New stability patch = UFO

[Brigg]

Please tell me the FM is fixed.

[Hiromachi]

Maybe ... :)

[Brigg]

Maybe ... :)

 

awesome news thx :thumbup:

[Shmal]

Thank's to developers one more time for last update!

Taking off now is great and it's tuned!

Landing is perfect!

I finally did my old wish - touch and go the runaway without drop the nose down! Here is the video:

 

Couple days before i had opportunity to ask a real MiG-21 pilot quite thoroughly about taxing, rise the nose up while taking off, landing and the answers satisfied me!

We have pretty accurate flight model in DCS now!

I've never been flying jet, but when i was listening his explanations i was exactly understanding everithing and even more! I understood that our MiG-21 flight-model was made by pilot! Because only pilot could try to imply some destinctive features!

Of course there are some staff still needs to be tuned but any way!

Now the general, whole result is very good!

 

So, one more exact thing i'd like to see is correct work of the SPS. Now i do not see the difference with SPS or without! But the difference has to be at least 20 km/h while landing!

And the pilot told me about special effect of MiG-21 with SPS!

He called it "effect of the spoon". It shows from 10 to 5 meters on approaching exact before leveling and holding! The craft is taking some force some ground effect which pushing it up and the pilot has to give the stick forward short time to compensate it!

The reason of it he described to me like the flows from SPS are improving the effectiveness of stabilisators at this speed and it shows exactly with these conditions!

Edited June 4, 2020 by Shmal

[Hiromachi]

Hello Shmal, I will forward your input to Dolphin :)

[Dr_Arrow]

FM in the latest OB version is in my opinion the BEST we've had. Take-off and landing behaviour are much improved, now I can do it by the book and it feels also great in flight. Big thanks for me.

[Shmal]

Hello Shmal, I will forward your input to Dolphin :)

Appreciate it! Would be great!

[CoBlue]

Hello Shmal, I will forward your input to Dolphin :)

Trim is still very sensitive, 1 click & it pitches up too much, especially in landing config.

[Shmal]

Dear, developers!

Please check the turn parameters!

Maybe effectiveness of stabilisator was increased?

Me and =RAF=FAB999 was trying to check different points on the diagram of the Variation G-Load in Steady Banked Turn from Operation Manual of MiG-21

and the diagram of the Maximum Available G-Load vs Mach Number.

I was flying with Full Afterburner at 800 km/h on 1000 meters. It looks like current parameters a little overestimated in range 0.5-0.75G

The picture shows a bit floating data of the speed on different parts of the circle, i know! But the G-parameter was pretty clear for me i saw it's not very depanding of it! It's defenetly not the 4.7G as it has to be! I'ts dancing around 5.5G!

Check it yourselves please and let us know if i am mistaken and it is Ok!

 

And thank you for the improvement of the nose gear behavior and others changing!

Edited June 12, 2020 by Shmal

[Hiromachi]

Hello Shmal,

thanks for bringing this to our attention. First, if I'm reading you're diagram correctly, for 800 km/h IAS it should be rather 4.9 G than 4.7 G. Second I'm not entirely sure what you understand by steady turn, since by the looks of your tacview picture you've made single turn rather than sustained, which it should be (so turn at constant speed, turn rate and altitude).

This is further obvious when I looked into my documents and found this:

This comes from the document titled: Samolot MiG-21bis Charakterystyki lotno-techniczne, Poznań (Poland), 1980 which describes in great detail aircraft flight characteristics. It uses term "zakręt ustalony" which corresponds to English sustained turn. I assume the picture you had comes from English translation of Russian MiG-21 Flight Manual ? I could find the same picture in Polish MiG-21bis Flight Manual, which also uses term: "zakręt ustalony". So in either case, steady turn = sustained turn with constant speed, turn rate and altitude.

 

The other case is of course loadout, since default instructions referred to Group I as R-3S rather than R-60. But that would produce small difference so lets leave it aside.

 

Finally, I'm not sure why there is a discrepancy since they give varying data for the same altitude (H - 1 km), same weight (7500kg) and same speed range. But I'm going with the above document as it focuses exclusively on aircraft flight characteristics and contains a lot more details for turn radius, etc. It's also close to what I've found for in Combat Manual for the MiG-21bis: Slight difference in this one is likely due to lower altitude by some 500 m.

You tacview indicates speed of 0,68 Mach, which corresponds to the 5.3 - 5.4 G in the graph from the MiG-21 Flight and Technical Characteristics document so it would appear its spot on or extremely close.

[Fri13]

. Disregarding the secrecy behind actual FM, you still have one more difficulty to pass on to the simulation environment: stick movement that are incomparably large when compared to the small sticks that we use at home. Fishbed stick is attached on the floor directly and lateral movements are going alsmot in the line with your shoulders. This is very difficult to transfer and because the roll rate for the Fishbed is extremely high which is reported by many pilots that flown the aircraft. One of the things that real Fishbed pilots were talking about that wasnt possible to do with the previous FM is climbing 180 turn after takeoff (initiated by the end of the runway). This is now possible. Previously you would just drop as a f* brick which Fishbed is not - it is a highly manuevreable rocket.

 

How long is the real stick length? From the axis I mean.

I could go to museum measure it, but it's close because COVID-19 for now.

 

But that said, I have fly many in DCS with about 40 cm extension. That is far far longer than 99% here have. And yet many stick movements are not possible because DCS considers input too much at the center for high reaction.

 

Now, to do same input with 20 cm extension than 40 cm, one needs to do half the physical movement. Yet even in real cockpit videos (that are even with UWA most cases, so making large movements look smaller) pilots does huge and rapid movements in many cases, that would simply flip aircrafts in DCS around, even with a serious curves.

 

There is a big problem in the input-output relationship in DCS, where we example have trims that we can't even touch without overtrimming. Example, shortest possible press of a trim gives +5 input, but +3 is needed. So you are +2 points over. Now you try to trim down, and you give -6 this time, and you do that back and worth until you get trimming somewhere close.

 

And that is problem in many modules.

 

Many aircrafts don't have the sub-systems that are there. Example MiG-29S and Su-27S has a dampening mode in their autopilots that you activate for landing. You wave the stick quickly and you are limited in inputs scale even. Why you have two quick ways to override or cancel all autopilot modes so you can on case of emergency full deflection possibilities to pull up if needed.

 

We can watch real cockpit videos and relate the stick movements, and see that many can do bigger movements in their stick scale than we can do if we don't use curves etc.

[Fri13]

Yeah, that same pilot said the FM was "finished & final" >3y's ago! Is he even still on the team? we know nothing since M3 ain't communicating.[/Quote]

 

The MiG felt for unobserved eye good in the day of release, it was a rocket with wings, it was maneuverable below 700 km/h, it didn't stall from slight pull of stick etc. Then it was years that. Between slight changes like rollrare around 60 degree a second or so etc.

 

 

The 21 has a broken (FM & many other bugs) it doesn't stall...look at the AoA if you're in RED you're supposed to be stalled. It's not rocket science!

If you think the current FM is correct then why the does it have the biggest colorful AoA indicator in the cockpit?

 

Have you listened the Fighter Pilots Podcast about fishbed? The original MiG-21 didn't have a AoA or G instruments. You flew it jus by butt feeling. You pulled as hard you wanted and it didn't stall. Even when you went below pilot book speeds etc it was very maneuverable and we'll handling fighter with good controls.

 

Now the fishbed is like it doesn't have a tail, nose raises and drops by itself like rowing a boat in high seas. When nose is below horizon it just can get lift but is stalled, until you put nose down and generate speed to 700-900 km/h so you can start very carefully pitch up with a something like 5 km turn radius.

 

Anytime your speed is below 700 km/h it loses lift and stalls, where only engine is keeping it up with tail.

 

The plane has super narrow flight maneuvering capability, between 4-32 indicated AoA there ain't much where to keep it as it just goes so quickly between minimum and maximum.

 

In shortly put, MiG-21 is a fighter that doesn't want to fly as it wings stalls so quickly.

[Dr_Arrow]

The MiG felt for unobserved eye good in the day of release, it was a rocket with wings, it was maneuverable below 700 km/h, it didn't stall from slight pull of stick etc. Then it was years that. Between slight changes like rollrare around 60 degree a second or so etc.

 

 

 

 

Have you listened the Fighter Pilots Podcast about fishbed? The original MiG-21 didn't have a AoA or G instruments. You flew it jus by butt feeling. You pulled as hard you wanted and it didn't stall. Even when you went below pilot book speeds etc it was very maneuverable and we'll handling fighter with good controls.

 

Now the fishbed is like it doesn't have a tail, nose raises and drops by itself like rowing a boat in high seas. When nose is below horizon it just can get lift but is stalled, until you put nose down and generate speed to 700-900 km/h so you can start very carefully pitch up with a something like 5 km turn radius.

 

Anytime your speed is below 700 km/h it loses lift and stalls, where only engine is keeping it up with tail.

 

The plane has super narrow flight maneuvering capability, between 4-32 indicated AoA there ain't much where to keep it as it just goes so quickly between minimum and maximum.

 

In shortly put, MiG-21 is a fighter that doesn't want to fly as it wings stalls so quickly.

 

I am sorry, but this just a bunch of exaggerations based on your feelings, misperception or misunderstanding how aircraft work and fly. Statement like: "Anytime your speed is below 700 km/h it loses lift and stalls" brings nothing constructive towards FM and I would say it is insulting for devs and really anyone who has some clue about flight modeling, sorry.

[corn322]

Have you listened the Fighter Pilots Podcast about fishbed? The original MiG-21 didn't have a AoA or G instruments.

 

Did you listen to the podcast? After the interview with Suren Tyagi, Harish Masand came on and explained that they probably did have those instruments, it was just that Mr. Tyagi didn't worry about them as he could fly well enough "by the seat of his pants."

 

@ Hiromachi & Shmal:

I think the point he was making is that he did sustain a constant altitude and speed during that turn. But he had to hold 5.5G to do so. According to his chart, he should only have to pull ~4.8G

 

As for why the 3 charts you have are all slightly different...

Is the top pair showing one with 2nd afterburner mode on and the other regular AB vs. full military power? And the Bottom chart is Mig-21FM vs. Mig-21Bis with 2nd AB engaged?

[Hiromachi]

He mentioned that parameters are overestimated.

 

The first picture with a pair of graphs indicates on the first (left) G load in sustained turn with two R-3S missiles (weight - 7500 kg, engine with 2nd afterburner engaged) and on the second (right graph) same situation but engine operates at 1st stage afterburner and than Military Power (No afterburner).

Second picture is a comparison between MiG-21bis and MF in sustained turns. Bis uses 2nd stage afterburner which clearly shows the advantage over MF.

 

The interesting and important part in this is that 2nd stage afterburner advantage increases with the speed. Engine is more efficient at higher airspeeds so if one is turnfighting its important to maintain the speed, optimally 1150 km/h. Of course thats theory, combat is dynamic. Shmal online in F-5 is really capable, so he wont fall into that ;)

[rossmum]

Anytime your speed is below 700 km/h it loses lift and stalls, where only engine is keeping it up with tail.

 

And yet in 90% of dogfights I get into, I am sitting comfortably at 400km/h or less, not stalled. I will often go as slow as 180-250km/h in a vertical loop and again, no stall.

 

Just because the original lacked an AoA indicator, does not mean you pull as much as you want and the aircraft never stalls. Pilots have an innate feel for what the aircraft is doing, when they talk about pulling the stick they generally mean it in a very different way to what most DCS players do. AoA indicators did not become common until the late 50s/early 60s on jets, warbirds never had them, civilian aircraft only sometimes have them. I don't see anyone claiming it's impossible to stall a Cessna 152 or a Mustang - because of course you can stall them.

 

The difference is, you can either feel the onset, or you develop muscle memory for the limit of how much back stick you can apply at certain speeds. This second one applies in DCS - maybe you have issues with the 21 stalling, but I don't, unless I'm very tired or clumsy. Below about 800km/h I know I can only pull my stick back perhaps 30-40% of its travel, above that speed I can pull it back further, above 1,000km/h I can pull it as far as I want because I am being limited by the ARU setting instead.

[Noctrach]

@Fri13, I literally cannot relate to any of the criticism you level at this module...

There is a big problem in the input-output relationship in DCS, where we example have trims that we can't even touch without overtrimming.

 

I fly every single module with a T16K no curves and I can refuel or hold a steady parade formation with each... it's simply muscle memory. All you get from a stick extension is more forgiving inputs.

 

Anytime your speed is below 700 km/h it loses lift and stalls, where only engine is keeping it up with tail.

 

The plane has super narrow flight maneuvering capability, between 4-32 indicated AoA there ain't much where to keep it as it just goes so quickly between minimum and maximum.

 

In shortly put, MiG-21 is a fighter that doesn't want to fly as it wings stalls so quickly.

 

Again.. I can get her through a high yo-yo with a starting speed of about 500 kph or a loop at around 600... it's just a matter of flying in accordance with the manual... 2G pull-up, 4-5G loop entry, 14 units of AoA over the top.

If you seriously think that a range of 4-33 AoA is narrow... I don't know what to say... many fighters would kill for this and it's one of the reason why modern jets (Rafale, Gripen, Eurofighter) use canard-delta designs.

The Fishbed is really an extremely forgiving plane to fly if you don't hamfist the controls. Personally I'm absolutely loving the latest flight model tweaks.

[Fri13]

 

Just because the original lacked an AoA indicator, does not mean you pull as much as you want and the aircraft never stalls.

 

I pull only so much than is required for a level flight at 1000-3000m altitude. Full afterburner, emergency secondary power and smooth pull to get level flight. Fights back hard by going constantly max AoA and drops down at 2-5 m/s.

 

This with a 1500 fuel, clear.

Ease by pushing forward for a 5-15 degree dive and it immediately goes back to 700+ km/h speeds.

Fresh install of DCS.

 

I can pull good steady horizontal circles at 400 km/h and about 3G, turn radius 700-800 meters and AoA indexer at 10 points. But only at full afterburner. Again go to level flight and starts dropping down.

 

Landings done with a full afterburner, 350 on/h, about 20-22 index and yet fights to give a 1-2 m/s Vertical, so timing must be correct or can't recover from it. Pull to steady level flight and speed drops to below 250 km/h, unrecoverable if not possible again pull nose down for 5 index AoA to gain immediately speed.

 

The aircraft truly loves afterburner for everything. Keep speed up to 700 km/h and completely different beast. Can do what ever requested and doesn't even get over 10 points AoA index.

 

Hitting a auto recovery and it flies in steady ~2 m/s down on the ground with even full afterburner. But that is a another thing as that system can't recover as it just oscillates until crash.

[Noctrach]

Kinda looks to me like you're describing a 3rd gen delta-wing interceptor aircraft with a less than 1:1 TWR...

 

 

To me it sounds like you're just slowing down waaay too early in the landing pattern.

 

With a good approach you only hit 300 kph, 10-15 units of AoA and less than 2 m/s descent, crossing the threshold prior to touchdown.

All the way up to that point you'd be flying between 360-380 kph, throttle around 70-80% and slowing down, then on the last 50-60 or so metres of altitude slightly pull the nose up, push throttle to 85-90% and let her glide herself down. AoA never really gets above about 18 units.

 

 

Aerobraking after landing requires a soft touchdown and light stick inputs but is still absolutely doable.

Just don't expect the nose to go very high, couple of degrees is all you get without tailstriking in my experience.

 

Likewise I have zero issues with the recovery mode, in fact I use it as a reliable "cruise control" for longer stretches of flight... it only wobbles if you're above 10,000m or at transonic speeds.

 

Really seems to me there's either something broken for you on the software end or on the hardware end.

Either that or you need to adjust your expectations from something like a 2000s Hornet or Viper... it's never gonna be a perfectly stable FBW platform and like the L-39, F-5, F-14 etc. will require constant attention for every change in speed, attitude or altitude.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Noctrach

[Dr_Arrow]

Kinda looks to me like you're describing a 3rd gen delta-wing interceptor aircraft with a less than 1:1 TWR...

 

 

To me it sounds like you're just slowing down waaay too early in the landing pattern.

 

With a good approach you only hit 300 kph, 10-15 units of AoA and less than 2 m/s descent, crossing the threshold prior to touchdown.

All the way up to that point you'd be flying between 360-380 kph, throttle around 70-80% and slowing down, then on the last 50-60 or so metres of altitude slightly pull the nose up, push throttle to 85-90% and let her glide herself down. AoA never really gets above about 18 units.

 

 

Aerobraking after landing requires a soft touchdown and light stick inputs but is still absolutely doable.

Just don't expect the nose to go very high, couple of degrees is all you get without tailstriking in my experience.

 

Likewise I have zero issues with the recovery mode, in fact I use it as a reliable "cruise control" for longer stretches of flight... it only wobbles if you're above 10,000m or at transonic speeds.

 

Really seems to me there's either something broken for you on the software end or on the hardware end.

Either that or you need to adjust your expectations from something like a 2000s Hornet or Viper... it's never gonna be a perfectly stable FBW platform and like the L-39, F-5, F-14 etc. will require constant attention for every change in speed, attitude or altitude.

 

good post, absolutely agree, +1.

 

On top of this I would add that the current flight model is the best we've had for Mig-21BIS. And for Fri13> R-25 at military power produces around 4 tons of thrust, so it is usually less than 0.5 TWR at normal operating weights so you cannot really expect wonders when maneuvering without AB.

[streakeagle]

good post, absolutely agree, +1.

 

On top of this I would add that the current flight model is the best we've had for Mig-21BIS.

 

It is by far the best since the original release. Whatever flaws may be left, this FM is the only one I have liked better than the one it had when originally released. Between clean glass and a much improved FM, the MiG-21bis had risen back up to where it was when it first came out: the top of my list for DCS World aircraft. As long as the MiG-21bis doesn't get broken by later updates, only a properly modeled F-4 Phantom will remove it from being by favorite. After years of being a hangar queen, I am back to flying the MiG-21bis a lot of the time.

[rossmum]

Did you listen to the podcast? After the interview with Suren Tyagi, Harish Masand came on and explained that they probably did have those instruments, it was just that Mr. Tyagi didn't worry about them as he could fly well enough "by the seat of his pants."

 

The 21F-13 did indeed lack an AoA indicator, as did the Mikoyan fighters before it. I think they all had accelerometers though.

 

I pull only so much than is required for a level flight at 1000-3000m altitude. Full afterburner, emergency secondary power and smooth pull to get level flight. Fights back hard by going constantly max AoA and drops down at 2-5 m/s.

 

This with a 1500 fuel, clear.

Ease by pushing forward for a 5-15 degree dive and it immediately goes back to 700+ km/h speeds.

Fresh install of DCS.

 

I can pull good steady horizontal circles at 400 km/h and about 3G, turn radius 700-800 meters and AoA indexer at 10 points. But only at full afterburner. Again go to level flight and starts dropping down.

 

Landings done with a full afterburner, 350 on/h, about 20-22 index and yet fights to give a 1-2 m/s Vertical, so timing must be correct or can't recover from it. Pull to steady level flight and speed drops to below 250 km/h, unrecoverable if not possible again pull nose down for 5 index AoA to gain immediately speed.

 

The aircraft truly loves afterburner for everything. Keep speed up to 700 km/h and completely different beast. Can do what ever requested and doesn't even get over 10 points AoA index.

 

Hitting a auto recovery and it flies in steady ~2 m/s down on the ground with even full afterburner. But that is a another thing as that system can't recover as it just oscillates until crash.

 

You're probably pulling the nose too much on landing. The delta wing causes a lot of induced drag as you raise the AoA. At 20-22 you are almost double where you should be on approach, and you should not ever need afterburner for a landing. Set up a better approach or adapt flap usage to fit (e.g. don't drop full flaps if you're far below the normal glide slope). I'd say remember the blown flaps, but if you're spending your time in burner, that's a moot point.

 

I really don't know what I can tell people without sounding like a dick, but it's clear a lot of DCS players just don't have the feel they need to handle older-generation (or especially delta/tailed delta configuration) aircraft, and expect it to come easily. As long as you expect a 1972 upgrade of a 1955 aircraft to behave like something with far more thrust and equal or better TWR throughout its flight envelope, or something with fly-by-wire, you will always find the MiG-21 struggles against you. I don't know what to say, "get good" isn't helpful but there's clearly something fundamental going on here and I don't know what it is to give you more specific advice.

 

You should not need to be in afterburner unless you are pulling an extremely hard turn while heavily loaded with weapons/fuel or trying to climb in the same condition. Burner is not necessary to remain level and you can comfortably hit 1,100km/h at mil power even with a moderately draggy A2A loadout and fuel tank. Burner is definitely not necessary during any phase of landing unless you have badly misjudged your approach and are coming in extremely below glideslope, too slow, too high AoA, and flaps fully out. Again, I can't give you answers without seeing what you're doing, but the MiG is tolerant. I don't plan approaches and often make the decision to land far beyond the point that could be considered safe, but with the correct control inputs and aircraft configuration it isn't a problem.

 

The only experience I have which really fits with any of what you're saying is that the nose does still bob around at certain speed ranges, and especially now the trim always over/undershoots, but that's something you can just deal with by control inputs. I don't have any sort of stick extension, I'm working with a stick sitting at chest-height on a desk in front of me. My flying is imprecise as a result but it isn't a problem in the MiG.

 

I also use the SAU recovery as a lazy man's autopilot and experience no problems with it. If you're 'too slow' it will cause the nose to dip for speed before engaging, and sometimes it porpoises slightly before finding the correct trim position, but it will eventually find it and it will hold it as long as you're not allowing the aircraft to get too slow - which would require something like leaving the airbrakes out or reducing power nearly to flight idle.

 

e: Are you using ARU override and adjusting it manually? Because don't. That's really all I can think of that would cause such violent change in AoA and difficulty in control as you're describing. That system exists for a reason and is automated for a reason.

Edited June 15, 2020 by rossmum

[Shmal]

Hello, Hiromachi!

 

I've checked myself the parameters in sustained turn at 0.75 Mach we talked before and it looks pretty correct!

But me and not only me are really doubt about MiG-21bis behavior at low Mach number, i mean around 0.33M that is equal 400km/h IAS on the deck!

To be clear it seems to us overestimated!

With afterburner Max G-load in sustained turn that we have in game at 0.33M=400km/h is 2.8-3G can't be in sustain turn! Those data we have, show to us what such G-load might be like available G-load only. I mean you pull stick as hard as you can untill critical AOA and you're loosing speed and G-load is getting to smth. around 1.5-1.8G seems to us! And then you may set a sustain turn with not a good turn rate speed - this is normal behaviour!

Our calculates shows 1.225 * ((0.33*1225/3.6)^2)/2 * 23 * 1.2 /(7000 * 9.81) = 3.1

that is reachable 3G in available turn but not in sustain turn!

 

Its impossible to have 15°/sec for turn rate at 400 km/h at critical AOA 29° where lift vector is going to its shelf and then going down and drag has maximum value!

 

Please pay attention at this!

Edited July 16, 2020 by Shmal

[Hiromachi]

Once I get home Shmal, I will take a look ;)

Edited July 16, 2020 by Hiromachi

[m4ti140]

Hello, Hiromachi!

 

I've checked myself the parameters in sustained turn at 0.75 Mach we talked before and it looks pretty correct!

But me and not only me are really doubt about MiG-21bis behavior at low Mach number, i mean around 0.33M that is equal 400km/h IAS on the deck!

To be clear it seems to us overestimated!

With afterburner Max G-load in sustained turn that we have in game at 0.33M=400km/h is 2.8-3G can't be in sustain turn! Those data we have, show to us what such G-load might be like available G-load only. I mean you pull stick as hard as you can untill critical AOA and you're loosing speed and G-load is getting to smth. around 1.5-1.8G seems to us! And then you may set a sustain turn with not a good turn rate speed - this is normal behaviour!

Our calculates shows 1.225 * ((0.33*1225/3.6)^2)/2 * 23 * 1.2 /(7000 * 9.81) = 3.1

that is reachable 3G in available turn but not in sustain turn!

 

Its impossible to have 15°/sec for turn rate at 400 km/h at critical AOA 29° where lift vector is going to its shelf and then going down and drag has maximum value!

 

Please pay attention at this!

 

 

Откуда вы взяли предельный Cy 1.2?

 

EDIT: First two characteristics are not for max lift coefficient, but for 28° on UUA-1. There's no max load factor shown at H=0.

If you extrapolate sustained turn characteristics for simmilar load and altitude you get around 2.3-2.4 sustained load factor at emergency afterburner, so it's possible to maintain that turn at that altitude, with normal afterburner it drops to ~2. But since you're in normal AB and maintain 22° something's wrong.

EDIT2: Ok, I didn't understand it at first, so that's actually 13° AoA? Why is there a discrepency between DCS and tacview?

Anyway, what should happen at this AoA both a load factor of only ~2.4 and a drop in airspeed, so you're right, something's weird.

Edited July 16, 2020 by m4ti140