SwingKid

Hmm - would this be as much fun without an RWR? (no sarcasm - serious question) -SK

Disappearance? True.. -SK

...from 1980... -SK

Ironically enough, for the sole purpose of getting it out of the Black Sea. (The treaty actually restricts passage though the Straits of Bosporus.) But Ice is right - the treaty is hardly important, when putting a carrier in the Black Sea during wartime would be purposeless suicide anyway. Then again, I'm also not a fan of lining up 16 tanks on a road in broad daylight to be wiped out by Vikhr missiles, or sending my pilots without RWR onto a battlefield with radar-guided AAA. *sigh* War is so stupid. -SK

We don't? How is it different from the formula of DCS:Flanker 2.0? -SK

For what purpose? (that involves the Ka-50?) -SK

Mmm. Perfect example. ;) -SK

There is an international treaty banning aircraft carriers from the Black Sea. Therefore, including this unit in Black Shark would detract from the realism of the product. The R-27AE was removed for a similar reason. -SK

oh good grief... Don't you guys have more important things to read? e.g. THE ANNOUNCEMENT?! thanks :blush: -SK

...and Vulcan, and Chaparral, and Israel... :weight_lift_2: -SK

Correct - loft is optimized for a max-range flight profile, NOT max speed. Select the AIM-120B, set both gravity factor and preprogrammed loft to zero (to eliminate any drag from control surfaces) set Launch Speed to 1 km/h (to minimize frontal drag), and hit "Launch". You'll see that the maximum obtained Mach was 2.65 M. At least two sources have suggested the aerodynamic drag in miniZAP is a bit too low, so the only way this missile could have a faster speed in real life is if I guessed its propellant impulse too low at 230. The highest reasonable number that we could put here is 270, which still only gets you to Mach 3 in miniZAP's low-drag air. I just don't see how this missile can claim get to Mach 4 above its starting speed - even in a vaccuum! Sounds a bit like "plasma stealth" to me. ;) -SK

Yes, but only for my Lock On/Flaming Cliffs computer. ED software is unique in making disproportionate demands from the graphics card, which I was always careful to keep upgrading. All icing, no cake.. *sigh* -SK

I agree with Rhen and lean far more towards the first answer. It obviously isn't quite as simple as a basic addition, but that seems far more correct than to say the AMRAAM reaches "terminal velocity" at Mach 4 with the engine running. I think that even the sustain motor will keep the missile accelerating all the way to its burnout, nowhere near terminal velocity. On the other hand, I don't believe the implication that an AIM-120 can accelerate to Mach 4 from rest, i.e. claims of "Mach 4 plus the speed of the aircraft." Given the claimed weights of the missile and propellant, that doesn't seem to be physically possible even in a frictionless vaccuum. I suspect it should be around "Mach 3 plus the speed of the aircraft," which somehow went through a broken telephone to become Mach 4, and then Mach 4+, and then "Mach 4 plus the speed of the aircraft." -SK

1st question: Are we allowed to resume discussing Black Shark now, or are we still waiting for the "announcement?" -SK

Only in Russia... :) -SK

Такой? http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=41.382412,46.377583&spn=0.028916,0.079823&t=h&z=14&om=1 -SK

Аэродром города Зугдиди: -SK

Вид Ткварчели с Бывшем ТЭЦ (ниж. прав.): http://www.industcards.com/st-coal-elsewhere.htm здании U.N. в Зугдиди (ниж. прав.): http://www.unomig.org/print_multimedia/photogallery/?gid=28 ;) -SK

Two years after 1C sees a Russian movie with the GAZ-66 in it, and asks for one. -SK

You honor me. :blush: -SK

I don't remember saying that. Even if I knew the answer, I wouldn't say it. Even if ED knew the answer - I wouldn't believe them. Remember "there will be no problems with StarForce?" I ike to talk about the present, not the future. You must be confusing me with other people in that deleted thread, to whom I couldn't answer one way or the other. I referred their questions to the thread with the end-of-July update. No worries this time, but please - this is the first day in eight years when I can speak for myself. Don't take that away from me - not just yet. ;) Cheers, -SK

Yeah, but then you need to make the engine heavier in order to distribute the excess heat. Water would give you extra thrust without increasing the temperature of the engine. I think.. -SK

I think that more may be coming. http://forums.frugalsworld.com/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=37 -SK

Wow, I didn't even open this topic until now because I thought it was widely known. Yes, the right amount of water squirted into the engine can produce a large increase in thrust, as long as it fully and instantly evaporates from a compact liquid into a high-pressure vapor. The Soviets definitely fielded this on some early MiG, although I can't remember now if it was the MiG-21 or already on the first MiG-17F. That's the first time I heard of an afterburner that doesn't dramatically increase fuel consumption, however. I think there was a misunderstanding on that part. -SK

It's the long-awaited Inguri dam :) Google it, the images are nice -SK