Should I buy the MIG-21?

[amalahama]

I would love to pick his brain and introduce him to the DCS module :)

 

That sounds messy... :D

 

Regards

[Reflected]

For those of you having trouble with landings, make sure you don't cut the throttle below a certain point on finals. Also make sure your flaps are in the correct position, otherwise the blowers won't engage. The plane sinks like a brick without blowers. When in doubt, a faster, flatter approach is better than a steeper, slower one.

 

:helpsmilie: What's a blower?

[amalahama]

I don't doubt that the Mig21 has bugs that need correcting, however Im reasonably sure that its in very, VERY, good hands as far as the FM is concerned.

.

 

In BMS forums they run some tests against the oficial performance graphs and at some altitudes and speeds the a/c matched reasonably well, but for others it was way off.

 

The FM has run several iterations since then, so I don't know in which status is now (I'm waiting for the Mig to get fixed in order to come back), but the fact that they change the FM drastically each time is not a good signal.

 

Maybe somebody can shred some light on it.

 

Regards

[OnlyforDCS]

:helpsmilie: What's a blower?

 

Blown flaps. Suffice to say that its a system that regulates air intake (usually from the engine intake, sometimes from the engine exhaust, not sure exactly how it works in the Mig) and redistributes it over the flaps for extra lift.

 

A useful system, however it only engages at a certain power setting, with landing flaps extended.

 

So basically if you are cutting the throttle power too soon (before your main gear touches down) you are cutting off your blown flaps, and you will drop like a brick.

[OnlyforDCS]

In BMS forums they run some tests against the oficial performance graphs and at some altitudes and speeds the a/c matched reasonably well, but for others it was way off.

 

The FM has run several iterations since then, so I don't know in which status is now (I'm waiting for the Mig to get fixed in order to come back), but the fact that they change the FM drastically each time is not a good signal.

 

Maybe somebody can shred some light on it.

 

Regards

 

What was the source of the "official" perfomance graphs? Was it based on the exact Bis version modelled in the DCS? (Yugoslav Mig21Bis, early 80s version)

 

The only one who can shed some light on it is Dolphin himself. No offense, but I do trust his judgement on how the plane should behave over a bunch of sim enthusiasts who have probably never seen a real life Mig21, let alone flown one.

 

I haven't flown it in a while, and maybe some bugs have crept up in the flight model due to the patching process, 3rd party EFM SDK updates, etc.

 

Im sure that Dolphin will address this and all the other issues in time.

Edited March 24, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[gavagai]

The only one who can shed some light on it is Dolphin himself. No offense, but I do trust his judgement on how the plane should behave over a bunch of sim enthusiasts who have probably never seen a real life Mig21, let alone flown one.

 

That is a big "probably." More than a few military pilots and engineers over there...

 

We shouldn't view these FM criticisms in a confrontational way, or react defensively. Based on the renewed activity in the bug tracker forum, Magnitude 3 is hard at work on improving the Mig-21 as we speak, and we are all cheering for their success.:thumbup:

[javelina1]

That is a big "probably." More than a few military pilots and engineers over there...

 

We shouldn't view these FM criticisms in a confrontational way, or react defensively. Based on the renewed activity in the bug tracker forum, Magnitude 3 is hard at work on improving the Mig-21 as we speak, and we are all cheering for their success.:thumbup:

 

Indeed! :thumbup:

[OnlyforDCS]

How many of those engineers and combat pilots flew the Mig21 bis? It doesn't matter if all of those people on the BMS forums have PHDs in Aeronautical Engineering, a plane never performs "exactly" to specs, no matter how many engineers you throw at the problem. If they did then test pilots and test trials would be totally unnecessary and superfluous in the real world.

 

Im not trying to be confrontational, Im just trying to be realistic.

 

I've checked out the bug tracker forum too and there are a lot of fixes incoming and many things have also been resolved. From what I've seen there are some FM improvements and fixes in the pipeline itself, however we will have to wait for Eagle Dynamics to release an official patch to 1.5.X to actually see them in the sim. From what I've read of Dolphin's commentary though most of the FM already seems reasonably correct, and a lot of people are having issues because in earlier versions the Mig performed better which might not have necessarily been correct modeling in the first place.

Edited March 24, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Hyperion35]

How many of those engineers and combat pilots flew the Mig21 bis? It doesn't matter if all of those people on the BMS forums have PHDs in Aeronautical Engineering, a plane never performs "exactly" to specs, no matter how many engineers you throw at the problem. If they did then test pilots and test trials would be totally unnecessary and superfluous in the real world.

 

I think that this is a fairly important point. I was just recently reading about NASA's attempts to build rockets for their next-generation space launch system, and in the process several engineers looked at existing F-1 engines from the Saturn V and found that there were a large number of edits and changes that were made to the engine during production that differed dramatically from what was designed "on-paper". Some of this was due to the production technology of the time, and some of it was due to the lack of precision in system modelling, which forced a number of changes when unexpected behavior was discovered. At that point in time, even cutting-edge programs were still hand-built.

 

And that was in a well-funded American aerospace program. Compare to a Soviet aerospace program where you had to also consider lack of funds, less-advanced production technology, and (possibly the most important and overlooked factor) a major difference in political climate: The "on-paper" specs had to match whatever the Soviet Defense Ministry requested. If the actual behavior of the aircraft was different, this was viewed as a problem for the pilot.

 

If an F-22 behaves differently than Lockheed promises, the pilots will make this known and Lockheed will face potential fines or even criminal penalties, or at the very least a very expensive company-funded fix for the fleet. Mikhoyan and Sukhoi were operating in a very different political environment. Even so, finding that equipment works differently than promised was something that many American pilots and soldiers have experienced as well ("The M-16 will be self-cleaning!"), so this is not solely a Soviet problem.

 

But it is certainly worth considering that the "on-paper" specs for Soviet aircraft were produced in a very different political climate than most of us have ever experienced. And that this also occurred at a time when even cutting-edge aircraft were still hand-built machines with after-market "fixes" installed by engineers (or even crew chiefs) that were never put on paper.

 

And as one final note: even with the most thorough testing, pilots will still find ways to demonstrate capabilities that aircraft designers never imagined. Consider that McDonnell-Douglass engineers were shocked when an Israeli pilot landed an F-15 after losing a wing, as they had not believed that this would be possible.

[Vincent90]

Wait....are you actually suggesting aircraft documentation is deliberately fraudulent?

 

You should always prefer documents and numbers above pilot interpretation. Like the word suggests: it's an opinion; subjective to every individual. Verified numbers are where you base a simulation on.

 

Having said that, of course pilot input is crucial to augment the simulation. Not everything is, and can be, written down.

 

But to suggest that pilot input > verified documentation is just plain false.

 

As Yo-Yo often says:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2847042&highlight=Pilot#post2847042

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2864178&highlight=Pilot#post2864178

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2425207&highlight=Pilot#post2425207

[OnlyforDCS]

 

But to suggest that pilot input > verified documentation is just plain false.

 

 

No one is suggesting that. What we are casting doubt upon is the documentation itself. Is it really verified? Who verified it? When? It might not be accurate, or up to date, it might not even be consistent with the documentation that Dolphin has.

 

I don't believe that even during the darkest days of the Soviet union, engineers would stoop so low as to "play" with the data so as to make the plane perform much better on paper. It was simply far too dangerous and costly for everyone involved. But mistakes always creep in, and that is why test pilots are so crucial.

[Reflected]

Alright, I'm really getting there! I experienced a few weird things though, and I'd like to know if they are bugs or I messed something up.

 

- I tend to blow tires on takeoff when rotating (gently) well below 400 kph.

 

- I once fired my last IR missile, and couldn't stop getting a tone. No matter what switch I turned off. There weren't any planes left ahead of me.

 

- Once the opposite happened. I flew behind an afterburning F5E that was flying straight, set everything up properly for an IR shot but I never got a tone....

 

- The Missile tone is too faint, even if I turn the volume knob all the way up.

 

Thanks for all the help!

[some1]

The last three are bugs, some quite old.

[OnlyforDCS]

I can help you with the first point. You are rotating way too late and too gently. Rotate between 250 and 300 kph, in full afterburner. Don't be afraid to pull on the stick, you need to hit about 10 degrees AoA.

 

The other points sound like bugs. Here is a really useful guide by one of our very own guide gurus:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2398154&postcount=1

[grunf]

- Once the opposite happened. I flew behind an afterburning F5E that was flying straight, set everything up properly for an IR shot but I never got a tone....

That one seems to be fixed.

 

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=400

[Darkwolf]

The only one who can shed some light on it is Dolphin himself. No offense, but I do trust his judgement on how the plane should behave over a bunch of sim enthusiasts who have probably never seen a real life Mig21, let alone flown one.

 

No need to be real pilot. just reproduce Mig21 landing like they are doing IRL (many YT videos out there), and you die - period.

 

However, closely following the bug tracker details, we vodka pilots start believing it may evolve very positively :)

[some1]

That one seems to be fixed.

 

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=400

 

In the patch we don't have yet.

 

Bursting tyres also have been reported: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183252

[Dehuman]

 

If an F-22 behaves differently than Lockheed promises, the pilots will make this known and Lockheed will face potential fines or even criminal penalties, or at the very least a very expensive company-funded fix for the fleet. Mikhoyan and Sukhoi were operating in a very different political environment. Even so, finding that equipment works differently than promised was something that many American pilots and soldiers have experienced as well ("The M-16 will be self-cleaning!"), so this is not solely a Soviet problem.

 

 

:lol:

F-22 Hypoxia debacle, F-35. -Lockheed are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

I think in 1950's USSR aircraft performance was very much the designers problem, lest they get taken out back and shot.

 

Heck Sukhoi went back to the drawing board when it was discovered that the Su-27 wouldn't perform as promised, this despite series production already being underway.

[Reflected]

As daunting as it looks, this plane is pretty simple actually. Thanks for all the advice, now I can take off quite alright.

 

I have one problem though. Maykop's RSBN is Ch. 34. So I set the left knob to 34, flick the switch to RSBN, the other one to navigate, aaand...nothing. Shouldn't it point in the direction of Maykop?

[Kev2go]

:lol:

F-22 Hypoxia debacle, F-35. -Lockheed are laughing all the way to the bank.

 

I think in 1950's USSR aircraft performance was very much the designers problem, lest they get taken out back and shot.

 

Heck Sukhoi went back to the drawing board when it was discovered that the Su-27 wouldn't perform as promised, this despite series production already being underway.

 

 

with Hypoxia fixed F22 is otherwise splendid Ar superiority fighter. It was the first stealth air superrity fighter In service, Ever, and its been in servcie since 2005. So 12 years, and Chinese and Russian Stealth projects are still justwithin prototype and testing phases, and its questionable due to lower funding and at least a Decade + Technical gap if they will be really match or exceed these capabilities , Or if they will have the $$ to outproduce the # of F22, let alone F35s that are planned.

 

F35 may have had cost overuns and Delays, But Its still very technologiucally impressive aircraft, Even though its intended to be a strike fighter, and cheaper Airframe then the F22 it still been performing great in recent Red Flag a2a combat against 4th generation Aggressor aircraft like the F16 which are generallt used as Mig29 stand in. If i recall the laast scores were greatly in F35' s favor it was 15/1.

 

 

so i really dont see you point. Snags in development process dont automatically make a Bad fighter.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Kev2go

[Tarres]

The nav system of the 21bis is diferent from the ED standard. You need to use the channel indicated in the 21´s Keyboard.

[grunf]

Good news, the armament selector and IR/SARH switch are fixed. :thumbup:

 

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=187

https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=81

[westr]

As daunting as it looks, this plane is pretty simple actually. Thanks for all the advice, now I can take off quite alright.

 

I have one problem though. Maykop's RSBN is Ch. 34. So I set the left knob to 34, flick the switch to RSBN, the other one to navigate, aaand...nothing. Shouldn't it point in the direction of Maykop?

 

That's the thing. People look at the cockpit and because it's so busy assume it's an overly complex aircraft. In actual fact the 21 is relatively straightforward aircraft. But a challenge to master.

[javelina1]

That's the thing. People look at the cockpit and because it's so busy assume it's an overly complex aircraft. In actual fact the 21 is relatively straightforward aircraft. But a challenge to master.

 

Exactly! don't let those switches scare you. :thumbup:

[Dehuman]

so i really dont see you point. Snags in development process dont automatically make a Bad fighter.

 

I'm not saying these are bad aircraft, my point was to debunk the idea that Lockheed would face serious consequences if their aircraft had problems whilst for some reason Soviet aircraft designers enjoyed some sort of immunity if they screwed up.