HWasp

With the MiG-21: Start climbing around Mach 0.9 and keep that speed by reducing pitch until you reach around 10000m (33k feet). 2. You have to stop climbing and start to accelerate in level flight. Between Mach 1 and 1.4 it accelerates very slowly, you need some patience. If you go into a shallow descent, that might speed things up. Between Mach 1.4 and 1.6 you'll start to get more power 3. Above Mach 1.6 acceleration will really kick in you get lots of power, so you can start climbing again as you accelerate towards Mach 2 4. Once you are at that speed you can climb to space. Engine will die somwhere above 70k feet, but until then it's a rocket. It's basically the same with every plane in DCS: you need to go supersonic if you want to climb really high.

Can't play your track because new version came out today, but let me guess: You simply pitched up to like 30 degrees nose up and kept it there all the way to 41k? What makes you think, that the plane should behave differently? Where did you read that? Because what you expect here is F-16/MiG-29 level of performance. If you want to fly the 21 up there, you must follow a reasonable climb profile and keep the speed under control. I wouldn't fly it above 40k if speed is less than Mach 1.4. Look, if you think, that there is problem with the performance here, you need to download the RL MiG-21 flight manual, that is available on this forum https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3457419&postcount=2, find some relevant information and then test it against DCS. Please don't waste the developer's time with posts like that with zero research.

20000m Mach 2 and climbing. (65k feet)

You might be doing something wrong. Just tested right now: 2 minutes and 20 seconds after brake release I reached 10000 m (33k feet) holding TAS between 1000 and 1200 5 minutes and 35 seconds after brake release it reached Mach 2 at 12500m 35-45 degrees might be ok for the initial climb but then you need to reduce pitch to maintain proper speed. This is not a MiG-29... For reference: Mirage 2000 clean : 2 minutes from brake release to 33k feet (Mach 0.9+) and 4 minutes 50 seconds to Mach 2 at 45k feet, so it's like 20 seconds and 45 seconds difference flying similiar profiles.

Well, that M0.9 to 1.2 range is not ideal for the MiG-29, there is a good chance you'd find find the same in DCS. Also above M0.85 the 29 FCS limits it to 7 Gs, so at lower altitudes it is a good reason not push it that fast. I did find the 29 manual though, and it says for sea level at 13000 kg it can sustain 9 Gs at 460 kts, so it is pretty much the same as our F-16, and as the speed decreases the 29 starts to have an advantage. (figure A8-3 page 330 GAF 29 manual)

MiG-29 has the numbers, but it is really difficult to fly it well. I can't for sure. IMO the F-16 is at a disadvantage, because most gun fights are at tree top level, if you go for best max sustained, you black out in seconds and the advantage not that great anyway, and all the other 4th gens do better at slower speeds.

You are perfectly right, but that test was just for some kind of reference. Also didn't spend much time with it, not that accurate on my part. You all feel free to repeat it with those values, if you have time, I will not redo it for now.

Found documentation for F-16C blk 50 with F110-GE129 Sea level, max AB, 15 Celsius, 22000 lbs -Max sustained is at 460 kts, and it gives about 21,7 degrees/second -In DCS: at 21700 lbs GW I managed 21,8 degrees/second (clean ac pylons removed) The fuel is not exactly for 22000lb GW beacuse I did not use unlimited fuel. I did disable G simulation though. The rate is from Tacview. The documentation is the first result if you google F-16 performance manual. According to this, the DCS model is really spot on, the problem is that with the current G effect modeling it's not really possible to fly like this. At 350kts the chart says almost exactly 20deg/sec, and DCS is the same.

It is somewhere in the 450 kts area. Just for further reference, same speed same 50% fuel, for me: Su-27 - 18 deg/sec F-15 - 20 deg/sec M-2000- 19 deg/sec MiG-29A 21 deg/sec F-14- 18-19 deg/sec I know this is not the ideal speed for for example the Su-27, this is just for comparison.

450 kts sustained turn rate here in DCS for me is between 19,5 and 21 degrees per second, depending on the fuel (starting from 50% going down to 0), on the deck, empty aircraft with plyons attached. -So simple question: Is that correct according IRL documentation, or not? Can anyone produce a higher sustained rate? (default 20 celsius)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3457419&postcount=2 Again here is the link for link for the rl manual, from page 132 it discusses stalls and spins. I'm not suggesting that the 21 should depart violently 1 degree over the red line all the time, but still, from the manual: "When excessive back pressure is applied on the stick ...... at high normal g-loads, the stall proceeds more vigorously. If the stick is not set neutral immidiately after the onset, during 3-4 seconds, the plane will start oscillating briskly and unsteadily about it's 3 axes with high lateral G loads and rudder forces." On the spin entry: "....... exceeding the permissible AoA on the UAA indicator and pushing the rudder at the same time creating sideslip....." "The normal spin features high instability, vigorous oscillations in yaw pitch and roll, unsteady rotation involving inadvertent changes of direction"

Finally got around to test this myself, and here are the values, just clear things up. They are from Tacview, and at around 500m altitude At Mach 0.7--> G = 10 Mach 0.8--> G = 14,9 Mach 0.9--> G = 17,4 <--- thats what I calculated to be 16G according the chart in previous post Mach 1.0--> G = 19 So if you set the ARU to manual and max deflection, there is no drop on the chart, on the contrary DCS max CL will stay above IRL max CL according the chart. (BTW damage due over G is not modeled, pulling 19Gs will not do anything to the plane) In that romanian Lancer video, there is a point where he is right on the limit pulling 32 uaa For that 32 uaa in the vid at 515 km/h indicated, he gets 3,2 Gs <---> in DCS for 32 uaa at the exact same speed you get 4,4 Gs. Thats a big difference. (Tacview shows AoA=24 for uaa = 32 btw) Regarding the stall or the lack of it, it's clearly missing, you can pull full aft stick violently with ARU manual max deflection at any speeds, the plane will not depart, ever. You can even kick the rudder and throw the aileron around at full aft stick and the plane will not depart. This part is so obious and wrong, that it makes no sense even to discuss it. I did like how it behaved in previous patch though, I think the previous patch was a step in the good direction, and this one is just bugged or broken. They did say that it is work in progress though, so I would just wait for the next patches before discussing this any further. I'm sure this will get fixed soon.

Well yes, it is possible that the UAA vs actual AoA is wrong somehow, but still both your CL max and CL 33 lines are way above the highest line on the original chart. CL=1.25 should be the highest at some extreme AoA, yet you have measured 1.39.

UUA-1 is measured local AoA, that is proportional to the real AoA of the wing. Different, but proportional. So it is an AoA value. If you can't keep lets say 33 UAA or AoA or whatever, because of the flight controls or anything, then that 33 UAA line should simply stop there, because then it is not valid for that chart anymore. That russian chart is not for practical use, for example 33 UAA at Mach 0.9 gives 16Gs (with your weight). But aerodynamically it should be possible for the plane even if it breaks apart. If flight controls don't let you, then that is another thing. What your test shows until now: below Mach 0.6 where it is valid (for 33 UAA) that the current Mig-21 FM has a higher CL for a given AoA, than it should.

If it breaks, it breaks, comrade. The test must be done! :lol:

Well this is strange.... What position is shown on the ARU-3 indicator when you do the test at lets say, Mach 0.9? Is it all the way left? I would expect a gross over G (not just 11), if the ARU is set for maximum elevator movement. EDIT: What I'm trying to get across here: The original russian chart shows Cl at a given AoA, for example there is a line for alpha = 33 degrees,---> that means the AoA is at constant 33 indicated and the CL is calculated for that. the problem in your test is: AoA is not kept constant, it decreases above M0.6----> that makes the test invalid, because if the AoA is NOT 33 then the calculated CL is obiously not corresponding to AoA=33. You have to test it all as you did with the AoA=21 line. Same AoA for all measurements, or it does not make sense.

Interesting work, thanks for doing it! I think, there might be a problem with your calculation at or above Mach 0.6, because as you know, the flight control system of the 21 (ARU-3V) keeps decreasing the ratio between your stick input and actual elevator movement (less elevator movement for given stick movement as speed increases). For me it seems, that corresponds to the constant G while decreasing AoA. Can you repeat the test with ARU-3 set to manual? That will overstress the aircraft of course and may break apart of course, but only then can you recieve the actual Cl.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3457419&postcount=2 There you go! You are welcome to read that from page 132, where it discusses stalls and spins in the Mig-21bis ! Short story if someone is too lazy: There will be rocking from wing to wing if AoA too high, and if there is slideslip or rudder displacement, then the plane might enter a spin. Inverted spin is also possible... I think, it is logical, that if you have 2 large red lights coming on right in front of your face when you exceed max AoA, that might suggest: something bad is about to happen :)

I have been using the F-14 with Jester AI quite a lot in MP since release, mostly successful, but there is a really annoying issue for me: There is still no easy way to make Jester change radar elevation in small increments quickly! Currently I need 5, five button presses in jester menu to set the radar where i want it to be, then 5 more to change it even slightly. The commands to set elevevation high, low are unusable in practice, the only one that makes any sense on that menu is the mid position command to reset the radar elevation. So basically flying with Jester AI in a complex environment for me means that I'm smashing Jester menu buttons constantly, trying make tha radar look where I want it to look. The closer the bandits are this just gets worse obviously. If I would be able to switch between the seats and do it all by myself, I would still have less workload then now! That makes no sense! Please, implement simple, bindable radar commands for Jester: - Increase range - Decrease range - Elevation increase - Elevation decrease Elevation increase/decrease could cylce through the existing altitude settings at the given range (like at 50nm 0, 5000, 10000,.... etc)

This is simple trolling at this point.

They could probably make a pretty lethal missile if they upgraded the 54's radar and guidance to 2020 standards, even if they left the other parts as is. That missile is big and heavy, so it can't hit a fighter is a stupid argument. Effective range will much less, sure. ECM? Big surprise: 50 years more advanced technology would make life difficult for old planes and missiles... but that is not modeled in this game, so what? Btw if an F14 with Aim-54As goes head to head against a Hornet with 120s 1v1, the F-18 has very good chance to win, as the 54s are easy to notch. So what is the problem? You want to defeat an incoming high energy missile by pulling lots of G and doing aerobatics?

:doh: this is getting really stupid...

I'd certainly buy the Tu-16 or the Il-28, but I don't think they could become really successful modules. MiG-25PD on the other hand : Spectacular aircraft, famous, Mach 3, afterburner that can be seen from 100 km, no digital displays... That just cannot go wrong :)

You had all this info since post 34, why do you need to mix it up with toxic bs and unnecessary walls of text? Video evidence showing horizontal g at a given AoA ---->>> in DCS it is very different---->>> drag vs AoA might be off --->>> please investigate starting off a discussion with something like "wow this whole thing is amusingly bad" might trigger some negative responses, believe it or not.

On the right side slightly behind you open the circuit breaker panel door (transparent) and switch off the CB that has ARU in it's name. That will switch it off and reset it to the low speed config (max elevator deflection/stick input ratio)