Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Koty

  • Birthday 07/07/1996

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. not even MF, MS; MF was actually capable of fighter manoeuvres. MS was like... yeah... And no, german ML's were technically MLA. Just IFF difference. N003E radar instead of N003.
  2. Did some reading couple days back, the AE slats should to a large extent fix the aileron reversal issue. But tame in this context probably meant F-14 levels of tame. That said, there is no need to "believe" what the comparative performance is. Numbers tell us that with 45° sweep, they will be very closely matched. If you really want to game the Phantoms, push the sweep selector out of the detent to about 30-35° and rate at 7G's.
  3. See, here is one thing that has been bothering me. IF the relation is wrong, then what specifically is the correct relation. And more importantly, according to what?
  4. Difference in the paper is smaller, because its not directly on a thick, cylindrical fuselage, but in relatively free air. How do we know it wasn't calibrated? Here is the error equation for 23ML and 23UB The way to read this, on the left you have indicated AoA, alpha-phi is true AoA. So on the ML the the indicated (or local) AoA shows double the true AoA - 5.5°, on the UB with slightly skinnier and pointier nose it gives you 1.6x true AoA -1°. The manual makes a fairly big point of the AoA being the local AoA in the area of nose, and with no correction. And again, its on the fuselage NOT THE WING. So comparing wing thickness to the 21's wing thickness is pointless, compare it to the fuselage the sensor is on, which is, I would say, considerably thicker than wings. You could however figure that out with common sense. Why would the manual advise 12° AoA at landing, when 10° pitch is tailstrike territory?
  5. Let me put this very simply: The 21 in DCS does not stall at 15 degrees AoA.
  6. This makes perfect sense. Yes, in regards to how the UUA-1 compares to real AoA. Regardless the relationship, CL stays the same, all that changes is when it occurs/at what AoA. So you'd stall at 15°, 20° or 30°, but always with the same CL. Essentially you'll be stretching the CL chart horizontally, not vertically. No, chart does not say wings start to rock at 33°. The current jet hits a wall around where it should at normal speeds, only problem is with low speeds. The slower you go, the more AoA you should be able to pull without wing rock.
  7. Let me make this very simple: The quote you posted originally talks about a difference between LOCAL AoA, which is angle between aircraft axis and the LOCAL AIRFLOW (not flight path) - and AoA from the F2 view, which is in fact a difference between your PITCH and your FLIGHT PATH, or rather how much below your nose is the flight path, or a theoretical true AOA. That's why it's "relative pitch angle", which is a misnomer, yes, but it just means your pitch relative to your flight path. "This presumes that the UUA is off by a factor of two, and also that the game models this." Game only needs to model the visuals in the cockpit. So that it shows what the real UUA would in relation to what the game itself considers AoA. And if you know how to read the chart from the manual, you will notice, it does not actually stall until far beyond 33° indicated. Both IRL and in game. But refer to what I said initially, at the end of the post. Stall is not the only reason why aircraft fall out of the sky. The ONE thing that could be considered wrong is that the wing rock occurs too soon at low speed. null
  8. the BN would also have just Kh-23/23M for guided weapons. You're welcome
  9. Just change your curves. Easy. 21 is as simple to fly as they get. Now, to explain how the UUA-1 works and why it "misreads": As you might know, the UUA vane is directly on the fuselage, with AoA the flow bends around the fuselage. This is why it reads more than actual AoA really is. Which is why the charts use this indicated AoA as reference rather than real AoA (in the quote in op described as "pitch difference", or difference between aircraft axis and flight path). If you know the chart reads up to 33° indicated, and you know the UUA is indicating roughly double of actual AoA, then the actual AoA comes out as? Not to mention stall isn't the only thing that makes aircraft fall out of the sky.
  10. Hello, There is a problem with the current implementation of "SA-2", I've decided to make a post on this topic at last, I just wasn't sure if this should be mentioned here or in the sim research section. First of, the missile. Looking at the artwork for the tracking radar, this belongs to the S-75M Volchov system, these were compatible with 20D missiles and later. Currently used is 11D (known as V-750). It could be assumed that only the artwork is wrong (with clearly stated 11Д on the booster section, and painted all silver) however it is possible the coding is inconsistent as well, as the missiles differed from one another in many respects. Correct visuals for the 20D series is this (although more photos can be found online): This specifically being a 20DSU, with improved low-altitude performance and shortened to-ready time (from 90s to 20s), what would change among these is just the serial number including different prefix. Note also single radio-transparent window around the tip of the missile as well as four "ribs" with antennas for the radio-fuse in front of the main wings. Basic performance chart for this family of missiles (includes earlier systems, Dvina and Desna, and information on missile/fuel/warhead masses, motor thrusts in basic regimes - 20D had variable thrust, and even resistance to EW, namely missiles beacon strength and fuse resistivity to both active and passive jamming): V-755 (B-755) missiles are of interest here. Besides these the 5Ya23 (5я23) was used, marked as V-759 or 23D as well. This entered service in early-mid 70s intended against highly manoeuvrable targets. 5Ya23 looks a bit different, the radio transparent window is different, and instead of 4 ribs, the antennas are a single pair between yellow windows on the side of the nose: (Note 5Ya23 at the start of the serial number) Note also the different launcher (SM-90 as opposed to SM-63) needed: Current missile choice, being V-750 (11D), would belong to the oldest SA-75 system. The correct radar set, RSNA-75: Note the top parabolic antenna intended to look for the missile beacons. Later variants got rid of it and use the main radars for the purpose. It would be also compatible with RSNA-75M, of SA-75M Dvina, which got rid of the top antenna. This was in service, during 1970s, equipped with "dog-house" on top of the radar set for visual observer: In addition, it is missing auxiliary objects (present for example for HAWK system) necessary for its running - namely the main command post of the battery (the U-cabin) from which whole site is controlled - with the exception of visual observer on top of the radar set, noone actually sits inside of it, everyone is in trailers connected to it. The site also requires an inverter cabin and a set of 100W diesel-electric generators - however these can be omitted as outside combat the site is plugged into standard 3x220V electric grid. As there are still plenty former operators of these systems around I believe it would not be too difficult to confirm all the details.
  11. Manual tables would be used for bombs on the MiG-23M. For ML, it's essentially the same as using ASP-17 on the Su-25 (and then some - as the implementation on the 25 is missing the air to air modes). Full CCIP and CCRP is included. For air to air there should be manually ranged gyro sight and (with radar lock) range and tracking-rate compensated sight (essentially MiG-29 style aerial gunnery, just using radar instead of laser).
  12. You can move the sweep selector anywhere you want, you just won't be able to lock it into a detent, so you'll have to compare with the sweep gauge (strategically positioned next to the HUD).
  13. Allow me to elaborate. Since MiG-21PFM variant, they did away with fowler flaps and used what's called blown flaps, or flaps with "boundary layer control" - SPS. Aircraft takes pressure from your engine's compressor and blows highly pressurised air over the top of your flaps to keep the air energised (and thus increasing lift, by some 900 kg). (Cutting throttle obviously results in no more air energisation, and you lose your lift.) Using SPS in turn decreases pressure in the engnie, so if you try lighting the afterburner - it won't. But the nozzle scheduler will still open the nozzle. This is why there's a dramatic decrease in pressure and thrust. In fact, if this happened to you at higher speeds, somewhere in stratosphere, your engine might as well implode from the pressure drop (it happened to a fair bit of our MiG-19's), it's just how jet engines work. In my opinion however, the 21 is still one of the easiest to land jets in DCS. I fail to understand how you ran out of energy on approach...
  14. the "N-008" value looks almost cosmetic, being a string, but definitely worth looking into
  15. And with those 2.5 m^2 you'd be looking at 18 km detection.
  • Create New...