Gepard

Lexx the following text is taken from the book "MiG-21 Fishbed" by Yefim Gordon and Bill Gunston (ISBN 1 85780 042 7) page 8: "The Kremline demand wisely made no attempt to list an elaborate set of numerical requirements. Rather did it merely call for a level speed of Mach 2 at an altitude of 20km (65,600ft) whilst carrying guns and a simple radar-ranging sight, with the ability later to carry air-to-air missiles (AAMs), in each case operating under close ground control by the "Markham" radio network." The Ye-2, Ye-2A, Ye-4, Ye-5 and Ye-50 were only prototypes for flight tests, not for weapon tests. Weapon tests were made with the Ye-6. As far as i know. Air to Air missiles were not available during the flight tests of the early prototyps. When the R-3S was born, the Ye-6 prototype got launch rails (Ye-6T). They tested two versions. One with the launch rails at the wingtips (for this they developed a new wing) and a second with a launch rail under the wing hardpoint. The later was choosen, because their was no time to find the best wing planform for a wing with wingtiprails.

Me-109Z Zwilling i guess

Do you mean the F-4F poor mans Phantoms? Lexx, about the Su-7 i have not very much information. The only wha i know is, that the delta wing Su-9 had a better handling at higher speeds, so it became the fighter, while the Su-7 had a better handling at low altittutes and at lower speeds, so it became the fighter bomber. The missile i development i mentioned was the RS-2US (AA-1 Alkali) and their planned successors. That the Atoll copy R-3S would make the race was not expected.

Ehm this statement is not 100% correct. When the soviet council of ministers gave the order to develope a new Mach 2 capable fighter plane to the OKB's MiG, Suchoi and Jakovlev it was demanded to develope a plane which was prepared to carry missiles. It is correct, that at this time the soviets had not had working missile designs, but they had designs in the pipeline. And the capability to carry such missiles were part of the demand of the soviet military. The best read for the MiG-21 story isYefim Gordons book "MiG-21".

Soweit ich weiß nicht. Man kann alle WoX und SF2 Terrains in FE nutzen, aber nicht umgekehrt.

Hier mal zwei Screenshots aus dem Vogesen Terrain, das ich vor ewigen Zeiten für FE gemacht habe. Die Tiles sind so wie sie aus der Box kommen. Es gibt auch keine zusätzlichen Bäume oder ähnliches. Für FE gibt es aber auch etliche Terrainerweiterungen mit besseren Tiles usw.

Genau meine Meinung. Dabei hätte die ganze Sache ja noch Potential zu einer Weiterentwicklung. Der ganze Koreakrieg wäre vorstellbar. Die MiG-15 ist bereits im Spiel, die P-51, die F-84 auch. Nur mit dieser selten dämlichen neuen Grafikengine funktioniert das natürlich nicht. Mein persönlicher Wunsch wäre ein Kampfhubschraubermod. So ähnlich wie das Afghanistanterrain, aber auf FE Basis. Da man mit dem Hubschrauber sowieso in Bodennähe herumgurkt wäre die bessere Terraindarstellung von FE (tilegröße 500x500 anstatt 2000x2000 Meter) die erste Wahl. Das einzige was mir für solch einen mod fehlt ist ein Bordschütze, der auch selektierte Bodenziele unter Beschuss nimmt. Aber da kann man TK fragen wie man will, das bastelt der einfach nicht ins Spiel. Oder wie mein alter Zugführer bei der Fahne immer gesagt hat: "Man kann gar nicht soviel fressen, wie man kotzen möchte."

Some days ago an egyptian extremist ripped a Bible into parts. And i dont see that in western countries now the mob wants to burn down egyptian embassies.

If you are speeking of the AFG terrain i made some years ago or the updates from third side, then you cant fly for the enemies, because there is no enemy airfield set. If you would include an enemy airfield (what would be possible) and select strike missions (in campaign or single mission) you would often get strike missions against the enemy airfield. That would be historically incorrect.

Ich habe auf der ILA ein paar Werbeposter von verschiedenen modernen MiG-29 varianten ergattert und da sehe ich nichts dergleichen, mit Ausnahme der doppelsitzigen MiG-29M2 (das ist das Biest auf dem Foto im obigen Beitrag). Vielleicht sind die Täuschkörperwerfer auch bloß nachrüstbar und werden nur im Bedarfsfall montiert?

Word by word translation from one language to an other is always problematic. But i could not found a good english expression for the german term "wie ein geölter Blitz". By the way, if i would translate "Fallschirmspringer" word by word from german to english it would be "falling umbrella jumper", correct would be parachutist :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Interessting read, indeed. But it also showed the limitation of the US pilots, which had not had the proper manuals. I have spoken with a former east german MiG-23 pilot. He said, officially the MiG-23 had 3 swingwing angles: 72° for fast hunt, 45° for dogfight and 16° for landing. "But there was an inofficially wing position at 30°. At this angle the MiG-23 was fast as a lightning around a corner." And yes, the soviets had had the MiG-23MLD. They used the M and the MLD in the 80th. But by 1989 they had switched nearly all units to MiG-29 or Su-27. Only one squadron used the 23MLD on german soil.

:good: :good:

Correct Focke Wulf 187 Falke Here two pictures of this beauty on flight. Fast and agile as a single seat fighter. Much better than the Me-110. This bird in big numbers would perhaps have changed the Battle of Brittain.

No. Perhaps now:

I think it has something to do with the flightengine.ini. In WoX was it the blue ribbon problem. ... Sorry cant remember exactly how to solve it. It was something with 3 lines in the flightengine.ini ......

Lets try this:

If you can post this picture. But believe me, the LSK had had only MiG-23MF and MiG-23ML (MLA standard). If you want i can post all tactical and production id numbers. From the side the MLD you can discriminate from the ML by the chaff flare dispensers. From above you can see a dogtooth on the non movable part of the wing.

Which plane has this issue? I think COCAS is right, there is something wrong with the LOD model and this you cant change. But perhaps you can try to move the position of the numbers a little bit to an other direction (10 cm to the nose or so) and then take a look wheter it will look better.

Here are some informations to the work modes of the MiG-23 autopilot (german language is original red is my translation into english i hope its correct, but i'm not 100% sure) Betriebsarten: (modes) 1. Dämpfung (smoothing ?) 2. Rückführung zum Horizontalflug (bring plane back in horizonal flight mode = Panic mode) 3. Stabilisierung der Winkellage des Flugzeuges (stabilisation of plane AoA ? ... various modes) - für Schräglage > 6° bis 180° - bei Schräglage < 6° automatische Rückführung und Stabilisierung bei 0° - Längsneigung +/- 90° - Kurs (bei Schräglage < 6° und Längsneigung < +/-40°) 4. automatische Trimmung bei „losgelassenem“ Steuerknüppel (ausser in der Betriebsart Direktorsteuerung) (automaticaly trimm) 5. automatisches Herausführen aus gefährlicher Höhe nach einem Signal vom Funkhöhenmesser und Stabilisierung der am Höhenmesser eingestellten Minimalhöhe (ausser in der Betriebsart Direktorsteuerung) (recover from dangerous low altitutes) 6. Steuerung des Flugzeuges nach den Anzeigen des Kreuzzeigerinstrumentes (automatic flight at instument data) - beim Streckenflug (.....flightpath) - bei der Rückkehr zum gewählten Flugplatz ( .... to selected airfield) - bei der Vorbereitung des Landeanfluges ( .....automatic airfield approach) - beim Abfangmanöver (.... intercept course) 7. Direktor-Steuerung des Landeanfluges bis H= 50...60m ( support of landing approach min 50 - 60 meters) 8. automatische Steuerung des Flugzeuges (automatic flight modes) - beim Streckenflug (.....flightpath) - bei der Rückkehr zum gewählten Flugplatz ( .... to selected airfield) - bei der Vorbereitung des Landeanfluges ( .....automatic airfield approach) - beim Abfangmanöver mit automatischem Waffeneinsatz ( automatic intercept with automatic weapon release) 9. automatische Steuerung beim Landeanflug bis H= 50...60m (automatic landing approach pilot takes over at 50 -60 m alt) 10. Begrenzung der Schräglage im Landeanflug bei Direktorsteuerung und automatischer Steuerung (limiter during landing approach) 11. Begrenzung des Anstellwinkels auf 18° bei automatischer Steuerung ( limiter for AoA 18°) 12. Begrenzung der Überlast bei „Stabilisierung“ und „Rückführung“ (max g limiter)

No, there they descripe the emergency flight controll system of the early MiG-21 prototypes. There electric driven backup systems were installed which caused a fatal crash of one prototype. Thatswhy the following planes got a hydraulic backup system. LSK and later Luftwaffe had only MiG-23ML, no MLD. MLD was the next development step. Our 23 were MLA standard. How exactly the MiG-23 autopilot system worked i dont know. If i remember right it was a 3 axis system, that acted as a limiter to avoid dangerous flight conditions. I will try to get contact with german MiG-23 gurus and i hope that i will can give you than a proper answer (i hope that my english will be good enough for it). Wether the Luftwaffe had tested the MiG-23 i cant answer. I know that they intensivly tested the Su-22 and MiG-29. The MiG-21 were not tested, but with the MiG-23 i dont know. I only know, that the Luftwaffe officers were very impressed by the weapon control system and the missiles. In 1990 the Luftwaffe had had nothing comparable. (F-4F ICE came some years later)

The USA got the MiG-23MS from Egypt. But they got it without full documentation. Especially the documentation of the autopilot was not handed out. The MiG-23 was always flow with autopilot support. Without this support it was a beast with bad flight performance. This was the result the US pilots found out. It would be interessting to hear what they tought about the MiG-23ML which they got from Germany after unification. If i remember right 15 or so MiG-23ML were flown to Ramstein AB, handed over to the USAF and were flown in the USA. There they were used in OPFOR units for a longer period. MiG-23ML at Ramstein AB If you talk with german MiG-23 pilots they always praise the 23 as a plane with good flight charakteristics. Only the MiG-23BN is said, to be a beast, because the autopilot was not efficient enough for low flight profiles. That caused some deadly crashed.

Its a joke, isn't it?