Dr_Arrow

I think that your documents are correct, you are probably only confusing throttle lever travel and engine's RPM, i.e. it can mean that at 50-52% of the throttle lever travel you get 80% N2 engine RPM. So you should not move the TL lower than 50-52% (there is a SPS detent) of its travel as it will cause the engine's RPM to drop below 80% and SPS system will shut down.

I've read a lot of pilot stories and I am in contact with a few former Mig-21 pilots from our airforce. I have yet to find anyone who lives and has handled a full departure in Mig-21. Even test pilots never intentionally tried a departure with Mig-21 and it was not a part of a test program of the aircraft. Everyone I talked to and read about mentions that this flight regime was extremely dangerous and not something that one would like to experience during his career.

I've listened to it just before I made this post. I am not sure if Wags' thinking wasn't more along the lines of Mig-29/Su-27 rather than older air-frames like Su-25A, where the laser rangefinder and ballistic computer + the optical moving gunsight are probably the most secret systems and are already modeled.

I have only a personal copy in Czech language of the pilot's operating manual for Su-25K and unfortunatelly cannot share it. The procedures for take-off, flight aerobatics, weapon employment and landing can be very accuratelly applied to our simulated Su-25. MMJ: seems like there are many switches, but really there is not that much missing. WCS panel is completely functional for example and already works as the one in the real thing. Inertial navigation system is functional (we just need to limit airports to 4, 3 planned route points, add a target point) and manually press the buttons on it. RSBN is implemented for L-39, ARK the same. Radios need to be implemented, but again can be taken from L-39. Otherwise the switches are for circuit breakers, test switches, and some auxiliary system switches. It needs of course some development but I think it would be two magnitudes lower than any modern aircraft, thus being very efficient in terms of workload and possible profits. I am just thinking along the lines of how much development time has gone into F/A-18 and among the FC3 aircraft, Su-25A seems to me like the best candidate to be developed in full fidelity DCS module, requiring the least work, possibly being out of Russian government prohibition limits.

I know that for ED it is not possible to develop newer Eastern block aircraft. But I tend to think that some older stuff could be done on DCS level in order to at least satisfy Eastern block aircraft fans like me. I've flown Su-25A lately a lot and knowing the real aircraft a bit I think that Su-25A would be the most ideal candidate for this. Why? 1. Su-25A has a nearly perfect flight model, you can fly the aircraft completely like in RL manual - so no work included here. 2. Su-25A has engines modeled very well, as well as its hydraulic and other systems. 3. Su-25A has an advanced 3D model and cockpit model, which could be just refreshed a bit. 4. Avionics systems are already modeled very well - ASP gunsight works very well, weapons control system is modeled very well, so only a bit of work here to add some functionality to the ASP. 5. RSBN and navigation suite is modeled, it would need only manual actuation of waypoints and re-use the RSBN code from L-39 6. Communication systems taken from L-39, as well as ARK system. 7. Auxiliary systems are not yet modeled (fire supression, engine starting, anti-ice, etc.), but not many systems remaining here with not much of a workload. So all in all, I think that Su-25A on DCS level could be completed very quickly (maybe in a year with not a big team working on it) and could be very efficient in terms of profits/development time, where as we can see F-18 or F-16 take years to develop. Moreover most of this work could be ported to Su-25T, where on top only Shkval could be taken from the Ka-50. Moreover it would be a perfect platform for future Su-17, which completely shares avionics suite with Su-25A.

Well, for me playing a sim without TRACKIR nearly equals playing a strategy game with keyboard instead of mouse. TRACKIR has become a second nature for me, going as far, when I am watching some cockpit video I have a tendency to move my head to control the view :D

I think that it is fixable by using axis curves, because they also apply to trim. I can trim Su-25T just fine. The other possibility is to use alt stabilization autopilot, but do not set the altimeter base pressure to other value than 760 mHg.

It seems it is the same problem, which affects L-39C https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=217471

You can see that he has one (left) flap fully down and the other is still up, so with such imbalance it was actually a very good landing and a very dangerous situation for the pilot, which he handled in my opinion very well.

yep, the BUG is still kicking strong. Moreover I have also found that when you are releasing multiple bombs without setting any delay it does not appear. So it really happens only on condition when you are releasing multiple bombs with delay. It will probably never be fixed as other Su-25A bugs, even though I think that these bugs are simple fixes. At least we can soon celebrate its second anniversary :)

Well, I am quite surprised how they axed all Russian aircraft without any discussion. Isn't there really a way to simulate at least some older designs like Mig-29A 9.11, full fildelity Su-25A or Su-17M4, etc.? There are plenty interesting air-frames, which probably could be negotiated with the government, by not modeling/changing some critical systems, which are secret? Especially the Su-25A, there is really not that much left not modeled to make it a full fidelity module - we have good FM, RSBN/ARK and other subsystems are already modeled in L-39, WCS is modeled, some engine systems are missing and that would be all. I also think it could be hugely popular (well not in the scope as F-16, but does not require that much work)

It is probably because of wind, because the sights aren't wind compensated anymore. Try to set static weather with no wind.

I cannot confirm this. At KRYMSK airport, RSBN and PRMG is working. I can land no problems in approach mode or even in automatic mode, remember that you have to land on the active runway which has PRMG enabled (in this case it is the runway 04). It is in the latest beta and I am also attaching screenshot showing correct indications of glideslope on KPP and NPP with approach command mode engaged.

Yep, this is very true - sadly many tutorials on youtube do not show a proper landing for aircraft like Mig-21/L-39/Su-25. The same goes for take-offs. In a perfect take-off you rotate, roll on the main wheels and gently lift off the aircraft. L-39C is great for practicing this, although it is much harder in the Mig-21. The technique for landing L-39C is the same as for Mig-21 (you need to maintain high engine revs, level out 1 meter above runway, shift your sight to left and touchdown on main gears without letting the nosewheel drop).

Well, I hope you can see the runway during the whole approach in my track using the default cockpit view :) During flare you are supposed to shift your viewpoint to the left and in the distance of 30-50 meters, level out the aircraft at 1 meter above the ground, slightly decrease power (but not below the SPS position) and let the aircraft gently touch the runway on its main wheels. It has a tendency to lower the nose, this should be countered by pulling the stick back and then aerobrake, after that lower the nose wheel and release brake chute if needed.

Touchdown speed 330 km/h and descent rate 2-3 m/s is an acceptable landing in the sim. As per my discussion with real pilots from our airforce, correct parameters would be touchdown speed 260-280 km/h, descent rate lower than 1 m/s, touchdown only on main gears without slamming the front wheel on the runway, aerobrake afterwards. Landings at 3 m/s per second (600 FPM) would more often than not lead to highly increased air-frame fatigue/bending. I've recorded a track which goes mostly by real world numbers/advice when landing the BIS, touchdown at slightly higher speed of 290 km/h to keep AoA below 15 on main wheels and aerobraking. mig-21land_aerobrake.trk

For me this is my major gripe with the module, but it's been like that for ages. It is even more unrealistic because in reality the lights get damaged if you fly above 600 km/h. It looks pretty stupid flying in a formation of four Mig-21s at MACH 1 with their landing lights on. It is absolutely ridiculous to perform night mission with your wingmen running their landing lights on during an intercept, so everyone could see us well. The only workaround for your flight is to order them to perform pincer maneuver, have AI start in the air or order your wingmen to follow the plan before takeoff...I'd love to see this addressed more than anything else, as it is the only module, which behaves like this. There surely has to be some workaround, which developers can do.

Ad 3) It is afterburner engagement/disengagement. Mig-21BIS models afterburner as a separate engine, therefore its engagement creates engine startup/shutdown event.

A proper Eastern GCI would be great also for the Mig-21BIS. The intercept officer was much more responsible for the success of the interception than the pilot. Moreover the intercept officer would also direct an aircraft to turn on/off radar as well as engage afterburner, disengage. There was even an automated system for Lasour equipped Mig-21s as described in the book by A. Mladenov: The interceptor was designed from the outset to cope with fast, high- altitude targets; in addition to the radar it boasted dedicated guidance equipment, represented by the Lasour-1 integrated onboard automated system to receive intercept information, datalinked from the ground control station of the Vozdukh-1 intercept operations control system. Intercept commands (such as heading, altitude and speed), generated by the system’s analogue computer, were received by the Lasour-1 equipment and displayed on the respective instruments using bugs (special moving markers on the instruments scale, showing to the pilot where he has to position the indicating needle for altitude, speed, etc.). Lamps were used to issue discrete commands such as afterburner on, zoom climb, and switching on the radar when entering into the terminal attack phase.

Not good enough :) I have reviewed all your tracks, once more thanks for them and will try to do it your way and see if it improves, once more thanks :thumbup:

Thanks a lot for the advice, I'll try the second burner and late stick pull. I was also able to take-off 9 times without problems the way in the track, only on one attempt the tires have burst. The early stick pull could probably cause it, but it is a standard take-off technique written in manuals that I have - pull the stick to 2/3, 3/4 (or even fully) at a speed of 100 - 150 km/h, it can be seen in this video for example (1:11 min.) after the front wheel lifts off ease up on the stick to stabilize at take off AoA:

I was practicing take-offs with SPS jammer pod at 9800 kg takeoff weight. Out of my 10 successful attempts, my tires burst once. I was well within speed and AoA parameters and I cannot find a reason why it happened. I am attaching a track and a screenshot. So any thoughts why did the tires burst? I would like to avoid it in the future or there might be some bug, which causes this. mig-21tyreburst.trk

Nice update, regarding the 3D model, I would love to see correct sized PTB-490 external fuel tanks. The current ones look really funny on the aircraft once you install the mod with their correct size.

Since the last patch, the tracks replay for Mig-21BIS have finally been corrected. So now the tracks with Mig-21 play reasonably well and I can finally review my take off/landing performance.

Fully agreed, I am tired of all the toxic comments by folks against RAZBAM. Certainly the radar can be improved by redoing the ground clutter, but it won't make much difference in how you use it. Moreover there is no ground radar code for 3rd parties as far as I know and all solutions that have been brought by other developers in AG, like Heatblur needed a lot of time to bring the Viggen's radar up to today standard (some two years) and it is still only a workaround. I am sure that we will see improvements from RAZBAM and even if not, I consider it a minor thing which will not spoil my experience of using Mig-19P. I am thankful that they are doing this wonderful aircraft as today the only developer doing Eastern aircraft. If you cannot live without full ground clutter simulation, which when done properly would eat performance of your PC than do not buy Mig-19 or anything from RAZBAM, but please refrain from toxic and bashing comments, which only demotivate and create bad atmosphere in this very small community. Just my two cents.