Jonne

Thank you Hiromachi! That will give some data.

I have found the chart through google in an old post on this forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2679146&postcount=7 However you can also find it in other languages, but never the full document it belongs to. What I find interesting is, that your chart is again different than the one from the English MiG-21bis manual, which I had used for my chart. Your German chart is showing higher g in full AB, than the English does for emergency AB.

Well if you read the reports of pilots, its not like the pulse mode worked too often either. Although I cannot think it was really failing that often, otherwise you could just spare the weight.

Looks like I already have that one. With the data I have, this is a chart for comparison:

I was looking for a chart of sustained g over speed. For best comparison, with a load of 2 missiles and at low altitude. I have that chart for the MiG-21Bis at 1000m with two missiles and at 500m with undesignated stores, but propably clean due to the achieved acceleration, as well as for the F-8E clean at 5000 ft.

Maybe someone has a manual for the F-8J? It has does have a better engine, but is also 2300 pounds heavier than the E version.

Comparing sustained g at low altitude (the only two comparable charts I was able to find yet), the maximum is 6.7 for the F-8E vs. 6.6 of the MiG-21bis, BUT that 6.7 is above the structural limit of the F-8 (both max out roughly at mach 0.9). EDIT: That is full AB for the MiG-21bis, not Emergency AB!

Could be. What I have found yet, was just talking about MiG-21, without a version. However reading further through that paper, I highly doubt its content, as it contradicts itself pretty well. I will do further research, but till now, I am not very convinced the F-8 will be the ultimate dogfight weapon people claim it to be.

According to what I have found by now, the F-8 was inferior in turn rate to the MiG-21 and additionally has a lower thrust to rate ratio.

Hope you are ready to get disappointed frequently.

Noch viel interessanter: Ihr nächstes Flugzeug wird kein Glas Cockpit haben. :yay:

Alle? ;)

I like that idea. Like you can switch between imperial and metric.

This is a general sim thing. Its not there to be easy to learn. When flying a Russian Air Force MiG , it is utterly unrealistic to refer to anything with its NATO code.

There is. You can set SRS to use the ingame PTT key.

PTT buttons can be mapped in most aircraft and externally in SRS also, which I would recommend anyway, as the radio menu will not pop up.

Ich habs mir die ganze Zeit verkniffen...

Wie schon geschrieben, ich habe im Februar nichts vor, also auch am 7. Zeit und bin dabei.

The MiG-21 seems to be limited to its old RWR. Could you please enable the new version on the mission? Unfortunately this needs to be enabled through the "Experimental Features" option in the MiG-21 menu and is still not standard on.

Vermute mal, das wird dann das Hintergrundbild im Menü und der Ladebildschirm sein.

Hi, first of all, thank you for adding the R-17 including its launcher to the game. This is an important and useful unit for many conflicts. However, I am disappointed by naming it after its NATO name ingame. This is totally different than any other units currently in game, which all use their real designation. I would therefore propose changing it to 9K72 Elbrus, the name for the complex. Regards Jonne

Using the R-3S against ground targets is thoroughly described in the (real) MiG-21Bis manual, so I am not utterly surprised this does work. And an open steam boiler is about the most grateful IR ground target I could think of.

At least according to US sources, it was only shot down by guns though. Maybe that is where the name comes from. :P

At least the air defences on the Stennis seem to be modelled as own sub systems, as they are destroyable without sinking the ship itself.

Which the F-14 hasn't?