Elwood Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) I just completed training, first 4 mis. campain and being shot down from people and negative G on multiplayer now I'm asking.... What the center panel horizontal lever marked with outer, inner does? Sometimes I'm landing with 1000+ L fuel and I really would like to drop 500. Didn't find any way to drop fuel from the internal fuel tank, is it possible? Yep second stage afterburner is a good way :D Thank you to all this great community, specially the 21 fans. p.s. Last question, pleaaassee. Best 21 virtual squadron? Edited November 6, 2015 by Elwood
scaflight Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 (edited) (deleted because wrong :)) Edited November 6, 2015 by scaflight
BravoYankee4 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Since the MIG-21 was a thirsty little bird with limited time in the air I believe having extra fuel when landing was a kind non existing problem/question back in the days. Hence no fuel dump equipment.
BravoYankee4 Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Outer and inner chooses between the NDBs (ARC stations) that line up with the runway. Passing over one will trigger the MARKER warning on the smallest of the annunciator panels. You'll typically fly to the Outer NDB, then get the marker, and then set Inner to fly to the next one. That should put you on runway heading. Here is the answer I got when asking about the "ARC to landing NDB frequency selfadjustment indication light": It isn´t modelled. It works with the "Inner -Outer" selector of its left (without use in this sim). Part of the ARK-10 navigation system, that we haven´t properly modelled. For the ARK-10 system it should works like something like this: Inner: pushbottons and Outer: "wheel" (sector) selector. Like the L-39 system. The only difference is that the L-39 ARK-9 is a manual one and the ARK-10 only works with presets. The inner and outer is not part of the "MARKER" system. It allows you to select between ADF frequencies, outer: frequencies set by the "Wheel Selector": (SECTORS in this sim) and inner for the frequencies set by the pushbuttons (1-9) But for the LNS-21, yes, it works to switch between markers. Maybe in 2016 we can see a real nav system for the 21, like the L-39. 1
Elwood Posted November 6, 2015 Author Posted November 6, 2015 Pretty much clear, thank you very much for your professional support. Guess haven't any opinion on other questions.... Hope that they will never stop development on the 21, every day it's a hair raising fly, just like classic muscle car rental!
EagleFox Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Only time when you have too much fuel is when you are on fire
Elwood Posted November 6, 2015 Author Posted November 6, 2015 Well, sometimes happen to run out of everything but fuel and land to rearm and usually repair :) Inviato dal mio G7-L01 utilizzando Tapatalk
PiedDroit Posted November 6, 2015 Posted November 6, 2015 Here's my own fuel dump method: If your AB is still operating you can turn around base with full AB, this will burn fuel quickly (with added fun of going super fast). This doesn't work well for emergency obviously ;)
Nerd1000 Posted November 7, 2015 Posted November 7, 2015 Here's my own fuel dump method: If your AB is still operating you can turn around base with full AB, this will burn fuel quickly (with added fun of going super fast). This doesn't work well for emergency obviously ;) Also deploy the airbrakes.
Elwood Posted November 7, 2015 Author Posted November 7, 2015 Sure it's my way too. But really, there was not other way for the cold war comrade? Anyway, it's saturday night and maybe I shoukd think about something else :))) Inviato dal mio G7-L01 utilizzando Tapatalk
scaflight Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) Sure it's my way too. But really, there was not other way for the cold war comrade? Anyway, it's saturday night and maybe I shoukd think about something else :))) Inviato dal mio G7-L01 utilizzando Tapatalk Well, why would there be? If you are asking specifically for a fuel jettisoning system, then consider the weight penalties incurred by installing such a system within what is a critically thin wing. Also consider the design's age, and whether you are expecting the safety culture of 1) modern and 2) civilian aviation to apply to a Soviet military jet. The Mig-21 predates fuel jettisoning system regulations by a long shot. If you look at modern aircraft built by the 'West', they observe the FAA's regulation on fuel jettisoning systems (section 25.1001, current), but this wasn't a regulation before 1965. The reasons behind regulating for, and incurring the production costs of, fuel jettisoning systems are largely related to passenger safety, and go hand in hand with regulations for takeoff and landing weight. I don't actually know the max structural landing weight of the Mig-21, but on page 32 of LN's manual we are allowed in exceptional cases to make a landing with a weight of 7300kg. The manual does not tell us whether we would have to have the aircraft overhauled after that, which doesn't allow me to infer any max structural landing weight. But whatever - this isn't a passenger jet, and our employer has lots of spares. Let's assume 7300kg max struct landing weight. So run a short scenario. You take off with 100% fuel and are carrying stores when disaster strikes and you need to land. You jettison stores, and your aircraft is now @ 5330kg empty + 70kg pilot + 2850l fuel (x0.78 = 2225kg) = 7625kg. Burning 400l/315kg fuel at or near 100% throttle is done 130 seconds, 100 seconds in normal afterburner. With combat afterburner where you're just pouring the fuel into the engine, you are at 7300kg in 75 seconds. If for some reason time is your main concern. Which it seldom is* except in cases of severe illness, at which point I think any sane plane-building engineer says you're ****ed regardless. :) *this may be a hypocritical statement given my avatar's message. Edited November 8, 2015 by scaflight
Elwood Posted November 8, 2015 Author Posted November 8, 2015 Well, why would there be? If you are asking specifically for a fuel jettisoning system, then consider the weight penalties incurred by installing such a system within what is a critically thin wing. Also consider the design's age, and whether you are expecting the safety culture of 1) modern and 2) civilian aviation to apply to a Soviet military jet. The Mig-21 predates fuel jettisoning system regulations by a long shot. If you look at modern aircraft built by the 'West', they observe the FAA's regulation on fuel jettisoning systems (section 25.1001, current), but this wasn't a regulation before 1965. The reasons behind regulating for, and incurring the production costs of, fuel jettisoning systems are largely related to passenger safety, and go hand in hand with regulations for takeoff and landing weight. I don't actually know the max structural landing weight of the Mig-21, but on page 32 of LN's manual we are allowed in exceptional cases to make a landing with a weight of 7300kg. The manual does not tell us whether we would have to have the aircraft overhauled after that, which doesn't allow me to infer any max structural landing weight. But whatever - this isn't a passenger jet, and our employer has lots of spares. Let's assume 7300kg max struct landing weight. So run a short scenario. You take off with 100% fuel and are carrying stores when disaster strikes and you need to land. You jettison stores, and your aircraft is now @ 5330kg empty + 70kg pilot + 2850l fuel (x0.78 = 2225kg) = 7625kg. Burning 400l/315kg fuel at or near 100% throttle is done 130 seconds, 100 seconds in normal afterburner. With combat afterburner where you're just pouring the fuel into the engine, you are at 7300kg in 75 seconds. If for some reason time is your main concern. Which it seldom is* except in cases of severe illness, at which point I think any sane plane-building engineer says you're ****ed regardless. :) *this may be a hypocritical statement given my avatar's message. Thank you for this it's detailed and reasonable and that's will add more value to my flights. So lets go and burn! Inviato dal mio G7-L01 utilizzando Tapatalk
OverStratos Posted November 8, 2015 Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) The manual does not tell us whether we would have to have the aircraft overhauled after that, which doesn't allow me to infer any max structural landing weight. In fact, the 7300kg figure is for worse emergency situations, it is the weight of more than 6800kg the one that should not be exceeded in more than 3% of the total of landings of the ac. The reason is undercarriage integrity, the max structural weight is way higher, but if you destroy gears on landing the fuselage is also compromised. These landing weights of course are always supposing the SPS system is functional. In case of real emergency situations you can always land with greater weights, just do it gently. The landing gears will be replaced and the aircraft will be checked for structural integrity, but your life will be saved.:D Edited November 9, 2015 by OverStratos
Elwood Posted November 16, 2015 Author Posted November 16, 2015 After a weekend of training (landing with different weather conditions) I figure out that fuel level doesn't play big role. Talking of values from 500L to 1500L, is not big issue. So as long as I avoid flares also side winds are not so crazy to manage. It's maybe the high landing speed/inertial of this metal bird?
Recommended Posts