Suggestion for a chargeable MiG21bis II upgrade

[Bremspropeller]

2 hours ago, WinterH said:

PF/PFM would be a pass for me. Never liked that gen of 21, and does't have the cool factor and famed handling of F-13 to redeem itself

The PFS should literally have the best overall handling of them all, as it's still reasonably light, has SPS, has the big intake with more than two positions and it may (or may not) have a better elevator gear-changer. Plus it (later production lots) has the bigger tail so it's got improved yaw stability.

The PFM came with the altered cockpit/ canopy (due to the change over to the KM-1 seat), but it also re-introduced the gun with the ability to carry the GP-9 gunpod. Both mods (altered cockpit, GP-9) were introduced during ongoing PFM production. The GP-9 came first.

The PFM was actually very long-lived and should be modelled, as it was a major player in many conflicts. You'd not really want to fly an M on the Syrian map, as it was the least performing MiG-21 model. The PF, PFS and PFM were pretty close to the indian FL, which has also seen lots of action.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[WinterH]

25 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The PFS should literally have the best overall handling of them all, as it's still reasonably light, has SPS, has the big intake with more than two positions and it may (or may not) have a better elevator gear-changer. Plus it (later production lots) has the bigger tail so it's got improved yaw stability.

That seems to be the opposite of the impression I got about them over years of reading migs but if that is indeed the case, I may become slightly interested in them. But can't quite say convinced just yet. It still has the bad rear visibility from last gen, but without additional fuel and avionics, most versions without a gun, where it gets the gun it is in an ugly, draggy, tacked on pod with not much ammo (not that F-13 has ammo, it has even less I'll admit), and it doesn't have the really high thrust engines from the last gen, especially the Bis.

People like to throw shade at the Bis as heavy etc, but has the thrust to make up for it, especially down low with ChR mode where it pretty much goes almost 4th gen level of TWR (that'll, most likely write the engine off, but hey! :P), as well addition of a few aero refinements like strakes to provide better high AoA handling.

F and/or F-13 is on the other hand, is the sleekest, has the best canopy, and the lightest by some margin, and is the first after all!

To me, PF generation doesn't offer anything interesting aside from maybe historical relevance to some conflicts (most famous of which is far from being fleshed out enough to be representable in DCS anyway). As far as I'm concerned, it is the "worst of both worlds" and the ugly middle child of 21 lineage. Emphasis on ugly part too, because in addition to the metaphorical use of the word ugly there, I also tend to think that it has neither the clean gracefulness of F series, nor the muscle-car coolness of M series aesthetically

[Bremspropeller]

44 minutes ago, WinterH said:

It still has the bad rear visibility from last gen, but without additional fuel and avionics, most versions without a gun, where it gets the gun it is in an ugly, draggy, tacked on pod with not much ammo (not that F-13 has ammo, it has even less I'll admit), and it doesn't have the really high thrust engines from the last gen, especially the Bis.

It has about 270l more fuel than the F-13. A good deal of that just behind the cockpit. The high thrust motor-argument isn't, if you really look at it:

- Depending on the model (let's pretend we're talking about the latest & greatest PFM) it's got slightly improved thrust in blower and an emergency nozzle regulator over the F-13. The M will have the exact same motor with more weight and drag. The MF is slightly less bad with the improved (~10%) thrust R-13 motor.

- That same PFM will have quite workable avionics forit's time. Including a gunsight that can be used in actual fighting and won't quit on you pulling lead.

44 minutes ago, WinterH said:

I also tend to think that it has neither the clean gracefulness of F series, nor the muscle-car coolness of M series aesthetically

You, Sir, are high!

That's the initial PF model. Old canopy, small tail, chute below the exhaust pipe.

A czech PFM below.

Indian MiG-21FL with a brrrt-pod. The FL was exported to arab countries, too. This aircraft has the big tail with the chute above the jetpipe. Supposedly some early FLs were built with the small tail.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[CarbonFox]

I don't know about an update to the current Bis but I'd love to see other variants of the 21 like the F-13, MiG-21S/MF or a modern version (LanceR).

[sparrow88]

On 7/25/2022 at 5:25 PM, CarbonFox said:

I don't know about an update to the current Bis but I'd love to see other variants of the 21 like the F-13, MiG-21S/MF or a modern version (LanceR).

This. I would absolutely pay for the LanceR/Bison, but I would not pay for just better textures and polygons.

Edited July 27, 2022 by sparrow88

[Apok]

A new addition to existing weapons would be nice.

A quad 128mm rocket pod(L-128-4 "Munja") for example.

Since we already have some stuff that are fantasy weps for bis(*cough Grom  *cough). One that was really  used, even by single country would be nice addition.

Im not holding my breath but better to ask then not to.

Edited July 31, 2022 by Apok

[FlankerFan35]

All this MiG talk gets me hot! 

Personally, I'd either be interested in the 21F/PF/PFL or waaaaay on the other side a LancerR or UPG.

Edited August 14, 2022 by FlankerFan35

[Mig Fulcrum]

A PFM for recreating some Vietnam duels would be amazing, such a good match with F-4E and F-100D

[Mig Fulcrum]

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't the PF/PFM the most used in combat variant of all MiG-21s?

[MickV]

18 minutes ago, Mig Fulcrum said:

Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't the PF/PFM the most used in combat variant of all MiG-21s?

I think that's correct, given that the VPAF likely has the record for the largest number of MiG-21 combat sorties, and most of those were during Rolling Thunder when the PF and PFL were their primary variants.

If we had a dedicated 1960-1968 MP server (or a proper Vietnam map for mission/campaign builders) a PF/PFM would be a blast. Especially if/when Heatblur releases the F-4B with proper early 60's missiles - that could make for some really, really fun fights. 

But the PF might be in for a rough go in a broader MP environment with only 2 K-13's and no gun, and the PFM having to choose between a drop tank and the gun pod. Without proper GCI, I don't see myself ever choosing one of them over the Bis. Especially if it's going to be F-4E's, F-5E's, Mirage F1's etc etc etc on the other side. 

There's also the MF, but its so close to the Bis that I think it would be a waste of development effort that could better be applied elsewhere, unless we were ALSO getting the F-13, PF, PFM, etc.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 8/21/2022 at 2:35 PM, MickV said:

 

But the PF might be in for a rough go in a broader MP environment with only 2 K-13's and no gun, and the PFM having to choose between a drop tank and the gun pod. PF, PFM, etc.

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED.

[WinterH]

Meh, I for one really dislike that "ugly middle child" generation of MiG-21. Gimme the F-13 and a late J-7/or even a very late upgrade for novelty. But mostly the F-13 first

They'd be the right version for DCS Vietnam, yes. But then, I'm also staunchly against the idea of DCS Vietnam anyway At least for now.

Yes, they've served in Vietnam, many of the Middle Eastern wars etc. But no matter from where I look at it, their characteristics and/or capabilities etc don't seem interesting enough to me compared either to MiG-21F generation or the Bis we have. And personally I'm in DCS more for the individual aircraft itself rather than history of conflicts it may have been in. But that's just me I guess

F-13 tho: sleekest to look at, allegedly among the nicest to fly, still served in 'Nam anyway, still has limitations of two pylons with crap missiles to challenge oneself with, but at least has an internal glorious 30mm gun too, just not with with a meaningful amount of ammo but hey, challenge! Besides it has that glorious (by MiG-21 standards anyway) canopy to see around, including to the back, unlike later ones. Best of aaaallll the worlds!

[Bremspropeller]

The gun in the F-13 is useless - it not only has a limited supply of 60 rounds, but the sight will easily topple and wave the white flag when you're trying to do any kind of tracking. The radar is just providing the gunsight with enough ranging-info to be useless in itself. You don't even get to have a scope. That's a "PF and onwards" thing.

The F-13 will be a lot of fun to fly, but it will be severely limited in combat. The PFM should benefit of the Monsoon double-launchers later on. At the cost of a royal duckton of drag. But it has a better intake-design and supposedly slightly better area-ruling, so it should have better transonic/ supersonic performance.

[WinterH]

9 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

The gun in the F-13 is useless - it not only has a limited supply of 60 rounds, but the sight will easily topple and wave the white flag when you're trying to do any kind of tracking. The radar is just providing the gunsight with enough ranging-info to be useless in itself. You don't even get to have a scope. That's a "PF and onwards" thing.

The F-13 will be a lot of fun to fly, but it will be severely limited in combat. The PFM should benefit of the Monsoon double-launchers later on. At the cost of a royal duckton of drag. But it has a better intake-design and supposedly slightly better area-ruling, so it should have better transonic/ supersonic performance.

So basically, F-13 is the gloriobvious choice!

60 round of proper 30 mil, proper fixed warbird sight! It's not like gunsight we have on Bis right now does anything of consequence for lead computation anyway

Any slight capability benefit from PFM is far outweighed by the fact that it's PFM

[Bremspropeller]

Well, the PFM is gonna crash slower on landing with SPS and it had proper bush tyres to start with. The F-13's shopping-cart-wheels are bound to make any landing on a soviet-style runway borderline exciting.

Plus the PFM has JATO.

We clearly need both. And the MF.

[Germane]

I hope for a BisII version. I would already be very satisfied with that.

[Fromthedeep]

On 4/30/2022 at 2:02 AM, 303_Kermit said:

Learn to fly. For MiG-21 you need a pilot. For F-16 an IT is enough...

 

Considering the amount of push towards Vietnam by the community, an F-13 or PF/PFM is pretty much a no brainer. With that being said, with the Bis being in its current state, the focus should be on actually making a proper rendition of this variant in the first place. The Heatblur F-4 will also just barely fit Vietnam (even the early variant), therefore focusing on a Fulda Gap NATO vs Warsaw Pact matchup with a properly made Bis and the upcoming F-4s is a lot more reasonable in my opinion. I would be very interested in an early F-4 vs F-13 matchup for the Rolling Thunder era but that's unlikely to happen.

[303_Kermit]

On 9/10/2022 at 1:08 PM, Fromthedeep said:

Considering the amount of push towards Vietnam by the community, an F-13 or PF/PFM is pretty much a no brainer. With that being said, with the Bis being in its current state, the focus should be on actually making a proper rendition of this variant in the first place. The Heatblur F-4 will also just barely fit Vietnam (even the early variant), therefore focusing on a Fulda Gap NATO vs Warsaw Pact matchup with a properly made Bis and the upcoming F-4s is a lot more reasonable in my opinion. I would be very interested in an early F-4 vs F-13 matchup for the Rolling Thunder era but that's unlikely to happen.

Did I hit a weak spot of F-16 geek? You make my day. Thanks.
True... MiG 21 is so easy to fly, that almost every video "First time on MiG-21" starts from crash - usual on both: takeoff and landing  Also videos about RSBN approach are quite... Amusing. Yes no brainer it is.

As far as I read about F-4E, the earliest variants are being mentioned in Vietnam since 1968. F-4E was upgraded multiple times. Engines (early ones were smoking badly) radio, radio-navigation systems. All true, but it's also true (according of Heatblur declaration) That they are going to introduce 2 variants of F-4E clasic and late. Also they are going to give us a F-4 family, so there's hope for B,C,D, J ... all served in Vietnam

As for MiG-21. In Vietnam served MiG-21 in Variants: F-13, PFL(?), PFM, (M?), MF (those are most popular) We have none of them in DCS Right? Well.... not quite. Bis was one of first official mods to DCS. Therefore it was assumed, that she has to fulfill a full spectrum of Mikoyan fighters. The first example of these idea are missiles carried by bis in DCS. No MiG-21 bis could ever carry RS-2US. The reason is incompatible radar. For RS-2US you need radar from PF/PFM. Placing those early missiles on bis (R-55, RS-2US, R-3S) was in purpose of allowing to simulate some early cold war scenarios. The biggest advantage of bis is of course EPR, but surprisingly basic performances of MiG-21 stayed the same from F-13 to bis. Speed and time of climb to maximum altitude.

As for Vietnam map - That's the last true air-war in History. After that enemy air forces used to be annihilated in 12-24 hours. 3'rd World War never started (thank you Allah, Yehowa, Christ, Zeus, Odin) so "Fulda Gap" was never an arena of air combat operations. Anyway... Fulda gap is more a subject for Tank-Sim enthusiasts than DCS.

With my best respect to all fans of F-4, MiG-21 & all those interested in Vietnam War history, and Vietnam Map for DCS
Kermit

[Fromthedeep]

11 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

Did I hit a weak spot of F-16 geek? You make my day. Thanks.
True... MiG 21 is so easy to fly, that almost every video "First time on MiG-21" starts from crash - usual on both: takeoff and landing  Also videos about RSBN approach are quite... Amusing. Yes no brainer it is.

No offense, but you simply failed to understand what people said and your answer makes very little sense in the context of the previous messages. The original comment that you replied to was throwing shade at the Romanian Air Force's performane with their Lancers, particularly how often they seem to crash in bad weather. You didn't get it. You also didn't get my subtle reference that implied you had missed the joke in the first place.

 

You also don't understand what "no brainer" means in this context. It refers to an obvious decision, something that you don't have to think about (so, no need to use your brain=no brainer) and my point was that adding an F-13 in DCS is such a great idea that you don't even have to think about it, so no brainer. It doesn't mean it takes no brains to operate.

 

The rest of the comment is simply incorrect, integrated weaponry, flight characteristics, avionics, visibility are all substantially different between the F-13 or PF/PFM and the Bis. Fulda Gap was also not something that actually happened, because you know, the Cold War never got hot, but everyone should be be very well aware of the fact that the Fulda Gap was expected to be one of the most important theaters of operation for Cold War era aircraft. If you want to limit DCS to actual historical conflicts that happened, you do you but the vast majority of the playerbase does in fact want a Fulda Gap map.

[303_Kermit]

11 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

No offense, but you simply failed to understand what people said and your answer makes very little sense in the context of the previous messages. The original comment that you replied to was throwing shade at the Romanian Air Force's performane with their Lancers, particularly how often they seem to crash in bad weather. You didn't get it. You also didn't get my subtle reference that implied you had missed the joke in the first place.

 

You also don't understand what "no brainer" means in this context. It refers to an obvious decision, something that you don't have to think about (so, no need to use your brain=no brainer) and my point was that adding an F-13 in DCS is such a great idea that you don't even have to think about it, so no brainer. It doesn't mean it takes no brains to operate.

 

Offense not taken. Thanks for info. English is not my first language.

As for further text . Maybe I wasn't clear enough. I wasn't going to convince you , that "bis" is the same plane as F-13 or PF(M). I just pointed, that with some imagination you may create such scenario. Remove gun ammo, give RS-2US and R-3S, disable additional pylons and you have something similar to PF. It is in no way identical to PF, but it's best we have. It's some sensible adjustment.

Edited September 18, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Stratos]

The PFM with the added option of the polish twin rails would be an amazing addition to our stable, specially for Syria and Suez maps. Will buy it for sure!

[Hiromachi]

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."

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Now you made us want badly a MiG-21PFM .

[Hiromachi]

Good, so I'm not the only one wanting it now  

[Stratos]

Thanks for sharing that Hiromachi!!