nele

Viper, that is correct. Only, If they took 200kg from the tail, they had to make at least some CG modification (at least, how fuel tanks are emptied). Or to hang two 100kg bombs as standard armament on rear-fuselage pylons It is not clear is it Indian "ML" or Russian "M" (or "D") from the pictures. I guess it is Indian "ML", but the in-cockpit display has been prudently removed. There is still quite a number of BN's and export MLD's in use (Lybia, Syria). Those latter might benefit from "OR" regime, too (Al-31F WEP )

I think everybody recognize the tail, but check the nozzle: Now, we'll have to see, is it made for specific user (read: India) or "in-house" demonstrator that is looking for a buyer (read: India, again ) More pictures and info on Russian, but with the link to Google (bad) translation at http://pilot.strizhi.info/2008/03/21/5256#more-5256 Nele

Uh, I have cut noise/jam resistance on "L". Those don't have to be in high percentage for any missile. It was for "domestic" use, I did it for all missiles (including R-73). I am not on computer that has WOE now-but check those two for R-60 I published here some time ago. I used it as a reference for all-aspect, the numbers are larger for -9L.

Superb "summa sumarum" on late Floggers. For those that wish to "equip" Middle East users with MLD's (like Syria), please note that those did not have aerodynamical improvements. It would had compromised export of Fulcrums, probably Nele

Looks OK, but note-no Ailerons on Floggers at all, just spoilers and differential stabilator. Therefore, the model can get over-responsive laterally (spoilers retract at 72 deg). Might well make those "dummy" or detach from moving surfaces. So at least it would be visually (more) correct. (I thought this was finally corrected on visual model ) For export MiG-23MS, you can change the service date (I think-1974) "cut" the engine dry-wet power to the MS value of "my" MS model and use radar parameters from MiG-21BIS as well as the missile load. Being a nitpick on Floggers, all three models participated in 1982 War. Those were MS, MF and export MLD (ML with MLD electronics and equipment, but sans aerodynamical improvements). Nele

Anyone tried adding cockpit to MiG-17/19/21? Some flight testing of their models? I understand that Floggers behave funny. Nele

From Russian sources, R-23T is rear-aspect only. It became all aspect in R-24T variant. (Thing is, R-24R has a new seeker different than R-23R, and R-24T has improved seeker more like one on R-23T, but all-aspect). R-40RD got new "25" seeker (analogue to R-24 seeker), different from R-40R and R-40TD got improved seeker, all-aspect version of R-40T. (or, better to say, R-40TD could make a head on lock onto much "cooler" airplanes than SR-71 was ). MiG-23M could carry either pair of R-23R or pair R-23T. Not R/T combo. For changing missile set, electronics guidance blocks on MiG-23M had to be changed (tedious job). MiG-23ML and later could carry the R/T mix. "Lima" also missed a "barn door from 10 yards" couple of times, that's why it got successor, as R-60M mod 62 got modded into mod-62M. As for the missile seeker model, one does not have to put things to 100% to make it deadly; I had tried almost ridicilous values for R-60M for jam/noise/precision, and seeker made per spec. And the thing would make great off-boresight or head-on-kill, only not the "carefree" one (to the sun, ground, at aspect too large etc.). One cannot do that with real AIM-9X or R-73, for that matter... Nele

I am glad that somebody took Eastern missiles under revision. I have much less time to start WOE, let alone make mods, but I have "per-spec'd" R-60, R-60M and later Mod62M. (known as R-60T, R-60M and R-60TM in WOE world ) . I think I published their details (some from MiG-29-12B Combat Manual). In real world, they are comparable to AIM-9L/M but with lesser range (both min and max), as well as less jam/noise protection. Newer "60M" is better. Of course, I de-tuned AIM-9L, it is good missile in reality but not Uber-missile I also used some reference data, it is still deadly, but no more carefree-launch (it is also prone to jam and noise). I think that Chinese missiles have the closest "feel", if not by performance, then because the real missile can get "fooled" like they do (or make a near miss without exploding). As for R-40, R-23/24, R-23T is rear-aspect only, R-24T is all aspect. Also, R-23R and R-23T cannot be carried by MiG-23M at the same time (24R-T can). I have re-modded them, too. R-40R and T are quite jam-protected. RD and TD use modified seeker from R-24. Nele

Looks betiful Would you excuse me for being a wiseguy for a moment (no critics, just info) :blush2: Su-7 had the biggest cockpit variation, not even between versions, but inside the same version! It has been commented on Russian forums, as it sometimes caused a lot of trouble. So, my advice is to stuck to one cockpit variant you have the most information for Also, in the terms of the engine handling, Al-7 was extremely crude engine. It had supersonic compressor, and was sensitive to throttle changes. It also had afterburner that used oxygen startup (with a delay!). Soviet ace, Golodnikov, that flew on Su-9 (with the same engine) said it was "made for the cruise-missile" (relating to its handling). I have some data on Al-7, so I might adjust it and see if you like it

The "F-13" narrow tailfin is more characteristic of "P" model, not "PF". Tailfin has been broadened to avoid instability that has been detected at high Mach (led to loss of one prototype) due to airflow from enlarged nose cone. Also, parachute was moved above exaust. There was some overlap, though. So, majority of "PF"'s have broad fins, and "FL" is externally "PF" with GSh-23L gunpack. So-add GSh-23L gunpack to Soviet "PF"=cannon-armed FL PFM is mainly different in having different seat (and canopy), engine bleed for the new blown flaps, and better "dumper" autopilot. "12PM" version of MiG-19 was not manufactured in series. Also, AM-5 derivatives on 12PM proved to be too thirsty (SFC went up) when going M1.8, so its supersonic range was almost shorter than of MiG-21F. Why it was not manufactured? -"Inside competition" to MiG-21 -no technological advantage; -it was /more expensive/ than MiG-21 (two engines!). Believe me, this was also important in Soviet union as well as in the west...

My poor Gf6150 will die I alredy o'clocked the board to the point it will burn through

It seems that "old" contairner was for ingression only (forward area coverage). I found somewhere that it could also get "tangled" with RSIU signals, messing up formation communication. This other, SPS-141 MVG was 360 deg capable. It looks like their basic performance were the same, but the SPS-141 MVG was smaller (only 160kg). And it it was deceptive jammer, it would go after the seeker guidance signals of "Hawk" or Sparrow, feeding it with false information. The aricraft itself was still clearly visible to the Hawk site or airplane that fired Sparrow on it. But, what's the point of seeing it when you cannot hit it

Got it, Kukulino By other, you probably mean this one; (both pictures from www.manfred-bischoff.de) It looks like great page about Su-22 and SPS-141, but in German. And, there's a lot of info bout that version in English at http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/inde...ic=713.msg19651 With links to Russian-language content (Kukulino, You might understand it )

Uh, I cannot find any reference that "Gvozdika" contains flares... inasmuch, as Su-25 has separate flare ejectors. I have power (20W), wavelength (3cm range)... If it was mixed ECM/flare container (unusual), what was the number of flares...? Also, note that such ceterline limits MiG-21 to 6G's, and I kinda doubt it was jettisonable, as it required additional wiring on-21.

I am really happy with this bird goin' up Inteceptors-be aware, Su-24 carries "special" R-60 with extended envelope for self-defense The picture is here, but that is only one of Su-24: http://www.strizhi.ru/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?num=1194793279 There is also many pictures of Lybian MiG-23ML in excellent condition, and other airplanes and helicopters...