If MLD tries to ditch MLA can follow it out easy as it accelerates slightly better and will have a higher airspeed at the start of the chase
Assuming MLD is a magic perfect player they can of course frustrate attempts to catch them with missiles but in a high speed tail chase they will be very vulnerable to guns as the MLD’s maneuverability really only becomes seriously better at below transonic speeds; if MLD tries to dump all their airspeed to force overshoot and force one circles MLA is in an easy position to deny at which point MLD is stuck too slow to escape. In my experience MLA would be advantaged on average and in the extreme between two perfect players
Aerodynamic angle meters are used to determine aerodynamic characteristics on airplanes. The main aerodynamic angles are the angle of attack and glide, which by their nature are aerodynamic parameters. Local and true aerodynamic angles are distinguished. By local (local) is understood such an angle, which characterizes the deviation of the air flow relative to the axis of the aircraft in the place where its meter is installed. The true angle is understood as the theoretical aerodynamic angle according to the basic definition of the angle of attack and glide, which determine the overall orientation of the aircraft’s construction axis relative to the airspeed vector.
The local angle differs from the true one by the amount of additional distortion of the airflow at the installation site of the meter on the aircraft.
The true angle of attack of ai, for example, can be represented as a deterministic dependence on the local angle of attack of ai (in the subsonic speed range):
In detail… 1.Измерители аэродинамических углов (studfile.net)
2. For MiG-23ML(23-12) with SOUA.“…To measure the angles of attack, in addition to the existing DUA-3M-1 sensor, a paired sensor was installed on the right in front of the cabin. In this regard, there was an opinion among other instrument makers that the installation of the second sensor was aimed at obtaining an average value of the angle of attack to minimize errors. In fact, the sensors were used in different systems: the left one provided data to the weapon system and self-propelled guns, and the right one served purely aerobatic purposes, providing information to the SOUA and extreme angle detectors in the cockpit. The right DUA was located slightly higher, almost along the construction horizontal of the aircraft and in the area of the nose amidships, where its
readings were most accurate.”
The second sensor on serial aircraft with the SAUA was also installed on serial MiG-23M and later modified the previously released MiG-23…
MiG-23ML/ MiG-23ML (A)/MiG-23MLD…
3.The SOS-3 system is installed on the MiG-23ML(A)/MiG-23MLD…why is this important-the MiG-29 also has the SOS-3 system…we have a description of her work…
“…according to SOS-3 with Mig-29
The input parameters of the system are the current values of α coming from 2 angle sensors and M of flight (a larger angle coming from one of the sensors is taken). In the system, the current α local is converted to α true. The ratio of the angles looks like this:
α local = 1.9 α east -6.5 ° And the stall of the aircraft occurs at α more than 32-36 °
Therefore, if the formula for the ratio of the local and true (current) angle is written, then it is solved and the true angle is displayed on the device.”
4.Therefore, there is a 99.9% probability…For the MiG-23 with two sensors, the TRUE ANGLE of attack is displayed on the instrument in the cockpit…it’s just that in the old textbook about this for the MiG-23ML(23-12)-they forgot to write about it …
To compare the cabin of the MiG-23MLD(23-22B) and the MiG-23MLD(23-18)…
To summarize, the SOS-3-4 was on the MiG 23ML(A) and MLD. The previous ones had an older alpha angle restriction system called SOUA.
SOS -3 showed the pilot the true AoA angles, and SOUA indicated ( probably).
MLD could go anywhere to true 32-34 AoA. M, MF somewhere towards 22 true AoA ?
I am wondering , ML was the first Soviet aircraft with a HUD ?
I’ve played nothing but sim for months recently, MLD’s very very good but it’s mostly just on account of being a MiG-23 that doesn’t have to deal with SPO-10. It’s in my subjective experience easier to dogfight with when your opponent makes mistakes and easier to capitalize on position in ways that others don’t expect a MiG-23 to move, but I still think that purely against each other the MiG-23 with less drag is advantaged between two players of similar skill and knowledge. I think the MLD is more versatile while the MLA is more dominant at the Flogger’s best asset; while this dialectic is not objectionable gameplay-wise I do not believe it is historical and I would prefer the MLD simply be an 11.7 with proper handling and R-73s in the same vein of balance as the J-8F
MiG-23M was the first single seat tactical fighter in the world to have a proper HUD, it was a bit
of a crowning achievement of the Flogger for the time and a big sell in the export market for the MiG-23MF
The MiG-23ML manual with the MLD addition seems to suggest that the flight control system of the MiG-23ML/A models and newer as @wasa850 stated use 1:1 AoA rather than indicated vs true. The MLD was the first MiG-23 variant to utilize the leading edge flaps during maneuvering combat and flights. This should improve the sustained turn rates, not deteriorate them. We can’t seem to convince Gaijin of this, however. They think it will only improve stability and AoA. It is also underperforming in the peak AoA it can pull.
That second half of that statement is doing a lot of work, The A-7D beat it by 2 years(1970) but isn’t a fighter, and the F-14A followed a year later (depends on if you count, production, First flight, Introduction or IOC dates ) into service (1973) but has two seats.
Further there is also the Blackburn Buccaneer and English Electric Lightning which did similar things in the late 50’s, but respectively are a bomber and an interceptor.
If MLD could go anywhere above 30 AoA, that’s pretty good. Anyone know how the handling of the aircraft deteriorated as the angle of attack increased ? I assume this is not simulated well in the game. Something like wing rock, roll restriction, buffet etc.
MLD is from the early 80’s, the Soviets did a very great job.
As the development of the first fourth-generation home-built fighters in the form of the MiG-29 (Fulcrum) and Su-27 (Flanker) was in a significant delay, OKB MiG was tasked with further expanding the flight envelope, especially in critical modes, of the last mass-produced model of the MiG-23 (Flogger) series, known as the MiG-23ML (Flogger G). The required modification of this airplane became known by the service designation MiG-23MLD (Flogger K) and the factory code designation iz.23-18 and in its original design form provided for a new wing leading edge with a different camber and a new vertical tailplane with a negative arrow angle. Taking into account the economical side of things, however, a much simpler solution in the form of air vortex generators and a modified control system was eventually preferred. The aforementioned air vortex generators modified the airflow around the fuselage and wing at critical angles of attack and took the form of one pair of vertical plates attached to the sides of the nose and one pair of so-called “dog teeth” woven into the roots of the leading edge of the fixed wing centre section. Their introduction brought with it not only a considerable improvement in manoeuvrability, but also a significant reduction in the tendency to spontaneous nose roll at critical angles of attack. However, the improvement in manoeuvrability compared to the MiG-23ML (Flogger G) was also due to the reduction of the leading edge angle of the outer wing moving parts from 47° to 33° in the middle position.
And last the introduction of a system that automatically ejected slots depending on the angle of attack and airspeed. The slots of the MiG-23MLD (Flogger K) could be used to increase the lift not only during take-off and landing, i.e. when the outer parts were set to the forward position, but also during manoeuvring, when the outer parts were set to the middle position. In addition, the advanced SOS-3-4 type automatic angle of attack limiter made the model noticeably safer to pilot in the limiting envelope modes compared to all previous versions of the MiG-23 (Flogger). Stalls and consequent fall to spin were very rare in the MiG-23MLD (Flogger K), thanks to all the above modifications. If it did happen, bringing the aircraft to a steady horizontal flight did not cause major problems, unlike all previous versions of the MiG-23 (Flogger).
It is not simulated well for most of the top tier fighters. The MiG-23MLD likely would have suffered pretty bad from wing rock due to the wing design. Long and think generally results in flexy wings.
Should the MiG-23 have a radar gun lead (EEGS)? I feel like it should given how the radar is connected to the gun sight but I can’t find any info on it.
Recently while going through the forum I found this image showing the sustained turn rate of the MiG-23ML at different wing angles and I was curious how the one in WT compares to that.
Here are the results:
MiG-23ML
12700 kg / 2x R-23R / 1000m ALT / 12:33 min of fuel
And if anyone doubts the test, yes, I know what is sustained turn rate and what is instantaneous turn rate, the test was done with SB controls (joystick) and I kept the same speed while circling around at 1000m alt.
Does anyone have similar chart but for the other MiG-23 variants?
