Manny

Would not the manufacturer have an absolute maximum and a operational maximum limited by the FCS? Could those two numbers be equivalent? I highly doubt it. The MiG-25 info I posted recorded a maximum of 11 gs, exceeding the operational limit, but not the maximum structural since the aircraft returned to base iintact.

Well, GG, if that is true and 9 is a nominal structural limit, then the Eagle must return for maintenance requiring airframe repair all the time. Perhaps the Eagle is G-limited to 9 but manufactured structurally for 12...this I do not know as I don't have the manufacturer's design information. The MiG-25 info I posted in another thread recorded it pulling 11+ gs during training :confused: poor pilot but they wrote off the airframe when the plane landed.

quote=Sundowner.pl I have to disagree with you, the rotating blades give a very strong echo, and can be seen by radar from long ranges, a helo like Mi-8 have RCS of the rotor itself in 8m^2 range (6 or less for new composite ones). This is highly logical. If one has ever been exposed to an Electro-magnetic test environment and observed, in an Electro-magnetic chamber, mechanical stirrer in operation, a parallel can be drawn for rotor blades of course revolving at a much higher revolution but still slower than the speed of light. In prinicple, the rotor blades would be the equivalent of a solid disc partially scattering and/or interrupting the fuselage RCS but still allowing detection. This is, of course, similar to receiving RADAR echoes off stage-1 intake fans of jet engines. Thats enough for radar which wavelength is in millimeters. Trust me on this one, I live all my life with helos and their crews. Exactly why, in an EM environment, rotor blades unmask helos from a distance when "looking" down upon them. At near level flight, the handle between the pilot's legs are the safest choice.

Goya, lol what are you describing here? Is this how you feel about the F-15? I would hate to read your description of the MiG-29 :p

Typical... :icon_jook

I think if I have provided anything within this thread it is certainly a counter opinion to this so I am clueless as to your comment. ;)

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China or the XBox 360 in Japan? Point I made was simple: The notion of the invincible and/or the untouchable is a fallacy as applied consistently by many to military aviation. To that order, the notion of stealth somehow ruling the skies is as plausible to the Klingons stealthing their Birds of Prey to avoid detection. Last I recall in those episodes, didn't someone find a way to detect them anyway. Of course that is television at it's best but the prinicple applies in earnest here. Nonetheless, the number of SAMs shot is irrelevant since the compression of the air is the only factor less shrapnel that kills at high altitude... need a lot of overpressure to bring down a dot in the sky. The fallacy was proven once Power's feet touched Soviet soil. Oh, GG, for a good read about the MiG-25 and the SR-71, head over to here http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/mig25.html I know of no attempts made other than SAMs to engage an SR-71. Some interesting facts about the MiG-25: Although Viktor Belenko's aircraft was eventually returned to the USSR, it was first dismantled and carefully analysed by the Foreign Technology Division; now called the National Air and Space Intelligence Center of the USAF, at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. After 67 days the aircraft was returned to the Russians in pieces. The analysis of Belenko's aircraft, which was brand new, showed some surprising facts: The MiG-25 was built primarily of nickel-steel, and not titanium as supposed. Some titanium was used in heat-critical areas. The steel construction contributed to its massive 64,000 lb (29 t) unarmed weight. Welding was done by hand and construction was relatively crude. Like most Soviet aircraft, in areas that would not adversely affect aerodynamic drag, rivet heads were left exposed. The majority of the on-board avionics was based on vacuum tube technology, not solid state electronics. Though the Mig-25's electronics were ridiculed in the West, many experts found it ingenious and quite practical to use vacuum tubes as, compared with transistor technology, they were less suceptible to radiation (for example, EMP) in case of nuclear warfare. The MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name 'Foxfire') radar had enormous power of about 500 kilowatts, allowing it to burn through hostile ECM, but requiring vast amounts of pure alcohol for cooling. Pilots were forbidden to engage the radar on the ground, and legend held that it was powerful enough to kill rabbits near runways. The airspeed indicator was redlined at Mach 2.8, and pilots were required not to exceed Mach 2.5. The Americans had witnessed a MiG-25 flying at Mach 3.2 over Israel in 1973, a flight that had resulted in the total destruction of its engines. The Americans were unaware of the inevitability of the destruction, which helped to fuel the myths about the aircraft's capabilities. Combat radius was 186 miles (300 km), and maximum range on internal fuel (at subsonic speeds) was only 744 miles (1,200 km). In fact, Belenko had only just made it to Japan without running out of fuel - without sufficient fuel for a carefully planned landing, he narrowly missed a commercial airliner taking off, and overran the available runway on landing. Maximum acceleration (g-load) rating was just 2.2 g (22 m/s²) with full fuel tanks, with an absolute limit of 4.5 g (44.1 m/s²). This was significantly poorer performance than the previous generation F-4 Phantom. One MiG-25 withstood inadvertent 11.5 g (113 m/s²) pull during low-altitude dogfight training, but the airframe had to be written off due to deformation. When the appearance of the Foxbat became known to the West, it was alleged that the design of the MiG-25 was based on the North American A-5 Vigilante. Both aircraft have the same general layout (the A-5 was also initially designed with twin-tailfins), but the Foxbat has its origins in the MiG-21, rather than the VigilanteThe MiG-25`s acknowledged combat record by the West is one F/A-18 Hornet during the Second Gulf War, when a Iraqi MiG-25PD shot down a U.S. Navy F/A-18C on January 17, 1991, 29 nautical miles southeast of Baghdad. Nevertheless, some F-15s have been claimed by the Syrian Air Force (however, most sources say that, to date, no F-15s have been shot down in A2A combat).

I am sure the same general malaise was spoken of the U-2 program. If you fly high enough, the Soviets can't touch you, they don't have the technology or capability. I am also sure Mr. Powers, while sipping his afternoon tea and marvelling at the curvature of the earth, was awaken sharply to find some very large exploisons going off near and ahead of his aircraft. It was only then Mr. Powers knew he was not dreaming that his feet hit terra firma and the sound of Soviets surrounding him was enough to put that premenition to rest. The whole reason the SR-71 and later spy satellites were deveoped was to counter the harsh reality of overflying airspace.

That is possibly a good reason... I do know the Navy is working on a Helmet Mounted Sight and they have demonstrated at the test range they can point-n-shoot an AIM-9...this looks promising. You do sound awfully biased and higly opinionated against Russian technology???? "unlike aircraft whose radar sucked?" That is a stretch to home plate...

If so, then why haven't manufacturers and the Military required it be employed on all aircraft?

quote=GGTharos Actually ... yes, it will. That's its purpose. I am not convinced IRSTs are notoriously short ranged in the forward quarter. I think there are some gross misconceptions as to just how much the leading edges heat up in high altitude supersonic flight and just how much atmosphere inhibits IRSTs. Sure they are by nature of the eminating source being small. Smaller, at times, than background radiation and effective to a certain distance. If the F-22 is gonna supercruise at over Mach 1, I think there will be quite a bit of IR radiation. Just my opinion. No, the F-22 is a 'full stealth' design. All aspects - sure, some less, some more, but it's no 'frontal stealth only' design or 'stealth front' and 'stealthed otherwise' liek the F-35. Still my opinion. The variety of radar types in service today will have to prove that. It's invisible in BVR insifar as weapon systems are involved. What more do you need than making the enemy's weapons incapable of tracking you? On the other hand, YOUR systems are tracking THEM just fine. EWRs can detect it all they want. The systems the stealth is designed against, WILL NOT WORK. THose systems are fighter and missile radars working within certain frequencies (and no, they won't be changing frequencies to ones outside of those spectra any time soon) Your opinion, I respect that. Stealth aircraft in transit will use radar beacons so that they -can- be tracked, until such a time that they wish to dissapear. In addition, if you're close enough to a radar (ie enough power is radiated at you) naturally, the return will be 'large enough'. IIRC those fighters flew quite close to one ;) If I am not mistaken, these aircraft were not detected while their beacons were on. Even if proximity to the radiator resulted in detection, the notion of invisibility is false. But again, my opinion I could be wrong. Yeah, too bad you're wrong. The crew knew the F117 was coming because the route had not been changed for several sorties - there were also allegations of a leak but I won't touch that one too much. This is almost an exact quote from a site where this was discussed and I find no evidence to the fact when I examined the testimony of the Serbians. The SA-3 uses a long-wavelength radar (much like an EWR), which was able to pick up the F117 when it came close, but the missile was command-guided and just as likely command-detonated ... and they didn't launch just one missile, they launched a volley and hoped to monte-carlo the F117. It wa sa 'damned good shot', but it's the exception and not the rule - they basically took the shotgun aproach to shooting one aircraft down. The SA-3s capability is quoted correctly but to think it was a lucky shot is agreeing to what the comon opinion is that stealth is invisible and it was pure luck. I do not believe this but that is my opinion.

Didn't know that as I haven't studied the aircraft. Is that classified info?

Yeah, it has 2 IRST systems? I was wondering when the US would catch up with the Soviets in the use of that tech. Well playing field is a bit more even now, eh? I heard the Soviets borrowed the concept from the Bell Cobra and mad a practical IRST system that is usable.... can anyone cofirm this?

Well, the laws of physics are certainly not somehow manipulated to the advantage of stealth technology either GG. It is my opinion that completely inhibiting B & H field electromagnetic radiation is impossible, there will still be leakage. There is no technology that prohibits total external reflection either. The RCS may be reduced to the size of a bird on radar, but that doesn't mean it will be filtered to noise levels either. The F-22 itself will be radiating high frequency E-Mag energy from its' own radar to search for aircraft. EWRs will be alive even if the F-22 is also attempting to Jam in an attempt to degrade them. An F-22 supercrusing at above Mach 1 will have highly visible Infrared radiation due to local heating of the skin. An Infrared Search and Track will likely have no problem simply seeing the F-22. Also, the greatest effect of attempting to inhibit E-Mag is forward aspect. If the F-22 conducts maneuvering outside that aspect, there will likely be a full bloom on the enemy radar. What about attackers approaching from all multiple quadrants? The F-22 is simply not "invisible." If it can be seen non-BVR, it will be killed. If it can be detected, primarily by ground control first then vectoring planes to turn on your radar and "look here", it will be detected. It is also a fact that the French received radar returns from F-117 Stealth Fighters during the Gulf War. French Radar tracked the F-117s in a fligtht and had to confrim to US Command these aircraft were theirs. Even further than that, Serbians using a modified SAM, locked onto an F-117 overflying the region and engaged it, destroying the aircraft. Much has been written regarding this. Perhaps the Serbians had hacked into comms, knew the routes, and conducted hotshot procedures in the hopes to down one. I don't think this is the case. I feel certain the 117 was re-radiating the SAM's E-Mag and BOOM, gotcha.

quote=peterj Does forward slip mean you set it at an angle? A forward slip is excuted when the upwind wing (that side of the aircraft wind is originating) rolled or banked into the wind and rudder is used to counteract the natural tendency for centripetal force to turn the aircraft. because I havn't been able to do that with the 25t in lock on, it will blow the tires. The tire weakness seems a bit overmodelled thought. A Forward slip can be done in LO-MAC. It it more difficult to control vertical descent and settling too hard on one wheel will result in a burst tire. I conducted some experiments on undercarraige durability. I determined it takes a sharp vertical load on the main gear to bend them, a hard lateral side load to pop a main tire, and an excursion of the nosewheel in either direction at sufficient speed to pop all tires. It does not appear sensitive to me and can take quite a punishment. Even off-field landings (not recommended) at high weight can put some punishment on the undercarraige itself without damaging anything. --

quote=192nd_Erdem I think it's realistic and you're just beating a by opening this thread. Lol Erdem, where did you get that animated GIF from? So applicable!

quote=S77th-GOYA And it is NOT realistic. Goya, I suggest you run now...:p You are gettin in too deepr; the only escape is to consider that this thread never started ;)

Oh no I can't take it anymore ... take a look at the monster I started, so many regrets ... they hijacked my thread and it is near 30 pages of endless Tunguska babble ... one can pen an encyclopedia volume on Tunguskas alone with all the information in there. Please don't start another!!!111 :p

quote=Yellonet ...swingwings are just for old planes that can't go fast/slow without them.. As applied to the F-14, for the purpose of storing the aircraft onboard the carrier...and better maneuverability at lower speeds...but the wings, if fully extended, would have very large sub and transonic drag. ...the AIM-54 isn't all that good... Well during qualification trials for the U.S. Navy, they successfully engaged 5/6 drones. ...and the dude in the back is just more dead weight ;) Hehe

FF, question. Why would one remove lift during a crab? For better tire adhesion to the runway? Are you refering to techniques heavier aircraft, such as a 747, employ on dangerous approaches such as into Kai Tok? However, for an aircraft that size with that much square area per foot of lift, spoilers are a must. For an Su-25T, why would you reduce lift at low speeds during a crab? Perhaps to "plant" the aircraft on the runway? I assume this is done immediately upon touchdown. By far, the easiest method to accomplishing the landing is with crab on short final then forward-slip prior to touchdown. Even in real world flying, that is what I have always done although the tires squealed a bit until the plane settled onto the gear...perhaps dumping lift is a good idea to settle down quicker.

You guys have hijacked my thread!!!!111:icon_evil The question is can a Tunguska engage surface to surface? Bahh who cares, the real question is can it engage a Maverick. Consider the following: The SA-19 GRISOM (9M111) is a radar command guided, two-stage surface to air missile mounted on the 2S6 Integrated Air Defense System. The 2S6 vehicle is fitted with two banks of four missiles in blocks of two, which can be elevated vertically independent of each other. The SA-19 can engage aerial targets moving at a maximum speed of 500 meters/second at altitudes ranging from 15 to 3,500 meters, and at slant ranges from 2400 to 8000 meters. The missile's high-explosive fragmentation warhead is actuated by a proximity fuse if the missile passes within 5 meters of the target. The SA-19 is supported by the HOT SHOT radar system, which consists of a surveillance radar with a maximum range of 18 km, and a tracking radar with a maximum range of 13 km. The semi-automatic radar to command line-of-sight engagement requires the gunner to track the target using the roof-mounted stabilized optical sight. The SA-19 is claimed to have a kill probability of 0.65. Specifications Chassis:Ural-53234 8 x 8 truckCrew3Armament12 57E6 SAMs, 2 2A72 30 mm gunsMissileGuidance systemradio commands with IR or radio direction findingMaximum speed1,100 m/secTime of flight to 10 km range14 secWeightWith container90 kgLaunch weight65 kgContainer diameter170 mmLength in container3.2 mWarhead type:fragmentation rodWarhead weight16 kgGunCalibre30 mmTotal rate of fire700 rds per minuteMuzzle velocity960 m/secProjectile weight0.97 kgAmmunition load750 roundsRadarRange, with target reflection surface of 2-3 sq cmTarget detectionat least 30 kmTarget trackingat least 24 kmKill zoneMissilesRange1,000 to 12,000 mAltitude5 - 8,000 mGunsRange0.2 - 4,000 mAltitude0 - 3,000 mNumber of simultaneously engaged targets2Number of targets handled per minute10 - 12Reaction time5 - 6 sec Reference: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/sa-19.htm Also, consider this: The 2S6 vehicle carries two radars collectively known to NATO as "Hot Shot": 1RL144 E-band target acquisition radar with a maximum detection range of 20 km (12 miles) 1RL144M J-band target tracking radar with a maximum engagement range of 18 km (11 miles)It also incorporates the 1RL138 C/D-band IFF system and an optical tracking system. The 2S6 is able to use these systems to guide missiles to the target using radio command guidance in combination with automatic optical target tracking, or can feed the data into the fire control computer for aiming the guns, which consist of a four-barreled, high rate-of-fire (700 rounds-per-minute combined) 30mm cannon battery. The missiles are detonated using a proximity system when they are within 5 m (16 ft) of their target and have a kill probability (PK) of around 65%. Note that missiles can only be fired while the 2S6 system is stationary and due to the optical tracking method have extremely limited viability at night. There is much information out there regarding the Tunguska that one can shake at the tunguska vs. Maverisk discussion but true data is when, during a war, a Tunguska actually engages a Maverick and destroys it. Perhaps it wil not be the crew but someone with visual acuity to the A-10 that releases the missile from altitude and observes its' contrail alerting the Tung crew that has already identified the A-10 and can now optically track the Mav.

Depede, refer to the following text below. Registered Fraps is $31 at version 2.7.1 This is not necessarily the preferred method since the LO-MAC methhod records irrespective of frame rate. Nonetheless: apollosmith at Ubi: Here's what I do to make my movies and it works pretty well, so I thought I'd share. First suggestion: If you're not going to take some time to make a half-decent video, please don't waste my time and bandwidth. The action doesn't have to be spectacular, but if you don't take the time to make the video look nice, please don't start. Second of all, if you want to make quality movies, you're going to have to have a fairly high end computer. I suggest a secondary hard drive (at least 7200 rpm) to capture your video files to. I use Fraps 2.0 set to 'Half-size' and 25fps. My game settings are all set to the same settings I play with normally - 1024X768 with most everything maxed out. This means that Fraps will capture at 512X384 and 25fps. When I start capturing video, the frame rate in the game is going to drop to around 10-15 fps. That's OK. If it's too slow, just turn down graphics settings until you get between 10-15 fps. It will still be jerky, but that's OK because we'll fix this in a minute. Before starting the video capture, make sure ALL unnecessary programs are turned off. Check your Windows services and stop any that you don't need. I recommend implementing the "Safe" configuration as outlined at http://www.blackviper.com/WinXP/servicecfg.htm Video capture smoothness relies upon processor speed and hard drive speed, so optimize them as much as you can. Defragment. If possible, capture to a large hard drive that does not contain either Lomac or your OS. Once you're in-game, just set up your mission, select 'Record Track', and fly your mission normally. Do not try to capture video while recording the track, just let Lomac record the track as you want it as you fly from the cockpit. Save your track, then play it back again. This time, start setting up camera angles and recording video clips. MOVIE MAKING HINT: Most individual 'takes' should be no longer than a few seconds. Just watch MTV or an action movie for a minute and you'll notice that exciting movies keep the camera in one place for an average of 2-3 seconds. Long, drawn out scenes of your plane are boring. Most Lomac movies out there could be half their length and would be much more enjoyable. Before hitting the Fraps 'Capture' hotkey, slow down the Lomac simulation rate (Alt+A) to half or 1/3 speed. This will allow you to have extremely smooth video in the end. When I am just watching a track at normal speed, my frame rate is around 30 fps. However, when I capture, that drops to around 12 fps. So by slowing it down to 1/2 speed, I now see around 60 frames per second of real-time action. But when I capture at 1/2 speed, even though the game is displaying around 12 fps, I am capturing around 25 frames per second of real-time action. So, Fraps will be capturing about 12 fps of game play into 25 fps of video. Yes, everything will appear in slow motion, but when we speed it up later with Premiere, we'll get 25 fps (or more) of smooth, real-time gameplay. If 1/2 speed is too choppy, go down to 1/3 speed or even 1/4 speed. This will result in VERY LARGE video files, because it will take 2, 3, or 4 seconds of video to capture one second of gameplay. Capture the track from multiple angles so you have plenty of footage to deal with when you start editing. Once you're done, open Premiere and set up a custom project. Select 'Video for Windows' as type. Set the dimensions to the exact size of the video you captured (mine is 1/2 of 1024X768, or 512X384, which happens to be an excellent size for the final encoded movie as well). Set the frame rate to 25 fps (or whatever you set Fraps to). Set fields to 'No Fields (Progressive Scan)' and select square pixels. This will make your Premiere settings to be the same as your captured video. Now start editing your video. Import your clips and start adding them to the timeline. Because you captured at a slower rate, you'll have to speed up the footage in Premiere (Clip menu... Speed). But, before doing this, you have to worry about audio. When you play a track at 1/2 speed, the audio does not play in 1/2 speed, it plays in full speed. This means that the sound of popping flares sounds the same at 1/2 and full speed - the pitch does not change, but it is still synchronized with the video action. If you speed up the final clip, then the audio is going to speed up as well, making it change pitch and sound like the Chipmunks. Premiere does have a 'Maintain pitch' feature, but it doesn't work very well. So, you want to have the audio speed remain unchanged while the video speed is increased. Do this by unlinking the audio and video for a clip on the timeline (Select the clip and then choose the Clip menu... Unlink Audio and Video). Now select the video clip and Clip... Speed and set a value of 200% if you captured at 1/2 speed. You can create some cool effects by making the gameplay footage faster or slower than normal, or even changing the speed part way through to get a slow-mo or fast-forward effect. The video length is now half of what it originally was, but the audio is the same length (now twice as long as the video). You now have the arduous task of trying to synchronize audio with the video. This is easy with most clips (such as a fly-by), just crop the audio to the length of the video and synchronize them. However, this is really difficult if there is audio events that must be synchronized exactly with the video (such as a clip where you fire 3 missiles). Because the audio is twice as long as the original video, the sound of the firing missiles takes twice as long as it does in the video and will not synchronize. In this case, I end up cutting my audio so that I have one missile sound. I then duplicate this clip 3 times and place it on the stage to synchronize with each missile fire. I then take a 'jet' sound from another clip that might match the angle of my missiles clip and copy it to another audio track to get a continuous background sound. It can be very arduous, but it results in very good quality audio and super smooth video. You can even add cool effects, like missile, explosion, or flare sounds in angles that otherwise wouldn't have them. When you're done editing, export a full quality .avi file. Then use whatever encoding program you want to compress the full .avi. I use divx. IMPORTANT: The most important thing is to never compress, resize, or change frame rate of your video until you are compressing the final clip. NEVER, EVER change the frame rate from 25fps and the dimensions from what you originally captured while you're editing. If you want to make changes, let your encoding software do it, not your authoring software. I capture at 512X384 and 25fps and encode my final video at the same dimensions and frame rate. The only thing I do is compress the video using Divx. NEVER, EVER compress already compressed video. Export at full, uncompressed quality, then let Divx (or Windows Media, or Quicktime, or whatever) do the work. Your final video should be no more than 6 or 7 MB per minute and should look chrystal clear. I use Dr. Divx and tell it to compress to a certain file size (i.e., if my video is 5 minutes long, I multiply 5 X 7MB to get 35MB, and set Divx to make the final video that size). Wow, that was long. If you have any questions or suggestions, send them along. If you'd like, I'll add some tips later on adding camera shake and some ideas on setting up cool camera angles. Here's a movie I did with this setup - http://smithplanet.com/loomingthreat.zip -Smitty Reference: http://forums.ubi.com/groupee/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=829104012&m=825106522

Well put Konkussion. Muamshai, this is not a uinque thread as konkussion stated. If you want to know the difference, requesting opinions will lead you to one conclusion, an intangible opinion about a game. You would certainly receive more valuable information if you were to request approrpiate settings upon which to run LO-MAC. I understand the intent of your thread and your desire but seriously consider owning both products. I have both and I tend to use LO-MAC more. That does not imply one or the other has precedence as I still use both. If you want to know for yourself, you should consider investing in LO-MAC.

Unfortunately, aircraft in LO-MAC can't interchange loadouts. IT would be interesting to see an A-10 deploying a Vikhr.