Suggestion for a chargeable MiG21bis II upgrade

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/11/2022 at 8:47 AM, Hiromachi said:

PF / PFM were second best, after MiG-21bis, when it comes to thrust to weight ratio, and only because latter one had second afterburner stage. Take that out of the equation, and PF / PFM end up at the top with T/W in excess of 0.8 And if you really want to be prepared to fight Phantoms (especially F-4E than PF / PFM with R-13 engine will be needed  ).

 
Michael Wegerich, former NVA and Luftwaffe pilot who flew, among other things, MiG-21M, than MiG-21SPS (NVA name for PFM) and finally MiG-29, preferred the SPS. I recall similar statement from a Czech pilot. So Michael, in recently released book about NVAs JG-1 - "697, Montur-Start, Überfahrt zu Halifax-Start, Kanal 1", said this about MiG-21SPS (mind you its automatic translation from German to English, some errors will be there): 
"FLYING ON THE MIG-21 SPS / SPS-K - Michael Wegerich, Lieutenant Colonel NVA 

While I loved the MiG-21 F-13, my true love was the MIG-21SPS. It was very balanced in controllability and stability. It reacted immediately to control deflections and could be flown in a stable attitude without great effort. Compared to the F-13, the controls felt slightly subdued and not as fidgety.  This made flying easier, especially when intercepting targets in the clouds or at night. But even in a dogfight, the controls left nothing to be desired.  A clearly audible warning shaking signaled that the maximum permissible angle of attack had been reached and that the aircraft was about to tip over or be imminently stalled with an unwanted rotation as a result.
With only two weapon stations, the SPS was very light compared to its successors and it was powered by the powerful R-11F2S-300 engine with 6,175 kg of thrust. The SPS had a thrust to weight ratio greater than 0.8.  Relatively tight maneuvers were possible thanks to this good thrust-to-weight ratio. It was permitted to go up to a loads of 8.5 G. Even brief 11.5 G did not bother the aircraft. It wasn't a heroic feat, but I once pulled enough in air combat training to shake off my opponent. I managed to do that, but for the time being I had to do without the next flight on the same machine. As the permissible load of 8.5 G was exceeded, the machine had to be checked to ensure that all devices, lines and cables were still in the correct place and that nothing was warped or bent.  That lasted about an hour and my planned aerial opponent was in the air with another one in the meantime. After checking the aircraft, I was able to throw myself into the dogfight again with the aircraft, provided the permitted limits were observed. Such an experience strengthens confidence in the stability, reliability and performance of this technology. If some people dreamed of a Porsche in their garage, I would have loved to have had a SPS in my garage,  to do a few flights at the weekend without asking anyone, without a flight order, simply for the fun and joy of flying this MiG.  (...). After the work on the aircraft in the KRS, the machines had to be checked under simple weather conditions, i.e. blue skies and sunshine, before they were certified for combat training. If necessary, these flights were also carried out at the weekend with a small crew at the airfield and without much organization. Since I really enjoyed doing these flights with the SPS, I felt that this task was like pursuing a hobby at the weekend.  After an engine change, the check flight program called for a check of the engine system to Mach 2 and to an altitude of 18-19 km. The SPS flew slightly faster than the F-13 at 2,175 km/h and achieved the same static ceiling altitude. The flight characteristics at altitude were just as excellent as with the F-13.  The directional stability in the supersonic range and when flying with high angles of attack was improved by enlarging the vertical stabilizer and keel. The lurch around 21 the vertical axis was occasionally still noticeable when pulling up, but it was not a problem.

The SPS accelerated best in the supersonic range compared to the other variants. The machine owed this to the powerful engine, the relatively low flying weight, but also to the new continuously and automatically adjustable cone. This regulated the air flow in the air intake section depending on the engine RPM, speed, altitude and angle of attack, so that the engine could be optimally supplied with air under all flight conditions. I noticed the effect of the positive thrust-to-weight ratio of the SPS in comparison to the successor models when I switched from the M/MF to the SPS and carried out my first summit interception. The interception procedure saw the climb to an altitude of 11-12 km with a west-southwest curve. At altitude, the aircraft accelerated to Mach 1.2 with a slight descent. The acceleration was speeded by the descending flight, since the drag coefficient increased with increasing speed at Mach 1 and only dropped sharply when Mach 1.1-1.2 was reached.  This area had to be overcome quickly in order not to consume too much fuel. When Mach 1.2 was reached, a 180° turn was carried out on a north-easterly course with an inclination of approx. 35°.  At the end of the turn, the speed should be Mach 1.5, then accelerate further to 1.8 and climb to the target altitude of 18 km. You had to fly the 180° turn very carefully, otherwise you wouldn't reach Mach 1.5 on the commanded north-east course.  I flew the turn on my first flight on the SPS, as I was used to on the M/MF, very carefully and sensitively, with not too much bank and load multiples. At the end of the curve I had Mach 1.8 instead of Mach 1.5 because the SPS was able to accelerate very well. Corresponding to the high speed at the end of the curve, my curve radius was also much too large and I was much too far north for the normal recovery geometry, almost 30 km. Thanks to the energy reserves of the SPS and its agility under the flight conditions, I was able to correct this error and still successfully engage the target at an altitude of 18 km. This would not be possible with an M/MF , because of the increased weight one always flew with higher angles of attack and thus with higher drag, which resulted in higher fuel consumption. The stepless and automatically moving cone also made aerial combat easier than on the F-13. There were no restrictions on turning on the afterburner. Whenever you needed thrust, you could switch it on regardless of the load factor, angle of attack or position. 
An example of a flight maneuver where automatic control of the cone was required in air combat was the following: as a target for another fighter, I let the fighter fly towards me from behind and from a good attack position.  Shortly before he was in firing position, I deployed the airbrake and pulled towards him at an 80-degree bank angle with a high loss of speed but a small turning radius, at the shaking limit, so that we met on opposite courses. None of his weapons, cannon or rockets, were usable now. At the same moment I switched on the afterburner, retracted the airbrake and the flaps to 25 degrees. I turned the machine on its back and pulled it down again at the shaking limit, i.e. with maximum angle of attack, behind the target and immediately retracted the landing flap again. With this extremely fast maneuver I flew at the permissible limit just behind the target.  I was lower than the target and the pilot couldn't see me. I had to leave the burner in place, then I was within shooting range and was able to shoot it (simulated) without him seeing me."

You just made me buy two books

I knew the PFM was eventually going to get some love around here

[Hiromachi]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

You just made me buy two books

I knew the PFM was eventually going to get some love around here

When I found Mediascrpt two years ago i was amazed with the quality of their publications. Wish polish books about aviation units were even remotely close to that. I don't speak German really well, but in the era of smartphones and dynamic translators, one can make do. Can't wait for their books about JG-3 and JG-8. 

Some day, sometime, who knows. Though I favor PF over PFM because of the canopy.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

The PF's canopy is way too good to pass up. That's one of the best portions of the F-13. Sooo sleek.

[Bremspropeller]

@Hiromachi page 223 top left:

"Despite having almost half a ton more thrust [R13-300 of the MF vs. R11F2S-300 of the PFM/SPS*], the MF didn't quite have the same maneuvering characteristics of the SPS..."

 

*For the other readers: SPS is the East German designation of the PFM, as they had already called their upgraded PFs "PFM" // the SPS-K was a PFM with a GP-9 gunpod.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[Hiromachi]

Yes, I know. MiG-21M while having a number of interesting features, is the most pitiful (save for the abomination called SMT) of the 21s due to significant weight increase for no power increase. MF fairs a bit better due to installation of the R-13 engine. Eventually East German and Yugoslavian MiG-21Ms were upgraded to R-13 engine but its still below the thrust to weight ratio of earlier 21s or 21bis.

Now I'm looking for a next book: "Als Pilot in zwei deutschen Luftwaffen".

[MickV]

Just out of curiousity, what's different about the Mirage F1 and the upcoming F-4 that Aerges and HB are able to offer multiple proposed variants? Is it purely a resources issue for Mag 3, or is the code for the MiG-21 so substantially different as to preclude other variants?

If its a matter of resources for Mag3 - given how popular the Cold War server has become, and that the MiG-21 appears to be the most popular module on it (though the F1 seems to be hot on its heels) I have to think that there's a strong market for MiG-21 2.0 to be even more popular than it currently is, if we had more than one variant to choose from. 

In my fever dreams I imagine:

MiG-21 F-13 for early Cold War scenarios - best visibility, hot-rod handling and a gun for those airquake shenanigans.

MiG-21bis II for all the awesomeness we currently know and love. 

MiG-21-93/UPG/Bison/LanceR for those of us who love the idea of taking on 4th gens with more of a fighting chance than we currently have. (Elbit 2032 radar, HUD/Shchel-3UM and R-77/R-73 capability etc) 

I'm not sure I want Mag 3 to know how much I'd be willing to pay for such a module... but its a lot. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by MickV

[some1]

19 minutes ago, MickV said:

Just out of curiousity, what's different about the Mirage F1 and the upcoming F-4 that Aerges and HB are able to offer multiple proposed variants?

To my knowledge F-4 variants will be separate purchases (at least the Navy and USAF variants), while Aerges planned several variants from the beginning and priced their product accordingly from the start. Whatever money Beczl/Leatherneck/Magnitude made from all the sales over the years, it's probably not enough to fund another variant for free.

Also, other MiG-21 variants are indeed quite different from each other and would have to be treated basically as separate airplanes, especially the three that you've mentioned. 

Edited January 15, 2023 by some1

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

21 minutes ago, MickV said:

Just out of curiousity, what's different about the Mirage F1 and the upcoming F-4 that Aerges and HB are able to offer multiple proposed variants? Is it purely a resources issue for Mag 3, or is the code for the MiG-21 so substantially different as to preclude other variants?

If its a matter of resources for Mag3 - given how popular the Cold War server has become, and that the MiG-21 appears to be the most popular module on it (though the F1 seems to be hot on its heels) I have to think that there's a strong market for MiG-21 2.0 to be even more popular than it currently is, if we had more than one variant to choose from. 

In my fever dreams I imagine:

MiG-21 F-13 for early Cold War scenarios - best visibility, hot-rod handling and a gun for those airquake shenanigans.

MiG-21bis II for all the awesomeness we currently know and love. 

MiG-21-93/UPG/Bison/LanceR for those of us who love the idea of taking on 4th gens with more of a fighting chance than we currently have. (Elbit 2032 radar, HUD/Shchel-3UM and R-77/R-73 capability etc) 

I'm not sure I want Mag 3 to know how much I'd be willing to pay for such a module... but its a lot. 

 

The MiG-21 needs to be divided up into at least 2 generation of aircraft. Some argue even 3, but I tend to stick with 2. The fighter evolved from an interceptor into a tactical fighter over the years of its development. There are a lot of differences in capability, performance, and aerodynamics between the MiG-21s. So much so, it'd require some serious updates to the dynamics.

There's very big differences in CG behavior, acceleration, slow speed, and weapons. You illustrated that nicely by bringing up the monster that is the 21-93 and also the MiG-21F-13 which is so much more modest.

Sticking with those extremes, the F-13 would require that total FM remake and a lot of new modeling. On the other end, the 21-93 would need new cockpit and canopy art, but also much more complex radar modeling for a set I'm not sure that's much forthcoming information on.

Believe me, I'd love to smirk and see Flankers lobbing semi-actives while I have FOX-3s and the F-13 would be a sweet whip, but these would be the obstacles we face.

And then, there's the *weird* ones, like the MiG-21SMT. You know, the fat one. The one that had trouble getting past 1.8 mach. It'd be pretty similar to the bis. So much so, it might be hard to justify the work for a worse performing version of that. Not that I'd complain.

[WinterH]

18 hours ago, MickV said:

Just out of curiousity, what's different about the Mirage F1 and the upcoming F-4 that Aerges and HB are able to offer multiple proposed variants?

Mirage F1 will include 3 relatively similar versions with slight avionics differences, and a very similar flight model, as well as one modernized variant with appreciably different avionics.

Heatblur's F-4 will have two roughly similar E variants from performance point of view, but DMAS will have different avionics, as in the case with F1M.

Additional variants that would be interesting in MiG-21's case would all be significantly different. MF would be relatively easy to develop, as it'd be similar for the most part, but it would also be rather uninteresting too.

MiG-21F-13 is interesting for many, and is very different in all of systems, flight model, and visuals areas, essentially a new module. Some, for some (clearly wrong :p) reason want a PFM, almost as different as F-13. Something like a LanceR or Bison could, believe it or not, even run into classification problems, and would have a lot of systems research/changes involved in making. Same goes for J-7s.

The best I can see (if they ever entertain the idea of making a different MiG-21 variant) Magnitude 3 offer would be like A-10C II and Black shark 3, but only if they do a version at least somewhat similar to the Bis, and include both variants in the new purchase.

However, I don't think Mag3 is inclined to make another MiG-21 version anyway. And that's actually just fine. Truth be told, they aren't the fastest dev. Corsair is still yet to come, and then there'll be the Crusader, and maybe then Su-17M4. I'd rather have them make us the F-8 and the Su-17, and maybe other devs giving us more Fishbed variants.

[RogueRunner]

I would love a Mig21 Lancer in DCS.

[303_Kermit]

13 hours ago, RogueRunner said:

I would love a Mig21 Lancer in DCS.

Why?! To pose an easier target for F-16 ?

[marcin34-13]

All i want for christmas is repaired bugfree and reliable module of this plane.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 2/16/2023 at 1:53 PM, 303_Kermit said:

Why?! To pose an easier target for F-16 ?

As if the current one isn't already? Bring me pain.

Edited February 19, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[303_Kermit]

4 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

As if the current one isn't already? Bring me pain.

 

No it isn't. It's 1974 plane. DCS F-16CM is about 30 years younger. They don't meet in the air. Just like Bf-109E don't meet in the air MiG-21 MF (about same time difference). MiG-21 is a fair opponent for AJS-37, F-5E, MRF1. In development are others: F-4 (whole family), MRIII/5, IAI Kfir, A-7(D?). So there's whole logic content and CA asset for it. 

Gen 4+ planes are just ... another story. They don't suit. F-16 is fair opponent for F-18 and it's ok. We need PFM / and possibly other older russian planes Su-7, Su-15. Also some interesting Chinese planes would be wellcome, like Nanchang Q-5 or Chengdu J-7/F-7 (MiG-21F-13)

MiG-21bis is a killer on 60'-70 cold war servers: like Enigma. As far as I see it's also (by far) the most popular. Nobody needs "Lancer" or "Bison". If you're F-16 fan - you need MiG-29SMT/M/M2(MiG-35), Su-30, Su-35 and others that I forgot of.

With my best regards
Kermit

Edited February 19, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[WinterH]

Just now, 303_Kermit said:

They don't meet in the air.

Whatever you put into the mission editor meets each other, whatever you don't, don't. Simple as.

"Why?! To pose an easier target for F-16 ?" is an entirely BS argument against anything.

Answer to why would be:
- To enjoy an old dog learning new tricks

- Experience doing stuff in your favorite old birds in a modernized way

- Novelty

However, the answer should be preceded by another question, pertaining to "to pose an easier target for F-16", and that question would be "So what?"

Normally, I'll also be against super modernized variants of a bird unless we get at least one proper version first. Well, we do already have MiG-21Bis, so that's just fine. I'd love a MiG-21F-13 too. But, I'd also love MiG-21LanceR, Bison, or especially a late J-7 a lot. Hell I'd love each one of them separately, all of them. PFM or any of the PF generation though, I couldn't care less about personally.

11 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

MiG-21 is an fair opponent for AJS-37, F-5E, MRF1.

Well funny you should say that, because AJS 37, unlike the AJ 37, is a mid 90s bird, so by your definition they don't meet in the air  LanceR is too new, Bis is too old

12 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

F-16 is fair opponent for F-18 and it's ok.

How come? Because, again, going by "only IRL things that can meet on the battlefield is valid", they are on the same side, so "they don't meet in the air". Oh, and, Viggen has never seen any conflict, ever. So it doesn't meet anything in the air, and shouldn't be in the sim I suppose. Which I call BS on, it is by far one of my most favorite things in DCS.

As a bonus, a short list of things I'd prefer a modernized MiG-21 module instead of:

- F/A-18E or F Super Hornet: "Less exciting than legacy Hornet for flying, more flat-screens tho". Yeah, I don't see this being much of an added value...

- F-15C Eagle, FC3 is there for AA, Strike Eagle is coming as a full fidelity.

- MiG-29A, imo the only thing about this particular bird is its flight characteristics, which are replicated in FC3 rendition anyway

- Su-7: a total one trick pony, that isn't even a particularly interesting one at that

- Bf-109G-6: lifelong 109 lover here, would buy almost all variants except this ugly middle child/mule. So it's the most produced variant? So what, I'm here to experience interesting aircraft done very realistically, not to reenact history.

- Make-believe stuff like F-35 etc some people crave for whatever reason, on which there'll never be enough information this side of the century

I can probably think more, but that provides the gist of it I'd say

[303_Kermit]

I believe that you missed the point.
Just as I wrote above. Lancer/Bison are no match for F-16 anyway. Neether BFM nor BVR. You need MiG-29SMT/M/M2(MiG-35), Su-30, Su-35. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[WinterH]

Just now, 303_Kermit said:

Just as I wrote above. Lancer is no match for F-16 anyway. Neether BFM nor BVR. You need MiG-29SMT/M/M2(MiG-35), Su-30, Su-35. 

Which, just as I wrote above, doesn't mean jack<profanity>

Edit: oh and good luck with any of the above modern Russian birds. We all know they aren't happening anytime soon. And MiG-35 I doubt will ever be anything more than a few prototypes trying to be marketed in vain. I'd love a good Su-30, but unless something massively changes, it ain't happening anytime soon.

Edited February 19, 2023 by WinterH

[303_Kermit]

30 minutes ago, WinterH said:

Well funny you should say that, because AJS 37, unlike the AJ 37, is a mid 90s bird, so by your definition they don't meet in the air  LanceR is too new, Bis is too old

AJS is kinda... Old anyway. AJS modification came into life about 20 years after MiG-21bis. Modifications made him great strike-fighter. As a fighter he wasn't much improved. Also he carries many 1960-1970 armament. Can be easily adjusted into 1960 Coldwar. F-16 with AiM-9X, AiM-120 AMRAAM, and thrust to weight ratio 1,4 (vs 1,05 of F-16A) is quite other story.
Anyway... The AJS plane was decommissioned in 2005 - about the time when F-16CM comes from. Most (not all) of MiG-21bis also came to a graveyard in that time. They don't match even hypothetically. 

Edited February 19, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[303_Kermit]

23 minutes ago, WinterH said:

How come? Because, again, going by "only IRL things that can meet on the battlefield is valid", they are on the same side, so "they don't meet in the air". Oh, and, Viggen has never seen any conflict, ever. So it doesn't meet anything in the air, and shouldn't be in the sim I suppose. Which I call BS on, it is by far one of my most favorite things in DCS.

I wasn't precise. Now I am: F-16 , F-18, and probably JF-17 are quite different story. It's totally offtopic.

[some1]

5 hours ago, WinterH said:

Well funny you should say that, because AJS 37, unlike the AJ 37, is a mid 90s bird, so by your definition they don't meet in the air

The AJS modification was nowhere near as substantial as F-16A to F-16C or Mig-21bis to LanceR. Saab improved the navigation computer somewhat, added compatibility with the new weapons (RB15, BK90 and RB74 Sidewinders), plus enabled the outer Sidewinder pylons. Disable these weapons, and you get a pretty good representation of a mid-70's AJ 37. Performance is the same.

 

[WinterH]

I know the differences between AJS and AJ, that isn't my point though. It is an example against 303_Kermit's suggestion that only things that are valid modules in DCS are those with existing period and performance wise similar opponents. Well, in that case AJS misses the period part of the deal by far doesn't it

[some1]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

 It is an example against 303_Kermit's suggestion that only things that are valid modules in DCS are those with existing period and performance wise similar opponents.

I don't see anyone suggesting that, other than yourself. From what I understand, Kermit is primarily interested in BVR/WVR performance level, so he listed aircraft that are more or less balanced on an MP server like Enigma.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

21 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

I believe that you missed the point.
Just as I wrote above. Lancer/Bison are no match for F-16 anyway. Neether BFM nor BVR. You need MiG-29SMT/M/M2(MiG-35), Su-30, Su-35. 

 

It's not like the LanceR would be flying against the F-16. At least, realistically. Open pub? I don't really care.

Edited February 20, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It's not like the LanceR would be flying against the F-16. At least, realistically. Open pub? I don't really care.

 

What would be the opponent then? There's nothing more in DCS... F-18C, F-14, F-15C, MiG-29, Su-27, JF-17... and F-16CM
Against that you have plane with low amount of fuel. With some good maneuverability... For 1975... Maybe 1980. Maneuverability that strongly depends on payload. When I flew DCS MiG-21 I could always say without watching my wings if I have 2xR-60 or 2xK-13. ~100kg extra had noticeable (if your arms aren't made out of wood) impact on "small delta" agility. Carrying 2xR-27+2xR-73 would have probably serious impact on performance. Lancer could be a disappointment for you guys.

Edited February 20, 2023 by 303_Kermit

[WinterH]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

Carrying 2xR-27+2xR-73 would have probably serious impact on performance.

Sir, what are you even on about? LanceR can't use neither of those missiles. To be fair, there are two LanceRs afaik, one more air to air oriented, and it can carry Phyton and Sidewinder missiles in addition to its former arsenal iirc. And the other is mainly enhanced as a fighter bomber with Litening TGP and LGBs.

Indian MiG-21Bison can use R-73 and R-77, and not R-27. As far as I know, no MiG-21 upgrade was operationally adopted with R-27s by anyone. And its main opponent was supposed to be J-7s, Q-5s, and occasional more advanced fighter like F-16, knowing it'd need numerical superiority against those.

And who's opponent? Who cares? A perfectly matching opponent isn't end-all for most of us. We're happy to be on the mostly suffering end vs superior birds if we do air to air vs them, or we're more into air to ground anyway.

11 hours ago, some1 said:

I don't see anyone suggesting that, other than yourself. From what I understand, Kermit is primarily interested in BVR/WVR performance level, so he listed aircraft that are more or less balanced on an MP server like Enigma.

Except Kermit's been suggesting that still. Yes, he's primarily interested in those, clearly, and I'm responding that others among us don't care whether it's performance vs newer things is up to scratch or not. A LanceR or any similarly upgraded aircraft has no business in Enigma server anyway. And people flying it in other servers would know what they're getting into.

Thankfully, the answer to "what modules to make for DCS world" isn't exclusively "whatever fits to this or that public air-quake" server right?