DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

[CoBlue]

And I honestly dont get why they still use freaking random length units. Where 1000ft isnt 1nm, which is as inconvinient as it gets. M is defined by C, so no random length there either.

But ye, happy that russians and swedes do use metric.

 

IMO imperial units are better suited for aviation when it comes to quick mental "rules of thumb" calculations (coz it's based on 12 instead of 10) ex:

To destination decent calculation, 3° rule.

Dist. to start decent = FL ÷3 ex. FL330 ÷3 = 110nm, start descending at 110nm.

At what decent rate? Ground speed ÷ 2 x 10,

ex. 400 ÷2 (+0) = 2000f/m

Check if on dec.prof.? Dist x3 = FL you should be at, ex. you're 50nm from airport, 50 x3 = 150, you should be at FL150.

Time to Descend: (Altitude to Lose/Rate of Descent) = Time to Descend

There are many more simple "rules of thumb".

 

Now if you think metric is better! please show me a simple decent calculation in metrics? coz I've been trying to find one without any success.

Edited July 8, 2016 by CoBlue

[RagnarDa]

DCS: AJS-37 Viggen Discussion

 

IMO imperial units are better suited for aviation when it comes to quick mental "rules of thumb" calculations (coz it's based on 12 instead of 10) ex:

To destination decent calculation, 3° rule.

Dist. to start decent = FL ÷3 ex. FL330 ÷3 = 110nm, start descending at 110nm.

At what decent rate? Ground speed ÷ 2 x 10,

ex. 400 ÷2 (+0) = 2000f/m

Check if on dec.prof.? Dist x3 = FL you should be at, ex. you're 50nm from airport, 50 x3 = 150, you should be at FL150.

Time to Descend: (Altitude to Lose/Rate of Descent) = Time to Descend

There are many more simple "rules of thumb".

 

Now if you think metric is better! please show me a simple decent calculation in metrics? coz I've been trying to find one without any success.

 

 

 

3 degrees is 5% (or 5,24%) so to get distance to start descending just check your height and multiply that with 20. To get correct descent rate divide your ground speed with 20.

 

Edit: I realized the sink rate indicator is scaled in m/s so uh... divide your ground speed with 3,6 then 20...

Edited July 8, 2016 by RagnarDa

[microvax]

IMO imperial units are better suited for aviation when it comes to quick mental "rules of thumb" calculations (coz it's based on 12 instead of 10) ex:

To destination decent calculation, 3° rule.

Dist. to start decent = FL ÷3 ex. FL330 ÷3 = 110nm, start descending at 110nm.

At what decent rate? Ground speed ÷ 2 x 10,

ex. 400 ÷2 (+0) = 2000f/m

Check if on dec.prof.? Dist x3 = FL you should be at, ex. you're 50nm from airport, 50 x3 = 150, you should be at FL150.

Time to Descend: (Altitude to Lose/Rate of Descent) = Time to Descend

There are many more simple "rules of thumb".

 

Now if you think metric is better! please show me a simple decent calculation in metrics? coz I've been trying to find one without any success.

 

Thanks to base 10 its way easier imho.

 

Distance to start decent => FL*2 and add a zero at the end. So FL 3450*2 => 6900 => 69000 => 69KM.

 

Decent rate is also very easy thanks to alt and range is the same unit. Since you have to loose 5% alt per traveled range so its GS/2 and remove a zero or shift the comma. If you then wish to have m/s divide by 3,6 or by 4 and round up fair good. For speed of 600kph it would be 8,3 exactly or 7,5 if you are sloppy and divide by 4. So round up 7,5 and you land at 8 which is just 30cm a second off. Which would add up to an error of 120meters after 70km traveled distance. Acceptable for rule of thumb i would say.

 

For alt required at range for an 3 degrees aproach also is very much the same.

Range/2 and remove a zero or shift the comma one digit to the left.

69/2 => 34,5 => 3,45km.

Time of descend is exactly the same thanks to the relative unit beeing the same. :)

 

So as you can see its exactly the same principle for both units. :D

 

Only difference is the factor for range to start descent and check if on descent path.

While its x3 or /3 for imperial its x2 and /2 for metric, plus shifting the comma one to the left or the right.

 

For descent rate its exactly the same /2 and shift the comma one to the right.

 

So now you decide, what is easier, multiplying and dividing by 2, or by 3. Plus for imperial you work with both while with metric you are happily just working with *20 or /20.

 

Dunno I think double and half is easier even to guestimate then third or tripple. :)

[Absolut]

There is no targeting pod etc but there is a small display to the right of the hud where the seeker picture is displayed.

 

So like the A-10A you would use the Mk1 eyeball together with the missile seeker to find a target.

 

That is the cockpit of the Attack Viggen and as stated the Round Display to the right of the HUD is the Display for the Maverick.

 

isnt that a saab draken, i think so

no iam wrong sry

Edited July 8, 2016 by Absolut

[mattebubben]

isnt that a saab draken, i think so

no iam wrong sry

 

 

Thats the saab AJ viggen (AJS has the same cockpit only some dials replaced etc)

 

This is a Draken.

 

[Sporg]

Thats the saab AJ viggen (AJS has the same cockpit only some dials replaced etc)

 

This is a Draken.

 

Speaking of which: I would really really like a Draken in DCS also some day. :)

 

Ok, back to topic. :)

[Darkbrotherhood7]

Thats the saab AJ viggen (AJS has the same cockpit only some dials replaced etc)

 

This is a Draken.

 

 

Woah, Draken has a beautiful vintage cockpit.

[Knock-Knock]

Mmmmm.. Draken.

 

Sry, couldnt help it. Move along.

[amb]

What is that vertical stick next to the throttle on the left in the Draken cockpit? It's not for RB05 is it? I didn't think the Draken could carry that...

[mattebubben]

What is that vertical stick next to the throttle on the left in the Draken cockpit? It's not for RB05 is it? I didn't think the Draken could carry that...

 

No the Swedish Drakens were pure fighters they dont have any guided Air-ground ordnance (or much of air-ground ordnance at all)

 

My guess would be thats its used to control the radar.

 

(just like the AJ/AJS 37s Stick that is located in the same spot since the RB 05 controller is on right side of the cockpit)

 

This is the Radar Control stick on the AJ/AJS 37 Viggen.(as well as the SH/AJSH recce variant)

 

 

 

 

And since they look similar and are located in the same place my best guess would be they have the same purpose.

 

Ive only seen this stick on some of the Draken variants (does not seem to be present in the earlier variants and might be limited to the J35F/J variants)

 

And since the AJ 37 was being designed as J35F (the Last Production variant) entered service my guess would be they took the radar control stick from the Draken.

 

And the cockpit pictures is most likely from a J35F or J35J (the J35J being J35F2s that were upgraded in the mid-late 80s)

Edited July 8, 2016 by mattebubben

[ShadoWw]

No the Swedish Drakens were pure fighters they dont have any guided Air-ground ordnance (or much of air-ground ordnance at all)

 

My guess would be thats its used to control the radar.

 

(just like the AJ/AJS 37s Stick that is located in the same spot since the RB 05 controller is on right side of the cockpit)

 

This is the Radar Control stick on the AJ/AJS 37 Viggen.(as well as the SH/AJSH recce variant)

 

 

 

 

And since they look similar and are located in the same place my best guess would be they have the same purpose.

 

Ive only seen this stick on some of the Draken variants (does not seem to be present in the earlier variants and might be limited to the J35F/J variants)

 

And since the AJ 37 was being designed as J35F (the Last Production variant) entered service my guess would be they took the radar control stick from the Draken.

 

And the cockpit pictures is most likely from a J35F or J35J (the J35J being J35F2s that were upgraded in the mid-late 80s)

 

You are correct, It is the Radar stick.

[CoBlue]

Thanks to base 10 its way easier imho.

Distance to start decent => FL*2 and add a zero at the end. So FL 3450*2 => 6900 => 69000 => 69KM.

So as you can see its exactly the same principle for both units. :D

Dunno I think double and half is easier even to guestimate then third or tripple. :)

Thanx for the explanation, that was exactly what I was looking for :thumbup:

Yeah it looks quite easy indeed.

You don't happen to have a good metrics "rules of thumb" online site or PDF for the more complicated stuff?

Edited July 8, 2016 by CoBlue

[GaryIKILLYOU]

So am I the only one going to be blaring Sabaton and flying low and fast dropping warheads on foreheads for the first week? Cause I feel like with this module that should be a minimum requirement.

[Cobra847]

So am I the only one going to be blaring Sabaton and flying low and fast dropping warheads on foreheads for the first week? Cause I feel like with this module that should be a minimum requirement.

 

Fitting, considering I directed this!

 

[RaXha]

Fitting, considering I directed this!

 

 

 

 

Alright, so sabatons defenitely a go then! XD

[grunf]

^^ Definitely fitting, although I'm more into the symphonic metal these days. :D

 

Nice job, Cobra!

[GaryIKILLYOU]

Fitting, considering I directed this!

 

 

Damn, Screaming Eagles is one of my favorite songs, along with Killing Ground. So yeah, put "Sabaton" on the minimum requirements page. (Recommended could also work) :D

[ShadoWw]

And it offically derailed again lol :lol:

[mattebubben]

And it offically derailed again lol :lol:

 

You should have realized by now that this thread gets derailed after about 3-5 Posts.

 

and every time it gets back on topic within 3-5 posts its usually derailed again.

[ShadoWw]

You should have realized by now that this thread gets derailed after about 3-5 Posts.

 

and every time it gets back on topic within 3-5 posts its usually derailed again.

 

It's hard to keep it on track though! We are soon out of things to discuss.. So. If anyone is interested in any specific type of documentation for the AJS37, hit me up here or in Pm. And i will try to make it happen with the assets i have!

[mattebubben]

It's hard to keep it on track though! We are soon out of things to discuss.. So. If anyone is interested in any specific type of documentation for the AJS37, hit me up here or in Pm. And i will try to make it happen with the assets i have!

 

Not strictly related to the aircraft itself.

 

But do you have documentations on some of the weapons.

 

Since for some of the weapons (Mainly RB 75 and RB 24J)

many sources differ as to what variants they were based on.

 

Ive found sources referring to the RB 75 as both a AGM-65A and a AGM-65B (and some sources seem to hint that both were acquired)

as well as sources refering to the RB 24J as an aim-9J or a Aim-9P.

 

do you have any access to any documentation that could clarify this matter?.

 

And when it comes to the RB 75 do you know if there was ever a second batch of missiles ordered/delivered after the first batch in the late 70s

 

(since in that case it would increase the likely hood that we had a mix of AGM-65As and Bs)

[ShadoWw]

Not strictly related to the aircraft itself.

 

But do you have documentations on some of the weapons.

 

Since for some of the weapons (Mainly RB 75 and RB 24J)

many sources differ as to what variants they were based on.

 

Ive found sources referring to the RB 75 as both a AGM-65A and a AGM-65B (and some sources seem to hint that both were acquired)

as well as sources refering to the RB 24J as an aim-9J or a Aim-9P.

 

do you have any access to any documentation that could clarify this matter?.

 

And when it comes to the RB 75 do you know if there was ever a second batch of missiles ordered/delivered after the first batch in the late 70s

 

(since in that case it would increase the likely hood that we had a mix of AGM-65As and Bs)

 

I will see, i believe there might be some info. Although what i do know about the Rb75 is that it had a larger warhead than the normal ones, simply because the specific purpose was not tanks like what they are used for in i.e A10. But instead mainly bridges, but also other kinds of infrastructure. And also ships if needed, anything that was a bit larger which needed some firepower to take down.

 

Also the Rb24j do differ from the earlier Rb24. It is specifically the Johan version you want this info on?

 

I am Swedish so any of you swedes you can pm me about more detailed info etc i should look into. As the Swedish terms for me regarding this aircraft is just easier to understand exactly.. :pilotfly:

[mattebubben]

Well when it comes to the RB75 we had two different RB 75 variants.

 

the RB 75 and RB 75T (T for Tung Meaning Heavy warhead)

 

The T had the heavier warhead (much like some of the later AGM-65 variants)

 

but the RB 75 had the normal warhead.

(with the 75 being for AT work and lighter targets etc and the 75T being for bunkers / Bridges or heavy targets in general)

but they both used the same seeker and as far as i could find they were both delivered in the same first batch of 500 missiles in the late 70s.

Or Atleast that is my understanding from the sources i have been able to find.

 

And About the RB24 its the J im interested in.

 

As the RB24 (RB24B) is easily recognized as a Aim-9B.

 

Where as its less certain with the RB24J.

 

The RB24J could either be a Aim-9J (as some sources state) or the Aim-9P (probably a P-3 as others state)

 

And there clues that point both ways.

 

the biggest reason that point towards the Aim-9J is the designation of RB24J (but since the Aim-9P more or less an evolved Aim-9J its not definite proof)

 

Where as one of the things that point towards the Aim-9P is the dates.

 

Sweden received the first RB 24Js around 1977-1978 (which is the period where the Aim-9Ps started entering service around the world)

 

Where as the Aim-9J entered service in the early 70s and was overtaken by the Aim-9N around 1973-74

(not clear how long it stayed in production) so its not certain the Aim-9J was still in production during the time period when Sweden Received the RB 24Js where as we know the Aim-9P was.

 

And its unlikely that The Production line for the Aim-9J would have been re-opened or kept open for an export order when the Aim-9P was in production at the same and was intended for just that kind of export.

 

when it comes to the RB 24J its not a huge problem either way (if its a 9J or a 9P though ofc the 9P would be better)

but it would be interesting to know either way.

 

And for the RB 75 it again does not matter alot of the game since its already been stated we will get both A/B mavericks.

 

But again it would be nice and interesting to find documentation on what variants were actually used.

Edited July 9, 2016 by mattebubben

[ShadoWw]

Well when it comes to the RB75 we had two different RB 75 variants.

 

the RB 75 and RB 75T (T for Tung Meaning Heavy warhead)

 

The T had the heavier warhead (much like some of the later AGM-65 variants)

 

but the RB 75 had the normal warhead.

(with the 75 being for AT work and lighter targets etc and the 75T being for bunkers / Bridges or heavy targets in general)

but they both used the same seeker and as far as i could find they were both delivered in the same first batch of 500 missiles in the late 70s.

Or Atleast that is my understanding from the sources i have been able to find.

 

And About the RB24 its the J im interested in.

 

As the RB24 (RB24B) is easily recognized as a Aim-9B.

 

Where as its less certain with the RB24J.

 

Seems to be about same from what i heard. Will dig into this asap.

[Cobra847]

One sweaty swede, 33C, and one traumatised JA-37Di cockpit later-- we have all we need. :)

 

Last research trip is done!