nele

For perfectionists, two types of cockpit would have to be developed-one for M/MF, other for ML/MLD series. And 2-3 -other- different for 23BN/27 series MiG-23 was designed from the outset to be produced from relatively cheap materials. The "drumlike" fuselage/tank is made of steel, and has pressurized inert-gas protection against fire/explosion. Quality was definitely and issue, but even later and earlier "M" models had much of quality difference (later were much better). Cockpit had a little better visibility at first, but cracks were detected in canopy so the heavy mid-frame was introduced to split glass into two stiffer sections. However, the pilot sits quite tall in the cockpit and biggest obstruction is toward the rear and forward downwards (the nose cone). Control panel-well, it is comparable to one of "Fishbed" in quality and equipment (and those are quite nice and dependable). "ML" series have some "Autopilot" steering/stailization modes that are non-existent in contemporary Western fighters (alt.hold, autolevel, combination of those with dumping for maneuvering etc.). Controlability/stability problems were also quite nicely solved with AoA limiter on ML. The biggest danger was for pilots re-qualified from MiG-17/21 to 23, "Frescos" and "Fishbeds" were forgiving lame pilot errors-23 didn't. Taking a look at an early example is quite deceiving to judge entire -23 series and upgrades, that counts thousands of them. There are even 23S interim models in "pedestals" in Eastern Europe, and those were not liked even by MiG-buerau pilots. Contrary, some pilots preferred later MLD's to -29's, mainly because of better equipment. To put it together in the sentence of one experienced Soviet pilot that flew all fighter MiGs- "-29A were flown by seregants-and -23MLD by captains!" Nele

Allrighty, then! This is modded MiG-27Dxxx.ini set of files that brings it closer to the specs. The mod is for Mig-27D by wpnssgt, ghostrider, gepard, usafmtl, bib and moonjumper. I don't have the manual of the bird, but what I did was following: 1. MiG-27 now uses aerodynamics based on one of MiG-23ML. ALL Floggers share same aerodynamics. I know some think that it should be "M", but this way it covers both MiG-27M and MiG-27D models (More "Emkas", or "M" models, have lerx extensions, and both have better SOUA like ML). Practically, the types are interchangeable and differ only a little. 2. Engine is modded from MiG-23M. The real R-29B has additional "airflow stabilizer" compressor fan for low-level flight and fixed intakes, that works fine to about 5,000m. It gets short of breath above that altitude and practical ceiling is about 15,600m. I simply shortened alitudetabledata and wetmachtable data of R-29, as I don't have the chart, but it is close enough (crude, but efficient). 3. A little modded bombload. As per request of the author, I have left LGB's but they were -not- part of normal inventory. Klen-PM TV/laser designator cannot track target to the rear (only MiG-23K "Kaira" can). On the real thing, rear-mounted bombs MUST be released first or CG can go awry at low speeds, and must be released in pairs. Therefore, you can drop LGB's, but only in pairs... 4. Klen TV/laser designator has been brought (close) within the specs. It is also renamed to Klen-PM (as the letter "M" means "Mikoyan", whereas "S" in Klen-PS means "Sukhoi" mounted in Su-17M), although it is really one the same thing in practice. It is not bad, but has -narrow- FOV intended for LGM's (unlike "Kaira" that is closer to something between Pave Tack and Pave Spike-by performance but onboard!!!). 5. ECM has been "cut" by power. Flares re-instated (since there are no chaff/flare launchers as armament option :( ). 6. Optics installed for EOGR. Those are separate from Laser Designator on MiG-27K/M/D. 7. Aircraft mission set to "Attack". Sorry, but MiG-27 is not a fighter . It has a backup role, was tested in that role, but lack (of any, cannon or missile!) track/guidance system of airborne targets restics it heavily, although performance allows combat (i.e. for self-defense). 8. Gunsight fixed in A-A role. Entire cockpit actually needs rework with TV-display installed and A-G targeting. 9.Armament allowed size/bombload little modified. 10. Cockpit armor strengthened. It is titanium, actually quite heavy installation. The version "D" is a modification of serial-produced MiG-27 (without any letter) that brings it to tactical capability of MiG-27M. It is to solve the original problem when MiG-23BM (MiG-27) was introduced. The basic model only had a laser rangefinder "FON" (next to bombing computer). While cannon installation proved to be somewhat troublesome (vibration), it was extremely precise (to the point that test-pilots would do a selective "plinking" with it :) . It had a good bombload and navigation system, but good guided weapon system left to be desired. As the Soviet military doctrine changed to more aggressive one in 70's, MiG-27 got perhaps the most sophisticated (if not advanced) device installed -inside- in such, rather small tactical aircraft-the "Kaira". It was TV/Laser/computer/navigation system that could guide TV and laser guided missiles (and LGB's) onto the target. One could only compare it to the sort of built-in LANTRIN (in 1976!). Before it, earlier version was installed in Tupolev antiship-bomber(!) and in Su-24. It had good navigation system and a digital computer for precise bombing with "iron" bombs. Night IR A-G system, however, was never part of it (only "normal", enhanced vision TV). While miniaturization was sucessful, its mass remained high; to keep MiG-27K at the same weight, side armor (pilot) had to be removed. Also, it was hard to maintain and initially had short TBF. It was also extremely expensive, and its tactical ability was a little bit too much for "common" fighter-bomber commander (one could say that "pure" MiG-27 was to kill soldiers and tanks, and MiG-27K officers and command vehicles-a sort of a supersonic spec-op : ). "Kaira" was never exported. Also, "Kaira" was actually first-tested in MiG-prototype and "tuned" exclusively by MiG technicians and test-pilots. Because of bueraucratic issues, official An-24 testbed with "Kaira" and diagnostic equipment arrived after they completed the tests! The logical step were MiG-27M and MiG-27D analogues. The main difference is that MiG-27D were reequipped "pure" MiG-27's, and MiG-27M's were new. Other main difference was the different factory (MiG-27M Ulan-Uda, MiG-27D Irkutsk). They also got lerx extension (serve the same purpose as lerx cuts on MiG-23MLD) and some models were retrofitted with BVP-50-60 passive jammer ejectors (same installation like on MiG-23MLD). The main operational difference between MiG-27M/D and MiG-27K was that its "Klen-PM" Laser/TV system could not guide LGB's onto target (as it could not track it to the rear). It also had a little less detection/track range, and HUD was more simple. But it had same weight -and- armor, it was cheaper, more reliable and better sevicable. As the Su-24 had "Kaira" (plus radar mapping) and was buit in relatively large numbers, the dismissal of LGB option was not considered important. Another main user of MiG-27 series is/was-India. IAF actually preffered installation of more economical AL-21F-3 engine, but Sukhoi got entire production for its Su-17 and -24 models (the engine was "cleared" for export by then). It had simplified PrNK-44L instead PrNK-23M system. It is now exchanged for Western avionics, and there was contemplation of exchanging the engine for much less thirsty Al-31. Both MiG-27M and MiG-27K were not much successfull in Afghanistan-high temperatures negated meaningful bombload (engine adjusted for low-level ride), high altitudes drove the targeting systems (made for plains) at the edge of usefulness. Also, there were almost no targets that could/should be precisely bombed to begin with! It is actually natural that "pure" fighter, MiG-23MLD was more sucessfull-it had higher operational altitude, higher T/W ratio, and-a greater bombload at such high altitudes/temperatures. Also, its systems were optimized for TV/laser guided missiles-not bombs. Their use in Afghanistan was scarce. In mid 90's, MiG-27's were scrapped for Russian inventory and "utilitized" (read: cut into pieces... ), even the mighty "Kairas". As the later conflict in Chechenya showed-it was foolish decision. Su-24 was too big, vunerable and specialized for pre-determined high-value targets, Su-25 was too small and slow and had no standoff weapons for strongpoints and heavily defended targets. Neither could "mix" it in one sortie or target. MiG-27 would have been ideal, but-there was none... A set of modded .ini files is in MiG-27D_ini.zip here MiG_27D_ini.zip . Unpack and extract into existing aircraft/object/MiG-27D directory. Backup your files first!!! ... There is another spinoff, it is, you guessed it-a MiG-27K. Its main difference here is that it has weaker side armor and no decoys (being an early version, later it got some basic installation). However, it can guide LGB's-truth is, you can guide it with "D" flying with much more restricted pattern (12 deg FOV, 30 deg gimble limit compared to 40 deg FOV 130 deg limit). The real thing also had better HUD and simbiology than "D"-I roughly modded the cockpit by implementing some "Jaguar" avionics for CCIP (for home use-sorry...), when the fun on the front really begins (as it is faster than anything in the West that carries FLIR of that time-bar F-4!). MiG-27K separate installation 1. Make MiG-27K directory, copy files from MiG-27D directory, copy files from mig_27K_ini.zip into directory. (I have home a quick, low-res "kaira green" repaint, and different colorization the nose underside. The nose of K is actually totally different from D/M, but repaint works fine). MiG-27K -instead- MiG-27D installation (uses MiG-27D files): backup MiG-27D, copy files mig-27D into K_ini.zip mig_27D_into_K_ini.zip. P.S. if somebody can "paint" CCIP of "K" into Su-17 "setka" color, I would appreaciate it-as well as adjust them a little , so I could put this into download section (as well as to put cockpit down, or a seat up bit-MiG-27 has better front view than "23", sights are more/less at OK place but pilot is too low...). Here, they use "default" systems from WOE to keep Su-17 cockpit folder intact, and I am not expert in cocpit modelling without actually changing it... Hope you enjoy it, Nele

It was both because of "packaging" and aerodynamics. It leaves more lateral space, for starters. Loads are carried deeper into the airframe, and both 21 and 23 have steel main bearing construction in the middle/rear (that carries wings and engine). It gives more space, and entire tail can be lighter since actual carrying structure is much more to the forward (and already carries the wing and engine). So it is one construction that carries almost everything, other parts are just attached to it . There is actually no penalty at all, except hyd boosters have to be somewhat more powerful and rotating parts stronger. That had to be invented by one heck of engineer, knowing 3-d physics dynamics and behavior of steel constructions and being able to merge it

You got me wrong a bit . By "new class" I meant "Flogger" series. You see, one needs more than pilot manual to "design" these. I have -aerodynamics- manual for "Flogger" and "Foxbat", and there are necessary details in MiG-29-12 and Su-27SK manuals that I also have . Unfortunately, one cannot use -pilot- manual of MiG-17,19,21 that I also have, since they are more about procedures than about aircraft. I also made one omission that should be noted by all MiG FM designers; stab/elevator tail actuators are angled almost as the leading edge of the stabilizer, and carry load deep into the airframe (almost ingenious solution!) That means that stab turns almost in 3-d and there is a tangential correction to the airflow in the "Flogger" manual (in very small letters!). Changing it would mean that I have to re-tweak entire model, I am not that keen doing it soon, but I did it proprtly for "Foxbat" demonstrator FM. This goes for all MiGs starting from 21 upwards. Explains why rear fuselage is so slim on Fishbed and Flogger

For Nicholas: I just adjusted FM to correspond "my" MiG-23 modded ini's. So, it is basically just the engine change, reducing of Vmax, adjusting weight and slight swing-wing adjustment to MiG-23ML. I intended to "push" entire series to the "new" class (F-16A, MiG-21F, SMB-2...). Try it against StreakEagle's F-4B. 23/27 bleeds speed a lot, but I tried it also in "normal" mode and it looks ok with me. Like with StreakEagle's F-4B, it requires change of habits Wrench: hm, it is opposite what I wanted to do . I would like too keep cockpit folder intact and paint HUD in orange, as I used "default" HUD elements for WOE (i.i. the load from .CAT files). And to drop cockpit a little from main 27cockpit.ini file, as MiG-27 has dropped nose for that reason. Pilot sits quite tall both in MiG-23 and MiG-27, but because of radar cone the rule of droping bombs on 23 fighter series is "when target vanishes under the nose-drop!" -23BN and -27, OTOH have excellent downward visibility. Also, I am not clear with the HUD boundaries, as the HUD elements are all over the place . Nele

Not necessarily . I have basically "equalized" it with fighter series, adding some (quite reliable) data specific for MiG-27. If going to be a nitpick, "M" model should have extended lerxes, and "K" needs entirely different nose. But it is really nitpicking. The main problem is the cockpit-I have made just a quick "addon" of what is neccesary on MiG-27 (CCIP, EOG, LG). And I tried not to touch existing Su-17 cockpit. If somebody would teach me how to "colourize" HUD hairs into "setka orange" colours and to drop cockpit a little, -without- interfering the cockpit itself, would help... it would not solve the display problem (as there is none), but would make it much more useful. Nele

This is "demo", or proof-of-concept modification/WIP of MiG-25P (Foxbat-A) that can cruise over 20,000m/65,000ft. Original model by Mig-25 package by wpnssgt, usafmtl, tomcat1974, sundowner,ghostrider, deuces and moonjumper, from the "Foxbat" package) When I checked "Foxbat" in original form from the package, I found out that it has more/less adequate behavior for the large,heavy interceptor but its performance at altitude needs significant improvement. It suffered from too much "Mach tuck" that is hard to fix in the normal way, since there is no trim. Also, it was obviously hard to incorporate high-speed aerodynamics, and the "ordinary" shape of Foxbat airfrane can be a mislead. Truth is, Foxbat does not behave "normally" at high speed/altitude, having both airframe and engines in mind! This is not the final product-this is a "proof-of-concept", (re)built almost solely by feel&performance understanding "match" and needs a lot of refinement. Basis for altitude engine perf is R-35 chart (which I took from MiG-23 to speed the things up). Many things were taken from MiG-25RB aerodynamics manual, which is basically the same airframe (performance is relaxed a little, due to competely different mission). First-the engines. R-15B engines are, considering operational speed, ramjets augmented with turbojet core. Quite opposite of other afterburning turbojets! The role of turbine part (and first afterburner stage!!!) is to bring AB2 section in operational zone, which is +11,000m/+M1.5. AB2 switches on automatically, and is fed by air compressed by intakes, fed into turbines that are heating and further "conditioning" the airflow and serve it to AB2. Such powerplant produces almost 6T of thrust (each!) at peak performance (+M2.8). Maybe it does not look much, but the drag, temperature and specific fuel consumption are much lower than of "normal" turbojet, which would melt itself on that speed if constant, or simply "suck" all the fuel. Also, normal AB turbojet is on decline of performance chart when this type of poweplant just starts to "breathe". I couldn't find the way to put these into one (i.e. two engines) so I added two more "dummy" engines that basically take over the propelling of "Foxbat" at high altitude. If you've seen the charts (of MiG-25RB), it is only viable solution! ALso, R-15B is 2-stage AB engine where "staging" is cruical. That cannot be done, or cannot be done easily using just one set of engines. Bigger problem was the trim. Foxbat flies straight at +20,000m not just because of engines, but because of aerodynamical qualities. The AC/CG (aerodynamic centre/centre of gravity) shift is quite huge, which is countered by large all-stab authority (-23.50/-9.15 deg total range of stabilizers, perpendicular to airstream), but even this would not be sufficient if there was no intake-fuselage lift. Many people don't know that canards were ment to be installed to Foxbat during design phase. The long, heavy nose and was the main concern then. However, it was discovered that intake lips make much lift that render canards unnecessary. They shift AC forward and reduce trim drag. Some Western types have such quality, wanted or not, (like F-15 Eagle), but Foxbat really needs it. Also, huge AC shift happens when engines are "revved" at altitude, i.e. when aircraft accelerates/decelerates. Pilot seldom holds "Foxbat" straight with his muscles-there are "autopilots" that are common in Soviet airplanes, but with the raised priority in hi-perf aircraft like MiG-25. I did this version with "dummy" lift surfaces on the nose that lift the nose at high speeds and act as intake lip lift. As the Mach increases, so does the lift of those surfaces (which is neglible at lower speeds). It is exgeratted, I know, but it has to serve the non-existant trim function as well! I made another version with "titled" thrust of those AB2 dummy engines for 45 deg up and roughly recalculated thrust again (c2=2a^2) so it gives the same thrust and upward vector). The result was good, but there was a little too much "oomph" (pitchup) when AB was lit. Maybe I wil tilt thrust a little less to get desired "oomph" result in final product :) I had to "shut" braking chutes-I really got frustrated when I saw aerodynamic brakes were excluded on this model (from the "package") and re-instated chutes (and they are 2-part brakes on the true thing, upper used only above M1.1/7,000m). I adjusted the drag/Mach behavior to the one from the manual, and you-really-need-it now, no matter how small they are! Flying the "Foxbat". First, the climbout; it has to be done properly: roughly, best way is to press throttle to full Ab, release the brakes, and switch on the autopilot. Once gear and flaps are up, you can take over and point it into general desired direction, -but- keeping the altitude below 1,000m and airspeed under 1,100kph. MiG-25 has a "hard limit" of 1,100 level/1,150KPH climb IAS at low altitude, due to adverse aileron effect on earlier machines, and it was kept on newer models with differential stabilator to prevent pilots to have too much "jollies" and keep engine life up (air is dense, and it easily goes outside temp limits). Achieving "on" speed, pull to 30 deg pitch. It is a steady pull. Your goal is 5,000m+ deck, where you level out and wait it to hit M1.2 or close to 1,000kph IAS. Then pull 25 deg and keep that Mach number (or with tendency to go little higher) to 12,000m, where you level out again and aim again to 1,000kph. You will notice the speed rise significantly over M1.5 (AB2 on!), pull 20 deg , and watch MiG Mach-accelerate through the climb! Passing 14,000m start level-out and ease throttle to cca. 80% at 17-18km alt. It is easy to overshoot or "undershoot" 20-21,000m (which is atmospherical change in "TK's world") so you will have to practice. Once you are level at cca. 20,500m (wing leveler on&steady), when speed is M2.35 you can chop thrust to 68-69 percent (still AB!) that will keep the speed up (more/less, real Foxbat also either accelerates or decelerates, since the smooth regulation of AB2 is not possible). Performance&fighting Maybe some of you have read about Iraqi Foxbats, and that the elite fighter unit of Iraqi dictatorship was not Fulcrum unit-but Foxbat unit. There is a reason-flying Foxbat needs alot of competence, not because the type itself is (overly) unforgiving, but because -keeping- it within usable envelope requires more than party ties! Pilot has to think ahead -waay ahead- and to remember that if speed and altitude goes down it is just a big, clumsy target. The general rule is that it is outperformed by virtually everything under 5,000m (limited to subsonic speeds), about equal to "Phantom" between 7-12,000m and M 1.2-1.3 and absolutely superior in performance to everything in range +12,000m and over M1.5, including the mighty Eagle!!! SR-71 flies outside the range of "ordinary" airplanes and overlaps "the curve" only with "Foxbat". Cca. 3g allowed turn at those altitudes is extremely fast, and there is simply no target that can get outside the "g" envelope of "Acrid" missiles (because there is simply no air dense enough to allow any conteporary fighter more than 3.5-4g turn). Stay above 6,000m and M1.2. Whenever you get close to these numbers, level out and pick up speed and altitude. You will get into controlability problems once speed around 1,100kph-"Foxbat" wings flexes a lot! It is easy to over-g the real aircraft, though, newer models have coupled alpha and g-limiter that prevent this. To get down from 20km altitude, the procedure is to go max dry thrust (2nd, "supersonic" dry thrust), slow down to M2.2, and descent keeping the IAS the same. You can zoom the fighter up to cca. 27km altitude, but it is too sensitive and lazy on controls up there. Brakes are effective, but at too high speeds they mess up the airflow around the aircraft too much (not forbidden, but not recommended either). After firing two missiles from the same wing, you will get quite of bank which has to be (smoothly!) countered or you will make an unintentional roll. Before introduction of differential stabilator, "Foxbat" exibited uncouterable auto-roll after firing "Acrid" at high IAS (called "Kazaran effect", after the pilot who "discovered" that flaw). "Smerch" radar is jam-proof but not too much range and with much clutter under 1,000m alt, no "lookdown-shootdown". Missiles are all-aspect (IR, too!), but IR model is very sensitive to the "heat clutter" (real thing is restricted 30 deg sun/moon), so no "shootdown" with it either. Missile is designed in '60es and was, actually, quite a performer. Snap-up is normal procedure. The true "Foxbat" has a unique digital targeting computer (for its time) that analyzes target speed, altitude and trajectory, "Foxbat" relative position, altitude and speed compared to the built-in missile speed/turn performance aerodynamic ability (calculates PK) and will not give firing solution unless those parameters are satisfied and PK is viable, regerdless that target is acquired by seeker... former "Foxbat" pilots write in forums that they had quite a number such "guaranteed lock-ons" on SR-71's! Enjoy-and I will try to get the rest of series soon! Zip file containing modified ini attached, backup your existing MiG-25P_DATA.INI and replace it with the one in this file. Note that "Foxbat" entered service in 1971-72, so you may have problem with the missiles (due the date). The model can "act" as early export "Foxbat" to Lybia, too, as they were equipped with "Smerch" radars, but they can carry R-60's. Nele MiG_25P_DATA.zip

Hm, that is a new information! I use Bharat Rakshak webpage for information about aircraft in IAF service, as they seemed liked to IAF to me (very nice, descriptive articles). They were explicit about that information there: /quote/ "Two JATO solid-propellant rocket units can be attached under the fuselage to assist in take-off, but the IAF has not adopted this procedure... ...The cockpit, although spacious, is cluttered with a large number of instruments and switches, many of them redundant as the IAF did not adopt the JATO booster..." /unquote/ It was peculiar to me not using JATO in humid/hot days in India, or at least to save some fuel for long-range missions. Makes more use to me than the "mud airstrip" original capability (as Soviet-type "hard" airstrips are made of replaceable blocks anyway, not multilayer tarmac). Can you put a frame or two from the movie somewhere and link it here for documentary purposes? And send it to Bharat-Rakshak to make a correction to the article, some of us Europeans know what's happening with IAF only from what they tell us Nele

Well, AltitudeTableData, DryMachTableData and WetMachTableData can sort when will the engine "work", especially as there is no engine drag (i.e. turbine aerodynamical drag) involved. For a test, add one "clipped" engine similar to the one in "Foxbat" POC (same location as existing or bit after), but put inlet temps of that engine way up. Make Altitude table "dense", or example: AltitudeTableNumData=20 (200?) AltitudeTableDeltaX=100.0 AltitudeTableStartX=0.0 AltitudeTableData=1,0.5,0,0,0...etc. this may be tricky because of AGL... WetMachTableNumData=10 WetMachTableDeltaX=0.02 WetMachTableStartX=0.0 WetMachTableData=1,0.5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 Anyway, it is easier for me to build WEP for MiG-21 then for you to make RATO that will work on elevated airports. You can use large multiplier instead of huge installed thrust to get the impulse. Watch it-thrust pushes nose down a lot! JATO (actually, RATO) was used in many ways, but its usage was actually not that popular installation; India never used it on Su-7s, for example. "Fishbed" was tested and can takeoff from muddy airstrips, but a genius that could install wipers on "Atoll" IR-seekers has never been found! Ramjet La-9 was not a successful aircraft-pods were draggy so it took forever to accelerate, and they added to much drag to make significant increase due to ramjet thrust, and they sucked too much fuel. Campini (piston driven turbine) of MiG-13, however, is viable, and the type served sucessfully in coastal units. Anybody to make this "missing link"...? Nele

Abandoned Work In progress (AWIP) AWIP PART1:MIG-23 Because of ADSL issues at home I have a really hard time following the forum via modem link (and on the job I simply cannot find any time!), I cannot be of much "contribute" (unless contacted directly). Since I've been fiddling with WOE/SFP1 planes anyway, I will leave some of my "alpha" work on .ini files on combatace forum. Description as follows: MiG-23 Flogger series (M, MS, ML, MLD): MiG-23 Flogger series: if you remember, I released modded .ini file couple of months ago for a "ML". After conclusion that it basically needs a new wings (conclusion made both by Fubar and me), it regrettably stayed that way. In the meantime, I "equalized" entire series (MS,M,ML,MLD) so they could receive only a new "true" set of wings instead of my trial&error "hacked" ones. I also added a "F-16 style" integrated experimental AI (that is more hars on AB and less on brakes to keep it in the air!), small ECM to ML&MLD and that's about it. Also, Fubar, I discovered out that aproblem is not that much in CG, but how the sim-engine "deals" with AoA limits on landings in relation to landing gear. These two coupled make a problem for third, and this would be less prominent if the main-gear ground-level angle was correct (zero, as it is not the case). Again, many things (like surface deflections) are from true "Flogger" manual, so it behaves in class with Lightning, Super Etandard and Jaguar FM's and just turning after the enemy (especially at "hard FM level) will lead you to nowhere (i.e. into the ground). You will probably hate export "MS" model with a "small" R-27 engine, as Syrians and Egyptians did ;) Ironically, "flogger" follows destiny of the true thing-it will probably get fixed when SFP1 will be at decline of the people's interest :( . MIG-23M_DATA.ini MiG-23ML_data.ini MiG-23ML_LOADOUT.ini MiG-23MLD_data.ini MiG-23MLD_LOADOUT.ini MiG-23MS_data.ini (rename txt to ini) * AWIP PART2:MiG-29 Then, MiG-29A and C. I found the original FM "not quite on the level". Where are the slats, for example? I did this one simply out of amusement from F/A-18 FM with the same input like in Flogger-original manual. I selected F/A-18 because of the closest configuration. If You like it, great, if not, well... I did it for myself ;) MIG-29_DATA.ini MIG-29_LOADOUT.ini You might find "C" model a little harder to install (and ECM has the wrong name!), but perf is close. Also, I tried to make MiG-29 aileron "flaw" more prominent (due to the lack of FBW on these two models). It uses F-15 cockpit. MIG-29C.ini MIG-29C_COCKPIT.ini MIG-29c_DATA.ini MIG-29C_LOADOUT.ini * AWIP PART4:Aphid missiles I also made some work on the missiles-as you may remember, I nagged about non-existence of R-60TM in real life, so I got some true performance data on R-60 series and developed the new ones. Here are R-60MK mod62 and R-60MK mod62M (I named it non-existent "TMK" to make the difference!) that can be easily added for testing purposes without deleting existing. My AI's score 25-50% with those. I also have "detuned" AIM-9L and in lesser degree, R-73 in my sim here since I have found them "boringly" superior (as in the current WP). These two are for addition in weapondata.ini (put your sequential number instead "XXXY" in [WeaponDataXXXY]) [WeaponDataXXX1] TypeName=R-60MK FullName=R-60MK mod 62 Aphid-B ModelName=aa-8 Mass=45.000000 Diameter=0.120000 Length=2.140000 AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET NationName=SOVIET StartYear=1976 EndYear=2020 Availability=3 BaseQuantity=24 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1978 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=3 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=TRUE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE Streamlined=TRUE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=TRUE HasGrowl=TRUE EffectClassName=SmallMissileEffects ReleaseDelay=0.000000 WarheadType=0 Explosives=3.500000 FusingDistance=1.500000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=10 Accuracy=83 MaxTurnRate=47.000000 MaxLaunchG=7.000000 LockonChance=95 LaunchReliability=85 ArmingTime=0.000000 SeekerFOV=5.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=34.000000 SeekerTrackRate=35.000000 SeekerRange=4200.000000 MinLaunchRange=200.000000 MaxLaunchRange=9000.000000 Duration=23.000000 CounterCountermeasure=45.000000 NoiseRejection=32.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x100004c0 BoosterStart=0.000000 BoosterDuration=1.500000 BoosterAccel=67.970001 BoosterEffectName=MissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-1.050000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=0.800000 SustainerAccel=0.100000 SustainerEffectName=MissileFireEffect SustainerSoundName=Missile SustainerPosition=0.000000,-1.050000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=MissileInFlightEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 [WeaponDataXXX2] TypeName=R-60TMK FullName=R-60TMK mod 62M Aphid-C ModelName=aa-8 Mass=45.000000 Diameter=0.120000 Length=2.140000 AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET NationName=SOVIET StartYear=1978 EndYear=2020 Availability=3 BaseQuantity=24 Exported=TRUE ExportStartYear=1982 ExportEndYear=2020 ExportAvailability=3 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=TRUE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE Streamlined=TRUE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=TRUE HasGrowl=TRUE EffectClassName=SmallMissileEffects ReleaseDelay=0.000000 WarheadType=0 Explosives=3.500000 FusingDistance=1.500000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=10 Accuracy=85 MaxTurnRate=47.000000 MaxLaunchG=7.000000 LockonChance=95 LaunchReliability=90 ArmingTime=0.000000 SeekerFOV=5.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=34.000000 SeekerTrackRate=35.000000 SeekerRange=6000.000000 MinLaunchRange=200.000000 MaxLaunchRange=11000.000000 Duration=23.000000 CounterCountermeasure=55.000000 NoiseRejection=40.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x100004d0 BoosterStart=0.000000 BoosterDuration=1.500000 BoosterAccel=67.970001 BoosterEffectName=MissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-1.050000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=4.400000 SustainerAccel=0.100000 SustainerEffectName=MissileFireEffect SustainerSoundName=Missile SustainerPosition=0.000000,-1.050000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=MissileInFlightEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 In a brief description of a real life, R-60MK is comparable to AIM-9L. It has less range, but can be used at larger angle of deflection (if lock obtained). R-60MK-62M is closer to AIM-9M. Note that precision/ECM in data is not in too high numbers, but flying dynamics of the missile still makes it accurate! * AWIP PART5:Ilyushin Il-10 (mod of Il-2M3) For Korea, I modded Il-2M3 into Il-10 used in that period. Original FM was too much "fighterish", Il-2/10 was a heavyweight attack airplane! It was maneuvreable, but within its class and weight! Il-10 was refined and much faster version of Il-2, developed in 1944, but got massively produced after the war. You can rename this _data.ini to Il2M3 or make a new folder in your "Objects/Aircraft" named Il-10, copy everything from Il-2M3 to that folder, put this Il-10_DATA.ini and rename files according to data in Il-10.ini. IL-10.ini IL-10_DATA.ini IL-10_LOADOUT.ini I also made a very simple "new" skin (basically, made existing one darker in Irfanview, anybody can do it :). Vya-23mm "tank buster" cannon for Il-2/Il-10 Never much of a bomber, I clipped the bombolad to nominal value, but I added "tank-kiler" 23-mm VYa cannons that this sub-version used (alternative armament is NS-23, which was much less effective but much more common in other airplanes). In comparison to a "classic" 23mm cartridge it has the same size of the round but much larger shell. AP and HE rounds were available (this one is something in between, as they were mixed as the weapon load). I was not certain about tracer rounds, so I have left them be. VYa-23 was an "excluzive" weapon of Il-2/10. Great and compact gun for its power. Here is also the VYa-23 data based on data from Tony Williams ("Rapid Fire"), so you can put it into gundata.ini: [GunDataXX1] TypeName=23MM_VYa FullName=23mm VYa Cannon Caliber=23.000000 ROF=540.000000 MuzzleVel=880.000000 AmmoWt=0.200000 WarheadWt=0.015000 Reliability=95.000000 Accuracy=66.000000 AddLight=TRUE MaxLightRange=1000.000000 FireColor=0.250000,0.225000,0.160000 GunFireEffect=23mmFireEffect GunFireSound=Cannon EffectClassName=23mmEffects EffectTime=0.100000 TracerTexture=Tracer2.tga TracerSize=0.150000 TracerDistFactor=0.002000 TracerLength=0.015000 MaxVisibleDist=4000.000000 MaxStreakVisibleDist=1000.000000 TimeFuzed=FALSE AWIP PART6: MiG-15bis/MiG-15 (baseline) I also "detuned" MiG-15bis for use in Korea scenery. The existing FM of MiG-15bis makes it a "flawless" aircraft, and "closer-simulated" Sabres stand a little chance. Interestingly, it is harder to find the spec data for MiG-15 than for MiG-29 on the Net :) When a truth is taken out from the myth, MiG-15's main flaw were qute heavy controls,ineffective ailerons at high speeds and "refusing" of the design to go over Mach 1. Over M0.9 going close to M1, drag would build up, ailerons would go solid and aircraft would start a slow roll because of engine centrifugal force and small wing inaccuracies (time to hit the brakes and pull up, else-bail out! :) Lack of "flying tail" was NOT a disadvantage, and testing of such stabilizers on a MiG-17 gave a little turning advantage and a big disadvantage-the "+" mouted tail would get in a airflow "shadow" of the wing (like the "T" tail). Non-movable MiG-15/17 stabilizer was providing just enough built-in stability for a mitigation and "rideout" from a deep stall, which did not exist in "all-flying tail" MiG-17 test-prototype. Would go "Starfighter-wise" or "Phantom-wise" in high-AoA (both have variants of "+" or "T" tail). All-flying tail was of a big help to F-86 because "classic" stabilizer controls would go stiff when approaching M1 and would inconveniently -reverse- stick input. MiG-15 was also not "prone to shed a tail". Only one small batch had a such, factory-made flaw in reality, and any airplane will loose a tail if pulled abruptly to 12-13g, like some Korean/Chinese pilots did :) Also, MiG-15 would "snap-roll" if driven over AoA limits, counterable but unpleasant, but a panicky pilot would most probably make a spin out of it, this way or another ;) It is really blown out of proportions, as MiG-15 became a trainer aircraft because it was quite docile. MiG-15bis.ini MiG-15bis_DATA.ini * Anyway, as a "spinoff" of this modded MiG-15bis is an early MiG-15 (without "bis" :). It was not such a rare bird in Korea and that timeframe. It has a RD-45F (direct RR "Nene" copy) instead of more powerful VK-1 engine, much less effective ailerons, worse control dumping and a little less efective brakes (as a real one). I also used some tricks to simulate "runnig out of ailerons" which was much more prominent on this version (added a engine torque moment to simulate centrifugal force). I have also added a >non-symmetrical< wing AoA instability to simulate factory innacuracies, prominent on wings of this early model. It has slower NS-23 cannons instead of NR-23 on "bis" which Soviet pilots found frustrating (depending of the side you have picked, yo will find a frustration or a blessing when a "Sabre" remains unscratched in the midst of tracers :) You will find a little difference flying these two above 3,000-4,000m and medium speed, but control harmony is poor below that altitude, where the air is more dense (which ultimatively led to appearance of "bis" in the real life). Both MiGs are excellent turners and climbers, and "ace" MiG-15 AI pilots make a lot of trouble even to those AI mates of mine that fly F-86F's :) MiG-15.ini MiG-15_DATA.ini * AWIP PART7: Tu-22 "Blinder B"/Tu-22K "Blinder C", KURS-N, Kh-22, Kh-22PSI I also punched some "real-life" data for stock WOE Tu-22 "Blinder B". You can now also simply convert it to Tu-22P "jammer" radar-burn-trough aircraft using this ECM set (named KURS-N, but that was only a part of the real system). Unfortunately, Western "strategic" radars SAMs (even common "Hawks"!) are practically non-existent in WOE and rest of the series, but it also works against aircraft radars. Effective if you put one of such aircraft in your "bomber-wolfpack" and for recce. (A tip: don't use "warp" speed, 8X but acceleration to dumbfound fighter radars, after "warp" they get too close and their AI&radars cannot be fulled anymore). It uses skyshadow model, but it really isn't important. I have to admit that I have cheated a little; when a data from real Tupolev is punched in, landings are very hard for a human (i.e, ME! :) and AI starts thrust-vectoring (probably by unbolting engine-nacelles ;))) because it finds it "unlandable". You can blame Tupolev, "Blinder" was notorious for this, and I don't want to make AI-widows on landings ;))) Same goes for ailerons, that do "half-deflection" on the real thing which dumbfounds AI-pilots. Tu-22.ini TU-22_cockpit.ini TU-22_DATA.ini TU-22_LOADOUT.ini [WeaponDataXXX3] TypeName=KURS-N FullName=KURS-N Tu-22P ECM set ModelName=SkyShadow_rsaf Mass=9000.000000 Diameter=0.482000 Length=4.900000 AttachmentType=WP,SOVIET NationName=SOVIET StartYear=1967 EndYear=2020 Availability=0 BaseQuantity=3 Exported=FALSE ExportStartYear=0 ExportEndYear=0 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=4 StoreType=1 JammerStrength=75.000000 This also resulted in a "spinoff" of Tu-22K missile carrier simple mod. This is a gunless sub-version, "armed" only with ECM (sorry for the crude location of those!) . Installation is simillar to that of Il-10. It carries a single semi-recessed "basic" model of Kh-22 high-speed cruise missile (here is that missile, but any "weapon pack" as-4 variant can be carried). I also made a "PSI", nuclear version of this missile that uses Incindiary explosives to better simulate nuclear effects-be careful with that one! :) Tu-22K.ini TU-22K_cockpit.ini TU-22K_DATA.ini TU-22K_LOADOUT.ini [WeaponDataXXX4] TypeName=Kh-22 FullName=Kh-22 Burya Cruise Missile ModelName=as-4 Mass=5780.000000 Diameter=0.930000 Length=11.300000 AttachmentType=SOVIET NationName=SOVIET StartYear=1967 EndYear=2020 Availability=2 BaseQuantity=24 Exported=FALSE ExportStartYear=0 ExportEndYear=0 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE Streamlined=TRUE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=FALSE HasGrowl=FALSE EffectClassName=LargeMissileEffects ReleaseDelay=2.000000 WarheadType=2 Explosives=630.000000 FusingDistance=0.100000 ClusterBomblets=0 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=3 Accuracy=76 MaxTurnRate=3.000000 MaxLaunchG=2.000000 LockonChance=85 LaunchReliability=80 ArmingTime=2.000000 SeekerFOV=15.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=25.000000 SeekerTrackRate=11.000000 SeekerRange=200000.000000 MinLaunchRange=9000.000000 MaxLaunchRange=140000.000000 Duration=400.000000 CounterCountermeasure=0.000000 NoiseRejection=0.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x100000c2 BoosterStart=0.500000 BoosterDuration=4.000000 BoosterAccel=29.490000 BoosterEffectName=MissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-3.700000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=900.000000 SustainerAccel=6.000000 SustainerEffectName=MissileFireEffect SustainerSoundName=Missile SustainerPosition=0.000000,-3.700000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=MissileInFlightEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 [WeaponDataXXX5] TypeName=Kh-22PSI FullName=Kh-22PSI Burya Cruise Missile ModelName=as-4 Mass=5780.000000 Diameter=0.930000 Length=11.300000 AttachmentType=SOVIET NationName=SOVIET StartYear=1971 EndYear=2020 Availability=0 BaseQuantity=3 Exported=FALSE ExportStartYear=0 ExportEndYear=0 ExportAvailability=0 WeaponDataType=1 RailLaunched=FALSE RocketPod=FALSE Retarded=FALSE Streamlined=TRUE FinStabilized=TRUE SpinStabilized=FALSE HasGrowl=FALSE EffectClassName=NukeExplosionEffect ReleaseDelay=2.000000 WarheadType=11 Explosives=1000000000.000000 FusingDistance=0.100000 ClusterBomblets=1 ClusterDispersion=0.000000 GuidanceType=3 Accuracy=70 MaxTurnRate=3.000000 MaxLaunchG=2.000000 LockonChance=85 LaunchReliability=80 ArmingTime=2.000000 SeekerFOV=15.000000 SeekerGimbleLimit=25.000000 SeekerTrackRate=11.000000 SeekerRange=200000.000000 MinLaunchRange=9000.000000 MaxLaunchRange=140000.000000 Duration=400.000000 CounterCountermeasure=0.000000 NoiseRejection=0.000000 CapabilityFlags=0x100000c6 BoosterStart=0.500000 BoosterDuration=4.000000 BoosterAccel=29.490000 BoosterEffectName=MissileFireEffect BoosterSoundName=Missile BoosterNodeName= BoosterPosition=0.000000,-3.700000,0.000000 SustainerDuration=900.000000 SustainerAccel=6.000000 SustainerEffectName=MissileFireEffect SustainerSoundName=Missile SustainerPosition=0.000000,-3.700000,0.000000 InFlightEffectName=MissileInFlightEffect InFlightSoundName= ReleaseAnimationID=-1 EODisplayFlags=0 AWIP PART 8: Hi-alt Missioncontrol.ini, slow g-card viewlist.ini and aircraftobject.ini (WOE) These are purely experimental ini files. Hi-alt missioncontrol puts fighter aircraft waay higher, makes life of some types (like "Foxbat") more easier and sensible. Slow g-card viewlist.ini I have onboard Gforce 6150, that is probably "the fastest of the slowest", and have to run WOE in 640x480 on 17in CRT monitor. Antialiasing and anisotropy do the job, and picture is quite smooth, but field of view is very narrow. Here, field of view is increased, and I hope it will be of help to people with slower GC or smaller monitors. These two go into Wings over Europe/Flight submenu, backup your files first, this is experimental!!! Aircraftobject.ini is modded to work together with viewlist.ini, and has less details (i.e. clouds) that "kill" my GC. It also contains heavily modded, VERY experimental AI-if you like it, fine, if not, it is experimental, I hope you made a backup of original ones! That is about it... I hope I didn't insult anyone or violated anyone's author rights. Forum admin, please act appropriately. There are other "mods", I hope I will be able to send them here with an feedback input in the (near?) future. All the best, NeleAWIP.zip

Hm, the tweak is rather "empyrical". I have mixed in some data from the manual and tweaked other thata until it started behaving properly Yes, the engines are titled for -2 deg (nozzles are facing each other) and up 2.5 related two the main axis (engine installation drawing). For the engines, the proper way would be to draw a "curve" and then divide it into two for "normal" jets and ramjet effect (some thrust left on the main engines), but I took the R-35 curve and adjusted it as necessary (as it is more detailed than one of R-15). In another words, flies right, but numbers are "wrong". There is probably a little bit too much thrust. Thrust of real R15B engines (in AB2) is around 5.900kg each at M2.83/20km and has an /upward/ tendency on the chart, but the "wetmach" curve is really a guesswork. You, see, I "made" the Foxbat in my head (engines/intake lift) and I wanted to test it ASAP, so I ended/will end doing things backwards You may notice that I wanted to put aileron reversal over 1240kph and drop "artificial" hard speed limit, but it went to nowhere. I also wanted to make "self-adjustable" trim, as the true MiG has a nice trim-effect (and autopilot) by "mounting" stabs on a dummy vertical-swiveling surface (like swing wings but in vertical plain), but it didn't work :umnik2: Nele

High-altitude world If you have found "Foxbat" without real use, that is because the bulk of activity in WOE happens under 3,000m/10,000ft altitude. In real world, aircraft fly at around 9-11,000m on longer missions, since the air make too much drag to the airframe at lower altitudes and engines use too much fuel to make a reasonable combat radius with payload. To make (many) aircraft flying at this optimal cruise altitude, here is the "fix". 1. Go to the flight folder of your WOE installation; 2. Find missioncontrol.ini file. If there, make a backup. If not there, it has to be extracted from MissionData.cat file using SFP1 extract utility; 3. Under [Altitude] section, make the changes with text-editor (these are what I use): Normal=11000 Low=1500 VeryLow=120 High=12500 VeryHigh=17250 You will get much more hi-alt combat with speed-altitude trade. It more closer to reality, and really efficient if you use Streakeagle's F-4B or other "heavy" modded aircraft, like Su-15TM that depends much of pilot's energy management. Nele

Lexx, tnx for the input. I run at low-res since I have "fastest among slowest" GF6150 onboard VC :) Did you consider putting "extra" engine for JATO's? Basically, all you need is to make them active on the sea-level only to 100-200m altitude (using AltitudeTableData) and DryMachTableData to 0.1-0.2. Inertia will do the rest, or you can make graduated table. Also, you can adjust the trust rate separately from the main engine(s). Careful, Soviet airplanes use JATO to conserve fuel and often make takeoffs in -dry- thrust. Also, it seems that flight engine makes some type of "curve" if two adjecent values are too different, so it is better to make "denser" table values with mid-values. When I was testing addon engines, I was getting "flameouts" when I pressed AB since the inlet temp of "dummy" engines is actually exaust temp of "true" ones! There is one more idea for you to disable JATO after takeoff, if you can place dummy engine not to shut "real" engine, too :) The idea of "addon" engines emerged in my head not from JATO's but from the fact that there are types with AB WEP. For example, those are MiG-21bis ("cheresvychayniy", or emergency regime) and IAI Kfir ("combat plus") that can produce increased thrust, but only under certain speed/altitude conditions. It is actually much easier than what you are trying to do, making dry thrust of WEP "engine" zero, and placing AB thrust section far away to the right stop (and possibly shorting one of the true engine). Nele P.S. is that manual of RB or fighter you have, I would make a use of fighter one...?

I know you are designing new one, and I tried the current realistic version. I hope you don't mind that I made two small changes (for testing purposes only). Those are: - adding following quickly-modded AI, similar to that one in "my" Floggers (keeps speed) [AIData] AileronDeltaRoll=1.26 AileronRollRate=-0.9 ElevatorDeltaPitch=1.0 ElevatorPitchRate=-0.09 ThrottleDeltaSpeed=0.045 ThrottleVelocity=-0.008 DeltaSpeedForAfterburner=1.00 DeltaSpeedForAirbrakes=-95 MaxPitchForAltitude=8.0 MinPitchForAltitude=-5.0 PitchForThrottle=0.005 PitchForAltitude=0.001 PitchForVerticalVelocity=-0.01 RollForHeading=10.0 RollForHeadingRate=-0.5 MinRollHeading=5.0 MaxRollForHeading=35.0 PitchForRoll=0.15 FormationSpeedForPosition=0.8 FormationSpeedForRate=0.7 -Changing WetMachTable data of engines (roughly, by simply entering my Mach corrections from "Flogger", for values above M1.2) That would make it now: WetMachTableData=1.000,0.991,1.295,1.683,2.473,2.975,3.627 As a result, your F-4b (in WOE) does not crash, keeps speed up much better and altitude behavior in AB is much better (I've set cruising altitudes in WOE over 30,000ft at home). Only one thing left-there is too much pitch authority at high speeds (which in reality is limited by AFSC on any jet airplane). For "Flogger" tweaking, I tried to transfer pitch rate and speed rate as close to the stick charts (as I have the -aerodynamic- manual for the bird). Please consider this as the "experience-transfer", since I tried your current "realistic" F-4b and I like it very much, and would like that you make even better one! Nele

I agree that charts are rare, as they represent dynamic engine behavior. Generic "altitude" table(s) is "short" of thrust, although there is an other default-model issue, too-too low drag due AoA at altitude. So when you make an F-4 with drag close to realistic (both static&dynamic), there is no thrust to back it up... I am currently checking the issue with current "Foxbat", that cannot hold the altitude and is truly a handful. One issue is that there is no trim, second that thrust creates too much downforce. I have a loopy idea how to fix both the trim&downforce (which is necessary at 20,000m+) but I have to check is that thought practical. It would be practical (and usable!) only for high-prf, hi-alt flying aircraft (basically those are only three or four-MiG-25/31, SR-71/YF-12, XB-70A) that I lack much...

This is an "ultimate" tweak of .ini fileset for entire "Flogger" series (M, MS, MF, ML, MLD) made to bring them closer to real-life performance in SFP1/WOE. It solves the main problem of too low sea-level speed (and many AI landings, but not all :)) Installation: copy files in the archive instead those currently installed in Objects/Aircraft directories of WOE or SFP1 installation on tyour hard-disk. Backup first! These files were not tested with WoV, but should(?) work. Usual disclaimer apply. Tweaks are: -SL speed about like the real-life one (cca. 1.400kph IAS, 870mph, 756kts); Will go over M2 above 12,000m (it takes some time, though :) -Landing speed(s) close to those of real-life Floggers (240-270kph/149-167mph/130-145kts IAS); -Linear acceleration (based on ML model) close to original (reduced overall drag); -Turning performance brought to "feeling" level (buffeting at cca.20 deg, departure on harsh pull on hard level in SFP1/WOE). Catching true seconds in turn would be unfair to Flogger, as many Western types are over-modelled. -Control decrease due to velocity, simulating "mech work" of lifting surfaces&artificial feel system); -Engine thrust/altitude performance from manual, except altitude/Mach correction necessary in SFP1/WOE; -Only MLD has AoA-sensitive slats; The rest of models have those retractable with flaps, as in reality earlier models use them only on takeoff/landings (i.e. 16deg); -Integrated AI for wingies/adversaries (keeps the speed up, more suitable for Flogger due to swing-wing behaviour). -Attempt to ephasize differences between versions (as there were quite huge in real life!). -Landing gear is made much less "bumpy" on all models. The wrong on-ground attitude of ML/MLD is NOT fixed, as it would require changing of 3-d model (real ML/MLD have ZERO deg ground attitude, others have 2deg 19'attitude). -Fuel has been locally distributed according to the manual information (ML/MLD have different wing tanks than initial series). Number of tanks is not correct, but location/qty is; -Radar(s) have been improved. It was quite a performer in 70's and 80's. Ranges for ML and MLD are adjusted accordingly. - Mach needle will go over M1 and now does full circle. This might look awkward, but will give you a better velocity feeling. -Weapon load brought to -practice- load and nominal masses; Prevented loading of unsuitable AA missiles on glove and under-lerx pylons (R-40 lerx, R-23 under glove); Also, pilot's words is that MLD, and -only- MLD was to carry increased bombload on underglove racks (in Afghanistan). The same "Bomb-truck driver" in Afghanistan (MLD pilot) said that maximum was 4X500kg, single salvo release. If you disagree with him, either adjust this as you see fit ;). As for slat "design"... well, it seems that those slats act like leading-edge "drop" flaps in reality more than "true" slats. Pilot's words about aircraft behavior at low-speed point to that direction, too. I made them looking to those from "stock" F-4C. Yes, that is tweaking, but at least has some "cover" :) No way to make normal AI landing with the wing that is designed to work best at 45deg and to make it look like 16deg wengsweep landing. In addition, WOE and SFP1 have a little different landings and FE, so SFP1 "drops" the nose a bit more. It was an unpleasant surprise, but, in my defense I have to say that secondary reason of stretching main struts on real "ML" was that some pilots were dropping the nose on M to better see the runway which would lead to harder touchdown with nose-gear first!). Note: this is not a new mathematical model, but tweaked original Rafael's model modified by "feeling" (many test-flights!), so I beg ini-gurus not to check it mathematically :) I collected enough information (and experience!) to build a totally new "true" flogger, but it would protract it indefinitely. For example, original Rafael's model has a lift for almost 1/3 too large, but is now well compensated by drag. I roughly made a "true" model, close to manual charts, and the largest "behavior" difference is that current "tweaked" one is a bit too speed-sensitive in pitch/drag, which is hardly noticeable in "hard" mode and a little more in "normal" mode (on MLD). I made a quick remedy on my computer by extending joystick deadzone and some (bad) flying habits of not unloading aircraft completely after the major turn (stick unload). Not all bad is for worse... Model(s) simulated: MiG-23M (model 1972)MiG_23M.zip. First major production model. Without SOS/SOUA (AoA limiter) and quite heavy (due to use of No.4 tank). There might be a problem in SFP1 with weapon load, since Weapon's pack shows R-23R missile appeared later. On this version, "nominal" would be 2xR-23R and 2xK-13M or 4xK-13M (due to shortage of then-new R-23R missiles in 1972). It is not a dog (at least not after some fuel depletion!), but AoA behavior was/is tricky. Destabilizators added in ini file to simulate this. FM can get too twitchy after stall (hard level), but fixing this would demand much stall/spin practice "flights", and I already have nausea of those ;) MiG-23M (model 1975/76) this is the same model like above, but with basic SOUA (AoA limiter) and with less fuel (in reality, troublesome No.4 tank not refueled/empty). More "lively" and easier to handle. Nominal armament in 1975- 2xR-23R, 4XR60T missiles. Use this instead if you find '72 model too tricky (inside M file with .1976 extension). MiG-23MF Mig_23MF.zipThis is the same like later "M" version (SOUA, fuel), but with export radar components and IFF. It is simulated by making it a little "weaker" in search/track. MiG-23MS Mig_23MS.zip(model 1973) earliest export model, also called MiG-23M(E). This would be an initial batch for Egypt, Syria and Libya. It has much weaker R-27 engine, weapons/radar combo of MiG-21, plus all bad things from early M. It did not have -any- RWR when delivered. Truly a dog! MiG-23MS (later) Obviously after customers screamed in dissatisfaction, MS got "normal" R-29 engine and basically is a later M/MF with R-3 or 13M/Sapphire-21 (basically, a MiG-21 radar) weapon combination. It seems that it was in sporadic use of Soviet Union (as pictures do exist), probably for combat training and maybe in Far East. data.ini has 1976 extension, rename to use instead. MiG-23ML Mig_23ML.zip(1976-1977) this is first major updated version. Lighter and with more powerful R-35 engine, it also has better radar and SOUA. Version simulated has earlier R-23R missiles and quad R-60TM (actually R-60M mod 62 or 62M), although it is the first in series that can really carry R-24R/T missiles. Version simulated also has small SPS-141A onboard jammer and small MiG-27-style chaff/flare "add-on", although this was rare installation. But, in this form, it can "cover" performance of many mis-designated (by West) export models , as many of War Pac ML's are actually MLA's (Izdelitye 23-12A, with newer Sapphire radar, sometimes dubbed "Amethyst") as well as what was known as "MLD" but is actually mongrel "MLS" common in Middle East. It includes MLD-style updated avionics ML's /MLA's for export (Izdelitye 23-22A for War Pac and 23-19 for Syria), but without MLD aerodynamic modifications. "True" trademark of MLD version are vortex-generators and „cut" lerxes. MiG-23MLD izdelitye 23-18 (1984) Mig_23MLD.zip this is a major upgrade of ML/MLA. This version has 33 deg instead 45 deg wingsweep in the sim, but there was actually a fourth "33 deg notch" in the cockpit lever. Vortex generators and "cuts" in the base of lerxes are lifting AoA to cca. 28 deg, which is noticeable as more "carefree" handling. "Active" slats (only model that uses slats to raise AoA/lift for maneuvering-also simulated). The new SOS 3-4 AoA limiter is simulated as greater pitch response and more pull at medium speed. The radar has been improved in search/track strength simulating N008. Nominal load is 2xR-24R and 4xR-60TM (actually R-60M mod 62M). Soviet versions in mid/late 90's were carrying 2x R-73 instead quad of R-60M's. A drawback-greater static drag (due to lerx and vortex generators) is simulated. I wanted to make an "airbrake" effect of drop-slats, but "flight" testing showed a little difference and impact on landings. Unfortunately, 3d-model cannot visually simulate 33deg wingsweep. It also has updated SPS-141 ECM (although this was very rare installation!) and common chaff/flare dispensers (although chaff were in container /below/ the fuselage). Also is "cleared" to 4x500kg-bombload after Afghan experience. Note that existence of this small ECM will not help you against newer Western models like F-15! I couldn't find pictures of "Gardenia" ECM when mounted onto MLD to make "true" MLDG version (by simple use of some outside-similar Western model). MLDG was a peak upgrade of MLD, but it was rare. Therefore, I have put somewhat more powerful SPS-141. Its power is low enough not to make too much conflict with reality ("Gardenia", actually simplified "Sorbytsia" on MLDG was another story). By words of former pilots, it seems the equipment was more crucial than 33-deg wing to make this version truly liked! Certainly, 33-deg wing was extremely useful-in Afghanistan, hi-alt airstrips, MiG pilots were carrying their nominal 4xFAB-500 (although cleared to single-salvo only), while Su-17M4 was struggling to leap into the air with 1T bombload. However, in mock-dogfights, some pilots missed ML-style acceleration and were using vortex and new SOS 3-4 AoA combination to make "custom" wingsweep(s), as wingsweep lever is continuous and has no locks, just "notches" for per-manual-allowed wingsweep. For example, there is a pilot that preferred "custom" 60-deg(!!!) wingsweep for energy-combat and 33 only when out of airspeed. Tactics: keep the speed up! M/MS have swing-wing tweaked a bit, so it will swing to 72 deg little earlier. This will help in acceleration, but will affect turn rate. Be gentle on these babies-no harsh pulls in hard mode! The key is flying on the "saw-tooth blade", to keep the speed up and stay away from critical AoA's by just "touching" it. Later M and MF are much better for a close combat If you switch to basic MS, it will look it forever to accelerate (as you have 2.5 tonnes less thrust than basic "M" and same weight). If you were patient to read all this :), there is -another- Flogger .ini here- MiG-23PMiG_23P.zip. It is a ML spinoff, and is different by having no ECM/decoys, but I have put radar of more search range (additional range scale) and more power in track. A true MiG-23P has a digital datalink to the ground radars (which cannot just automatically steer it, but give target information outside onboard radar range) and a digital computer onboard for giving best firing solution. Representing a newer version, it has all bombing capabilities deleted (only CAP and Intercept) and has a mixed combo of R-24R/T missiles. For home use, I modified R-24T to be all-aspect (as it -was- all-aspect) and could be fired with shut radar and/or fed by data from datalink and IRST. This has much sense for interceptor. There is also an .ini file, so you can see which files have to be copied&renamed from MiG-23ML to the new MiG-23P directory. For private use, I have also made various low-res schematic for the main series, as they were too similar to each other in original (booring!!! :D). "Tankgreen" for "M", representing 35IAP "M" floggers, "Afghan" for MLD (a sun-worn scheme, by bleaching original :)), "interceptor grey" for -23P (a "polished" "M" grey scheme) and, also by replacing colors, something that resembles a 28GIAP scheme for -23P. I would have tried harder (i.e. decent enough for publishing), but I don't have hi-res (or any!) templates :( As for the engine-I have put altitude-thrust data from the MiG-23 manual, but if Mach-thrust data from the manual is used, it gets short of breath above cca. 10,000m. Using "stock" WetMachTableData is a common use by FM modelers, but I explored this a little further in practice (read: much hi-alt Mach-busting and altitude holding). By my opinion, this is vital and frequently neglected parameter! Workable multiplier (but not necessary accurate) correction is visible in data.ini of MiG-23P-roughly 0.012 for each 0.2Mach from M06-1.2, like MtrueMachThrust*(1+0.012) for M0.6, MtMT*(1.012+0.012) for M0.8 etc (rather flat) and much sharper above M1.2 to M2.4 (cca. 0.37, like MtMT*(1+0.37) for M1.4, MtMT*(1.37+0.37) for M1.6, MtMT*(1.74+0.37) for M1.8 etc. You got the picture. There is also a FE problem with too much "thrust-pitchdown", which makes huge problems to Aircraft like Foxbat (whose engines act similar to ramjets above M1.4!), and "trim" drag (due to necessary stick backpressure to hold the aircraft) annuls thrust. Thrust vector goes awry (i.e. down) at high Mach. "Engineers", please note, this is from test flights! I gave you a hint which MiG will be next ;) Cheers, Nele

Hm, this is "WetMachTableData readout" from MiG-23ML aerodynamic manual: M0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 T 1 1 0.96 1.105 1.25 1.375 1.5 1.415 1.33 1.245 1.16 1.1215 1.083 It is -irrespective- to altitude, and only depends of Mach number. "T" is the multiplier to static thrust. Likewise, AltitudeTableNumdata multiplier from MiG-23ML manual (1000m step, starting zero m): 1.000,0.917,0.838,0.759,0.678,0.600,0.575,0.525,0.500,0.400,0.392,0.383,0.362,0.318,0.297,0.270,0.244,0.218,0.192,0.186,0.171,0.163,0.151,0.146,0.000 ... is -irrespective- of Mach number. To get effective thrust of R-35 at, say, M0.8 and 4.000m AGL, the formula is simple: EffectiveThrust=StaticThrust*AltitudeTabledata*WetMachTableData and that is 12749X0.768*1.25=12239. The FM follows physics to about 6,000m. Then, -if- you use original table, engine gets short of breath and ceiling is about 11,000m (ML). And true Flogger can go dynamically over 22,000m with engine still running. If you use "generic" Wetmach, situation is better, but -notice- that at M2+ Mach-dependent thrust is tripled!!! No engine does that, not even SR-71 has such engine dynamics, so it is generic correction of some sort. If you try to go supersonic at higher altitude (and there is a breakpoint in FM "atmosphere" at around 12,000m), your FM will be either too slow to accelerate then original, so this "generic" correction has to be adjusted. I found that for ML I need at least 3.3 TIMES more thrust at M 2.4 than true engine generates (1.083vs.3.6). Also, note that originals, for some reason, have altitude table "short" of multiplier. I got adequate performance with Flogger-and I needed it, since in WOE I have cruise altitude raised to 11,000m. The Mach/thrust behavior is probably similar to all turbojets, but is hardly the same! I stand behind opinion that hi-performance airplane, that have much of ram-effect (like SR-71 or Foxbat) cannot be accurately simulated without adjusting WetMach. For all other Mach2 "peek" aircraft that rarely go even over M1.5 (virtually all modern fighter aircraft except F-22/23) behaviour can be acceptable. Nele

Aaaah, THAT Flogger! :blush2: A typo, I used MF backwards for a newer M and MS (those are "1976" versions). Just fixed in download section (M.1976, MF and MS.1976). Please note I made wing stall AoA -intentionally- a little different (left-right wing). In "hard" level, that creates a pseudo-airflow separation (and wing rocking at critical angles that increases by pilot continuous stick backpressure&bank correction input). Crude, but I could not think of anything else to simulate high-AoA instability. Forgot to tell you that, too. Nele

Reading ini file that has been sent; [LeftGloveStation] ** LengthLimit=4.90 [RightGloveStation] *** LengthLimit=4.90 If you have been editing something, that's why the disclaimer is for Do what you wish, but try to use other text-editor. Those two lines prevent incorrect loading of R-40 missiles onto MiG-23M early in 70's. Other two on glove pylons prevent incorrect loading of R-23/24 and other larger missiles (pylon is only cleared for R-3/13M/60 and later, R-73), but I checked the length to the largest -Western- analogue. That is, if somebody wish to defect with his Flogger Nele

Atrdriver, it works fine here, but it really might be my mistake because I am lazy and I am using Notepad for editing :blush2: . It seems that notepad can sometimes insert "invisible" characters that may confuse FE when loading. It is intermittent occurence known in the community. It can be easily fixed-select all text from .ini file (but not with select all, use mouse or scroll) and copy into other blank text file (use some other text editor) and save as text-only DOS-ASCII. This worked for me. Alternatively, Try 1976 version (rename MiG-23M_data.ini), and see if it works. Nele

Uh, here are some schemes I made rather quickly for home use (as defaults for the types). Those old were basically the same, making subtypes "egg-like". "Sunworn" scheme based on default (original) one, but color set bleached to resemble one after MLD's being parked on Afghan sun. Scheme for MiG-23P also based on default (original), but colours are inspired by the scheme from 28GIAP interceptor squadron. Those were well-maintained "Floggers" so it was rather "goudy-camo". Scheme for MiG-23M that resembles one of 35IAP squadron based in East Germany (the one on loadout screen), after being repainted with all-green colour that squadron got in massive quantity. It was used to paint everything that could hold that paint If you like those, I will also make a download package of those (separated from new ini package), which would be a "differentiating" one, making these as defaults. That is, if you got bored with defaults. Tell me what you think. Nele

I used master color selection replacement by selecting the light brown first and "shifting" hue. This is easily done in Corel PP. Suprisingly, it did not much affect other colors. Contrast and brightness brought the tires back into black and made those nice "washout" rivet lines prominent I have also made a sort-of template by bleaching the grey skin, but I have only low-res one grey skin. If I had a hi-res skin, I would have made some prominent schemes I have found (sharkmouth "aggressor" and like) but low-res does not allow enough details. I have all three ready, but I think that I shall send just "Tankgreen" now, since two others are just modded original camo schemes. Note that replacement .ini files for Floggers are now up (yes!), and I have made a change of appearance default schemes ("M" is default gray, "ML" default green, "MLD" classic three-tone camo).

File Name: MiG-23 "Flogger" fighter series-ini tweaks File Submitter: nele File Submitted: 21 Apr 2007 File Updated: 9 Sep 2007 File Category: Soviet Aircraft and Variants This is an "ultimate" tweak of .ini files for entire MiG-23 "Flogger" fighter series (M, MS, MF, ML, MLD) originally made by Rafael in order to bring them closer to real-life performance&behavior in SFP1/WOE (including some avionics tweaks). It also solves the main problem of too low sea-level speed and "jumpy" landing gear (and many bad AI landings, but not all :)) Information is gathered from MiG-23ML/UB manuals, books, writings of former Flogger pilots on forums... should be pretty close to original(s). There is also a folder containing "spinoff" MiG-23P .ini files, for which use you will need some files from MiG-23ML directory copied (and renamed) there. If you don't wish to use it, simply don't copy the folder and/or pertaining .ini files. Credits to original authors: Rafael, BPAo, Armourdave, Sal, Gramps, Pasko, Column5, USAFMTL, Crab_02, Sony Tuckson, Phantuam, Marcell, and other authors of original files. Special thanks to Fubar! Nele 24.04.2007. Corrected minor typos. Please note that wings are -intentionally- a little different! Click here to download this file

Well, if you like it, then I shall upload them to downoad section. I don't feel like typing readme.txt now, I will do it over the weekend I also have some "quickie" low-res addon schemes, modded from the original... But slow link kills me and it is frustrating sending preview pictures over the modem. BTW, a question for Blackbird-spoilers on Flogger remain shut at 72 wingsweep on real bird. Can it be done simply via some speed comand .ini file? (I know that Mirage F1 has those, so...). "Blowbackspeed" doesn't work-it is roll control. Nele