Early Access and rather try to release them as complete as possible. Some users expressed their concerns about sounds, textures or other features. All this has to meet the standards. As said elsewhere, this was the first preview of the aircraft. But not the last, as we havent shown everything yet and all I can say, it will only get better :)

Yes, I think so. I know that Dolphin also wanted to take some new experience with landing gear for the CE2.

We will release more step by step. This was the very first show guys, definitely not the last! Sounds are a mix of P-51 and new ones. We're still in process of trying to obtain some raw samples of R-2800. Trying our best in that department. As for the prop, I'm not sure if its actual animation or more of a netcode thing. I know that Dolphin definitely isnt pleased with it either, so will look into that as well hazzer.

Saturday at 23:20 GMT as indicated in schedule: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Ep6Gini4caawno4gF_rox3I7x392_PLePD6EiWKmgYs/edit#gid=0

Hey guys, it is with our greatest pleasure to announce our participation in the upcoming VFAT 2019 Virtual Airshow, where during the stream we will be showing for the very first time our fantastic Chance-Vought F4U-1D Corsair! Please join us for this event and for the interview with a few team members where we will be answering questions about the module! https://www.virtual-airshows.com Rudel // EDIT IN: Fellow whistle blowers, the long awaited demonstration video is now available without the interview! And in case the interview was missed, watch it again at the following link:

Well, I dont know about Hellcats but someone does Corsairs :P

Yesterday, during evening flying session two instances of engine failure occured to me. Previously I had no issues with FW-190 engine operation and last failure happened over a year ago, so I was pretty stunned. So what have happened is that during the dive I felt as if I hit a wake turbulance or something of this nature, with aircraft shaking pretty violently. Immediately after this my RPM went to 0 and MP gauge shown fluctuating needle, jumping from 1.1 to 1.4 Ata. But engine clearly produced no power and attempts to restart it failed. Fortunately I was able to glide myself back home. Second time I experienced similar behavior as well during the dive, when I tried to follow the target below. Same story, weird engine behavior and then complete loss of power. Second time in less than 2 hours and I knew this wasnt accident or random situation, but something else. And then I was reminded of this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4053153&postcount=1900 Yes, in both instances I was descending at high speeds (600+ km/h) with throttle partially closed (1.4 - 1.5 Ata or more). Thus, the brief explenation above fits the factual situation and results. Yet I dont recall this mechanic being explained in depth in any changelog, so I would like to ask Yoyo if he could provide more extensive description. Most importantly: - why it happens ? I thought that main bearing failure is caused by lugging the engine, thus it shouldn't happen when you retard the throttle because there is very low load. Or I could see damage to bearings when moving throttle suddenly and in a wide range (i.e. slamming forward or something); - what is the safe limit of engine operation vs speed ? I mean, throttle is the main mean to control acceleration in descend. One doesnt want to overspeed and exit dive with no wings, so running with full throttle might not be the good idea at all times in dive. - how can it be observed prior to happening ? I cant recall seeing any feedback prior to it happening. Thank you for the answer in advance. I'd really like to learn more about to avoid such situations in the future.

Just to add to this fine comment. I had a long discussion in the past regarding testing of new engines and how it was done prior and during the war by various countries. US is famous for its 150-hour type test. Scope of my research was Japanese testing which is kind of similar. You can read it here: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/JapaneseEngTesting/JapaneseEngTesting.shtml Especially take a notice of endurance tests and how it was comprised of multiple runs of engine at idle, take-off rating, idle, rated rating, etc. Such tests lasting 100 + hours cover entire scope of engine operation even in extreme conditions. As for the US, from the mid-1930s through WWII, some version of AN-9502 dictated how aircraft engines were to be tested by the U.S. Army Air Corps/Forces and the U.S. Navy. These tests typically began with calibration runs where the engine was run in a test cell under the same conditions that would be used during endurance testing, with data collected at all conditions and power settings. Then the 150-hour type test began. Like Japanese testing, this consisted of running at various power settings in repetitive cycles. The difficulty arises because AN-9502 was constantly changing, and often the exact tests were negotiated between the procuring agency and the engine manufacturer. I have never seen a complete copy of any version of AN-9502. MIL-E-25111 ultimately replaced AN-9502 around 1955, and was used for reciprocating engine testing until it was retired.

We've posted a message on facebook, but that one tends to give us a headache for unknown reasons, so in the meantime we will bring this here. So folks, while we work tirelessly preparing for you a surprise, we would like to thank you for your continous support, faith in our endevours and wish you a Happy Thanksgiving. May you have a wonderful time this Thanksgiving with friends and family and a delicious feast!

Yeah, thats the old story. Panels are mismatched and will be a main focus of Phase I cockpit update. But for now you can enjoy fresh air :)

No, its only going to be lights this time around. While most of the cockpit update Phase I is finished as well, it still requires refitting and adjusting of external model. Those two areas sticking from the fuselage when you look outside left / right from the cockpit are primary thing holding the release. So thats where it is. However we figured that we at least can try releasing lights and see how you like it :)

Yes, and the best part is that each country that operated it, introduced some changes or modifications. You can cutomize this aircraft a lot.

Location of the SPO indicator changed throughout the production series but it's first time I hear there's anything artistic about it. Here is picture of the MiG-21MF I've taken this summer when I had a chance to seat in one: Here is Finnish bis:

Hello, It's been reported since the afterburner animation adjustments and we're aware of the issue. We just didnt have time to look into that yet.

I think its down.