Koty

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?

Let me put this very simply: The 21 in DCS does not stall at 15 degrees AoA.

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.

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

the BN would also have just Kh-23/23M for guided weapons. You're welcome

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.

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.

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).

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).

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...

the "N-008" value looks almost cosmetic, being a string, but definitely worth looking into

And with those 2.5 m^2 you'd be looking at 18 km detection.

Those two are not exclusive. The "filter" that is there to reject chaff is a doppler filter monopulse technique cannot do that. What it can do however is help the radar reduce side lobe clutter. Which then works alongside the doppler clutter rejection filter. Mind you, RP-21 already had a low altitude clutter reducing filter (it would still get overwhelmed if low enough). RP-22 added weather rejection and chaff rejection. All working with doppler information. There's also claims that you cannot have a PD radar without hight PRF, which is just false - all it is is impractical, as you get velocity ambiguity. Dealing with ambiguity requires a lot of computing power - which is why you only see a fully efficient low PRF PD filter on RP-23 (and even there you reduce radar sensitivity). (Which is where Soviets decided that it is a dead end and used more standard Medium/High PRF doppler radars from there on, except on the MiG-25 which received an upscaled RP-23...). And with analogue computers like on the RP-21 and 22, not only have you reduced sensitivitty, it also lets through a lot of clutter simply because the computer is not precise enough. Going back to range, yes, 30km is vs a 16 m^2 target - since we know this, the beam width and I believe I had emitting power somewhere, it won't be difficult to calculate at what range roughly should you see an F-5. But does anyone know its RCS in DCS? EDIT: Got the figures from Hiro. After doing the math, you should see the F-5, with 5m^2 RCS, at 22.5-23 km.

Well, F-5's radar is quite a bit different from the RP-22. F-5 has a simple pulse radar. RP-22 has actual monopulse illuminator. So using the radar down low is not as clear cut as it could seem. Part of the issue is how the clutter is displayed, on 21's screen it's massive splooches which are easily rejected visually, unlike the false returns on F-5's screen. Second issue is finding actual data on clutter rejection. Different manuals can give you (in varying detail) description of the method used, but it might not give you the numbers. While the detection range is a bit too high, it's not unrealistic to be able to send R-3R's in someone's face. You should still be able to detect something like an F-5 at 20-25km. Note that it would be less with the low altitude filters on - but still enough to send R-3R's in their face. As far as I know, the radar's implementation had a lot of workarounds made at the time to work in the first place, hopefully it will get a redux in near future.

you could actually just turn off the outermost pylons and have a decent stand in for true cold war AJ-37, there might be other details to tune tho

If anyone is confusing definitions, it is not Ross. In air to air sense: MiG-21's primary role was air superiority. It was meant to tackle enemy fighters and fighter bombers, including enemy interceptors. MiG-21's secondary role (and I am talking strictly about original design specification) was day-fair weather air defense. It was built around its primary role, and used in its secondary role only whenever dedicated PVO units weren't available. In Warsaw pact countries, 21F's were often introduced into regiments that acted as part of PVO (alongside interceptor variants of the 21 - PF, PFM). But again, this was a secondary role, it was not designed for intercepts, it was built for air manoeuvre combat - hence focus on light weight, high speed and fast climbs - practical ceiling of the MiG-21 isn't even that great compared to aforementioned Su-9, which was a dedicated interceptor, or the Su-15 used since 1960s. Think of the large clear canopy - the F variant had excelent visibility exactly for that reason. Now, after it was in service the bureau decided to introduce a dedicated interceptor variant. Changes included adding a radar and removing guns. Reason for creating this was simple - there was not enough purpose built interceptors. In short, this is the same stupid argument as people claiming F-104 was designed as an interceptor, because it does not turn as tight as an F-16. F-104 was, just like MiG-21, designed to fight other fighters (not bombers). It was then, just like the F-15, procured by interceptor squadrons for service evaluation. By the way, FIS reports state that as an interceptor, the F-104 was terrible, unsuited even, thanks to its atrocious radar, limited fuel reserve and missile armament relying solely on the GAR-8. Pilots however liked it as they had a "real fighter" (unlike the F-102, or later the 106).

Hello, something has been on my mind for a bit. The Sparrows all use the same 3D model and texture, meaning no matter the version, they all look like F (easy way to tell difference - F has 2 windows on the nose section, M has 4). What I didn't notice until just now however is that the Phoenixes have the same issue. Apparently the texture can be changed via livery, however then it again can only represent one Phoenix visually. Could it be looked at?

Looks great! Hope things will go smooth.

*that there might be more clear picture of how this will be before the end of 2020; also, rona.

The news usually get pinned there exactly because of that. And yes, there are people who are irate. But why are they mad about MiG-23 is beyond me

It's not a way to get information, because the team is focusing on other things. And these "random posing fanboys" are the actual future customers. Also, in case you don't understand how work works, there is certain time of the day when a person works, this is called a shift. And you know what people do when they come back from their work? They do whatever they want. Like checking out discord If something is not being offered at this moment, you cannot be a customer and noone is obliged to treat you as such. Easy as.

High vis 7F and 9L very nice

So, how about them high-vis missiles? As in, choice of bright white 9G/H/L, 7E-4/F and 54A?

Not sure what you're on about, Hornet has fowlers as well...

Love the radar talk :) To put it into reality: ML/MLA's radar emits 40 kW peak (70kW is for M/MF) return cut-off is roughly 10^-9 W (-8 for M) - the cut-off also varies with altitude If F-16's radar emits 16kW with only slightly less range, this means it's more sensitive. But this more/less sensitive in the end does not matter. What matters is the end result, that being range. Where they are more or less equal, with slight advantage when it comes to the ML. But here's the catch - electronic warfare exists. And more powerful radar is always an advantage. Until you get down low, where the radar power becomes a hindrance - because you need to filter out all the noise you get reflecting from the ground. Even then you can find the enemy on N003 with enough time before your missiles get in range. As for GCI, it's a situational awareness thing. No, GCI will not be able to tell your enemy's energy state from the radar screen. Nor would the poor guy there be able to communicate to you quickly enough. This is the reason why even the "merge" exists. Did you know radars do not have infinite resolution? At some point, speaking about older radars, the "blips" of you and the target will merge on the screen, to the point where you cannot tell them apart. That is the "merge". More modern radars will still be able to recognize and display two separate targets, but the refresh rate and the spacing (or lack there of) will prevent the GCI from giving you any meaningful inputs. As for doctrine, air force pilots (not air defence) would be directed into an area of operations, updated on the threats, and given optimum directions to initiate the combat. This being facilitated either by an integrated command centre, dispersed command centre, or airborne command centre (A-50, Tu-126). Past that it's in the hands of the pilot, who is trained in both BVR and manoeuvre combat. Here just keep in mind that BVR was very simplistic back then, there was no cranking or weaving. At best you would launch your heat seekers and climb away.