DarkFire

This. The weapon release system will automatically use whatever mode is appropriate. Place the piper over the desired target. If your current flight parameters allow for instant bomb release then that will happen. If not, the system will engage CCRP mode, in which case you'll need to fly wings-level and preferably at a steady pitch and speed until the weapons are released.

+1 for the campaign. I found it well written and enjoyable to fly with a good variety of mission types.

The user files area of the DCS web site has some Su-27 missions: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?arrFilter_pf%5Bfiletype%5D=1&arrFilter_pf%5Bgameversion%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bfilelang%5D=14&arrFilter_pf%5Baircraft%5D=23&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC&set_filter=Filter&PAGEN_1=2

If you watch the Steam video for DCS it explicitly stated that ED were planning to release a more advanced version of the Su-27 (27SM I think?) but there's a reason that never happened. I believe the reason in this case was that the aircraft is still in use by the Russian air force, is therefore classified and that the view of the Russian MOD was a simple "Nope." Sadly I think it's unlikely that we'll see modern Russian aircraft to the same extent as the more modern NATO airframes that are in development and/or planned on various road maps.

So to be clear, is the J-11A manual saying that it's dynamically variable based on current payload & fuel mass remaining?

I was under the impression that the DCS limiter is calibrated to 21,400Kg all-up weight. Did it change at some point to being a variable one? I honestly hadn't noticed.

Interesting article, thanks for posting that. I believe that the pilot of an Su-27S can override the limiter by exerting an extra force on the stick, but the ACS system also has a switch to disable the limiter, which is what I think holding down the W key simulates. It'd probably make more sense if the in-cockpit switch could be animated and the W key made a toggle rather than hold-to-activate.

I'd also love to have an A-1 Skyraider. Would make a brilliant old-school (up to 'Nam era) CAS and medium strike aircraft. Other than that? Some later variant of the A-6 Intruder and for me the holy grail would be a Tornado GR4.

Hmm you should have been good to go in that case. The only thing effecting the control surface rate in that case would be the fact that with wheels down the ACS would be in takeoff / landing mode rather than flight mode. As far as I'm aware the "W" key (as well as working the wheel brakes) simulates the AOA / G limiter disable / enable switch which is part of the ACS in the real Su-27. So, the question then is whether the ACS operates with different rate limits and/or different maximum deflections in 'takeoff / landing' mode than it does in 'flight' mode. Pretty sure that it does. I don't read Russian so can't comment on the actual Su-27S manual, but empirically this would make sense in order to provide best stability under low / slow / higher-AOA conditions (takeoff or landing).

Looks very interesting. I particularly like the separate briefing document. Thanks for all your efforts on this :thumbup:

What were the conditions of the test? By that I mean did you measure the rotation rate immediately following a cold start, or after a hot start, or under other conditions? I ask because I still think there's something going on with the hydraulic systems for a couple of minutes immediately after engine start Immediately after engine start the controls can be slow to respond, particularly mechanical device actuators such as the flaps and speed brake. Increasing RPM for a couple of seconds, e.g. to start a taxi, appears to normalise hydraulic function. It's almost like simulation of pressure build-up in the hydraulic system following engine start. I don't know if the Su-27 being an FC3 plane actually models that, but empirically the effect is there.

Comparisons aside, this is factually wrong. TsAGI deliberately included the leading edge wing root extension as the vortices they generate nearly doubles the lift generated by the wings at high AOA. This wasn't to compensate for a poor wing design, it was included simply to add lift under high AOA conditions. The LERX on the Su-27 wing is a much larger version of the idea that was first flown on our very own F-5. Whether or not the wing developed for the Su-27 and MiG-29 is superior or inferior to any western designs is irrelevant to the fact that the LERX were deliberately added not to compensate for an otherwise poor wing design but to provide lift at high AOA, a condition that the designers knew the aircraft in question would experience.

That makes sense, thanks for the info.

Hook? The F-15C had a tail hook at some point? Was a navalised version being considered?

PM inbound.

Agree, looking forwards to playing with the Tomcat. I guess most modern aircraft are pretty tame compared to the high performance prop planes of WW2.

Actually I agree completely with you: our Su-27 absolutely should have the deflection limiter modelled so as to be as accurate as possible. "Feet off the rudder" is a metaphorical phrase, since actual pilots typically use their feet to control the rudders. We as virtual pilots can of course can use hands, feet or whatever appendages are useful. My comment about conspiracy theories was not aimed at the fact that our Su-27 isn't complete. Watch the video that Gruja posted: in it he states that the DCS Su-27 has been deliberately constrained. If this is true then so has every other aircraft in DCS! The F-15C is missing half its radar modes, the A-10C is missing a bunch of stuff compared to the modern tranche of that aircraft, the list goes on. There are any number of reasons why ED or a partner dev team might not be able to model each and every feature of a particular aircraft, and we have also seen many times that development continues after an aircraft becomes available to us. Finally, anyone who's been around ED products for a while will be aware that they strive for maximum accuracy where possible, and that notional "balance" is not a consideration for them. Missing features are common for many reasons, but to suggest that one aircraft has been deliberately downgraded compared to others is totally illogical, hence the term conspiracy theory. And yes, in this case I do use the term as a pejorative. This particular conspiracy theory is not supported by facts, logic or the history of the development team behind DCS. DCS isn't a MOBA, first person shooter or a PVP RPG where balance is critical for the success of the game. DCS is about strict realism as far as is possible. Anyway, apologies for the wall of text. We agree entirely on the ideal of a fully modelled Su-27, but this notion that ED have deliberately crippled it is a conspiracy theory and an entirely irrational one.

FEET. OFF. THE. RUDDER!!!! None of what you did in that recording needed any rudder input whatsoever. If you're going to command full rudder deflection at that sort of airspeed then expect the stabs to break. The actual Su-27S manual says exactly that. ED deliberately degrading the Su-27? Remove the tin foil hat, suggesting such irrational conspiracy theories does nobody any credit.

Indeed you can. The flight control system will perform ~90% co-ordinated turns for you so using the rudder in normal flight simply isn't necessary. The only times you need to touch the rudder at all are: 1. To increase roll authority in high-AOA conditions. 2. Cross-wind landings. 3. Ground movement with significant wind conditions.

More temperamental than the Su-27? Bloody hell, that's going to be a challenge to fly then! :shocking:

Altitude is a tactical and operational question. The mission dictates the tactics and tactics dictate the weapons to be used. Generally flying low offers increased protection from detection by ground based radar and other air defences. Mixed with terrain following and a properly plotted route this can be a very effective defensive measure. The disadvantage of flying at low level (and this is true of all aircraft) is that fuel economy is much worse than it is at higher altitudes. Flying high offers different advantages: you'll be much more fuel efficient, your radar horizon is much larger so you'll detect targets at longer range, and your maximum speed increases as altitude increases. The disadvantages of flying at high altitude are that you're much more visible to ground based radars and air defence systems, and that at very high altitude the maneuvering performance of aircraft is significantly degraded. Typically strike aircraft will fly at altitude for fuel efficiency then drop down to low level on the ingress to the target area in order to mask themselves from air defences. Fighter aircraft tend to stay at higher altitudes in order to maximise radar performance and to ensure a decent time-on-station, at least when CAP is concerned. Flying at very high altitude (above 12,000m) also offers advantages as many aircraft simply won't expect you to be up there and therefore won't be scanning that altitude with their radar. It's worth noting though that as far as DCS aircraft are concerned only the F-15C, Su-27 and Mirage 2000 are really capable of combat operations at very high altitude. Really, the answer as to what altitude you should fly at is: what are you flying, and what are you trying to achieve?

It would also be worth considering the F-86 and MiG-15. Both have prehistoric performance by modern standards, but they can both be incredibly entertaining to fly and with the exception of the quaint but nearly useless gen. 1 IR missiles on the F-86, both are also strictly gunfighters.

Good find! :thumbup: So that desk setup in the photo I posted is almost certainly a home pit setup rather than an actual SPO-15. I don't think the RWR set in the video is a SPO-15 either as it has more rear hemisphere markings, but that aside those lamps appear to be pretty dim, particularly the red above / below indicators.

I've tried to find an actual photo of a SPO-15 in active use. The only thing I've been able to find appears to be a bench setup rather than a cockpit photo. No way to know whether the SPO-15 in the photo is genuine (doubtful, given the secrecy surrounding EWR equipment) or a setup built for a home pit. All those caveats being said, the LEDs do appear to be quite bright. The Su-27 cockpit in the background is part of the photo & not put there by me.

It's a combined G and AOA limiter, as confirmed by cockpit photos of the Su-27S and also confirmed by YoYo in a previous thread on the subject. However, it's calibrated for an all-up weight of 21,400 Kg which is pretty light for a Flanker. It also takes a little time to keep up with stick inputs, so a full stick deflection in a heavy flanker at high speed can still result in over-G and in extreme cases airframe failure. Apparently the original Su-27S did / does not have an adaptive limiter. More modern versions apparently do, but that's something that only came in with variants such as the Su-30MKi which also have a much more modern care-free-handling FBW system.