Gepard

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?

Everytime when the west drops bomb to bring freedom and democracy into the arb world it end in a disaster. Everytime if the west supports groups of freedom and democracy the final winners are the terrorists. It was in Afghanistan were the "so" democratic Mudjahedin became the taliban. And now it are the "so" democratic arab spring revolutionaries who showed a very ugly face. Does nobody learns from the mistakes of the past?

Would be very unhealthy in Isreal then. Very high radioactivity and it would become very cold and dark. Not really good idea.

When i came home from work at this day, i found my wife sitting for the TV watching something what i thought it was a Hollywood thriller. Burning Sykscrapers, it must be a Hollywood blockbuster. An so i said: "Do you have nothing better on TV, than this strange movie?" And she answered "Its no movie, its real." . . . A long silence and then my words : "Oh s**t!" and my thought "That means war!" I think the most of us know what they have done on this day and at the moment when the skyscrappes burned. Salute to the people who lost their live. Salute to the firefighters Salute to the rescue teams. Salute to all brave men and women. :salute: :salute:

You are right, that the Skoshi Tiger was the most agile plane in US inventory, but only if you see North and South Vietnam as one theatre. The F-5A and E were never used over the north. They were used only in South Vietnam, so that their air superiority was wasted. By the way, personally i believe that the small Tiger was the best US plane in that timeframe of Vietnam war, but i think other guys have other favorits. And to your second point. I wanted to show, what the manuals stated (the data i posted are taken from a east german flight manual of the MiG-21F-13) and that was a plane was able to withstand were two different figures. And i wanted to show how the max g loads differed at different fuel loads. That other planes could reach a max g of 12 or 15 is not disputed by me. The MiG-21 was not the strongest plane, there were a lot of types which were much stronger. And i also dont want to say, that the MiG-21 was the best of the best fighters. That american pilots were unable to get the maximum out of the MiG-21 had a lot to do with a completly different design philosophy. The american planes had very comfortable cockpits, while the MiG cockpits were very small. The data system are completly different, metric vs imperial, what means, that you must first calculate befor you can act if you have a bird with the wrong data display system. My personal experience is, that i get better results in game if i fly the F-4 with showing datas in metric than in imperial style. And an other experience i made: A lot of east german car drivers had had no problems to switch from the old and outdated Trabant car to modern western car and drove the western car in a good way. The other way was much more difficult, i have rarely seen guys who have learned driving on a comfortable western car who were able to drive the Trabi in a good and efficient style. Its simpler to "upgrate" than to "downgrate". Thats so in cars and for planes too. For an american pilote the step from Phantom to the MiG-21 was a very big downgrate, so he has big problems to drive the MiG to their limits. But this does not mean, that a guy, who had always been a MiG jock wont also be unable to reach the limits of a MiG-21.