Cmptohocah

After the latest patch, Su-25T is invisible to other players of the same coalition in multiplayer (not sure about the opposite side). Also the positions of the 25s don't get updated on the map for the CGI controller.

I think these should be really available as presets rather than toggle up/down switches, as in the real Su-27 this is a rotary knob (in the picture it's the knob at the far left of the picture in the same vertical position as the tip of the gear lever).

Hi BIGENWY, was what BlackPixxel reported not recognized as a bug? Just double checking as there was no official response stating that this was/wasn't a bug. I too love flying Russian jets, and it's sad to see them fall behind as other modules are taking over the DCS world. Kind regards,

When trying to bomb with 500kg bunker busters (not the parashoute version) in both CCRP and CIP the bombs fall short of the target. They seem to be working fine on Su-27/33, but an "A" variant of the 29, has this issue consistently.

Believe it or not, I am using a stop-watch :doh:

In case of R-27, sometimes you need not do anything :music_whistling::lol:

How do you get all that data to be displayed in the label in TacView?

I understood it like this: Airplane: hey "T" do you see that target over there? R-27T: yup, I see it with my own eye. Airplane: ok, let me check the range for you... target is in range, you are good to go! R-27T: thanks for your help, I will see you latter!

I am planning on doing flight tests in DCS and will post the results here.

Hi Yo-yo, is performance line for max AoA, or...? What "state" is the aircraft in when getting these results (red/blue lines)?

Well, looks like you are right. I did some flight testing in DCS and a MiG-29S @ full AB does: M0.36 (420km/h) 4G (80°) > Turn rate = 16.6 °/s The turn radius was around 900m. Now there is a question of: why is that? I am yet to understand how 80° bank and constant airspeed and altitude yield such low Gs. :huh: Here is the video:

Yes, those V-n diagrams are a bit difficult tricky to analyze, I must admit. For example, when it comes to the sustained turn rates: what are the Gs being pulled in this particular case? For the "instantaneous turn performance" it is quite clear: the highest attainable G and the lowest airspeed give the highest turn rate (omega), which in this case is 10G, 580km/h and (I am guessing, as it doesn't really say on the diagram) around 400m turn radius.

Well that's a bit disappointing :(. I never considered my self an English native speaker, but I also didn't expect for people not to understand me. :D Anyway to put it in very simple terms: highest possible angle of attack (AoA) = highest possible lift highest possible lift = highest possible G load highest possible G load + slowest possible speed = smallest turn radius and highest possible rate of turn Load only depends on the bank angle: Both turn rate and turn radius depend on load + true airspeed (TAS). When it comes to the MiG-29 turn performance, I will make a video once I am back from my holidays to demonstrate what I mean and post it here. And also the minimum turn radius. Max turn rate and min turn radius are intrinsically coupled.

Did you read what I wrote above? Of course that a 2.6G turn, will not have the same turn rate as an 8G turn. The bank angles are completely different and so are the loads. Now, why the F-16 can't pull more than 2.6G at M0.3 is a different thing. Let's say you are happily flying the "tightest turn radius" in your F-16 and I come along with my MiG-29 in full AB pulling some 6G or so at 450km/h (M0.36). Do you think we would have the same turn performance?

So the original statement was: In a constant speed, altitude and coordinated turn the slower the aircraft flies (the lower the TAS - true air speed), the tighter the turn - highest turn rate (TR) / lowest radius of turn (RT). A simplified explanation of this could be something like this: In order for an airplane to turn, two things are needed: 1. "pulling" force that tends to bring the airplane to the center of the turn circle 2. forward motion "Pulling" force is provided by a component of lift and this is what we popularly call "G", or rather "G-load". We all know that lift in aircraft is produced by the airflow over the lift surfaces, but let's briefly substitute this force with a string. So imagine that the airplane is suspended by cables (one making sure that the airplane stays in the air, ie. counters the weight; one providing the "pulling" force needed to turn), but there is no forward motion, ie. engines are turned off. What would happen is that the airplane would just move in a straight line in the direction of the "pulling" force (towards the banked side) - it would move like a helicopter, just "slewing" to the side. So we can think of the G-load as a sort of "turning potential". The more G you pull, the higher the potential to turn, but without the forward motion there is no turning (no circle is being described, no heading change occurs). I think a good analogy would be the amount of steering wheel turn in a car. This is where forward motion comes into play. You can think of it as the "time" that the airplane has in order to use that "turning potential" and convert it into a turn - the lower the speed the less time an airplane has to use the available G's, the higher the turn rate (TR) and lower the radius of turn (RT). Note that TAS is the one that is important here and not the IAS. You can test this in DCS by making a turn at a certain constant bank angle, let's say 60 degrees, for example, and varying the airplane speed. Let's say in the first test you are doing 1000km/h TAS and in the second you are doing 500km/h. A 60deg of bank will yield 2G of force, so your load in both cases is exactly the same, but since you are doing half the forward speed in the second case you will "draw" a smaller circle. In order to go around a smaller circle you need to change the heading quicker, hence where the higher TR comes from. :smartass:

On the manufacturer's site it says the following about the R-27T/ET: "The missile guidance system employs an updated proportional navigation method with the target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier." [http://eng.ktrv.ru/production/military_production/air-to-air_missiles/r-27t1_-_r-27et1.html] Does anyone know what "updated proportional navigation method" means? Looks like this part puts a nail in the coffin when it comes to data-link capability: "target lock-on accomplished on the suspension under the carrier."

I can confirm this. There seems to be a certain amount of pitch instability especially when getting close to the max AoA. I've also noticed it when trying to determine a stall speed for a certain weight and at one point, just before the stall, the nose just started wobbling. The conclusion of my test was that the maximum angle of attack for that certain weight was between 20 and 25 degrees :D - that's 5 degrees uncertainty. The same effect can be experienced when trying to get into max sustained turn in a level flight. Even with small inputs on the stick, the pitch runs away from you and you suddenly end up loosing a lot of airspeed. It can be, to a certain extend, mitigated by wobbling the joystick (up-down) which seems to calm the "beast" down a bit. I know it sounds silly, but it works.

Don't know about the SAMs, but if the AMRAAMs were shot from outside your RWRs limits (high and close for example) then you will not hear any warning. Same thing happens if you engage someone from 12km altitude at 20km. Even if you are only using SARH they won't hear any launch warning.

Now I am even more confused. :D In order for the system to issue a launch authorization of an R-27ET, I guess, it needs to know the range to the target. So far so good. Now, if the laser is limited to much less range, btw I also think 10km sounds about right, than the ET's seeker this has to be compensated by the radar. This means that at ranges longer than the laser ranger can cover the radar has to be ON, ie. a stealthy (no-radar) attack at ranges longer than 10km, is not possible since the other A/C's RWR will pick up the radiation. Am I understanding this right?

Yes, you are right: these are two different things. Former is the angular change of direction expressed as degrees/s and the latter is the radius of an inscribed circle in a turn. However, they are (due to geometry, or rather kinematics) in direct relation to one another. Increase in turn rate leads to decrease in radius of turn and vice versa.

I would rather stick to the actual turning performance topic, so if it's easier just ignore this part of my post which explains what I meant by 'counter intuitive' and such. P.S. This was the official cause of the Air France flight 447 crash, so it does happen - no matter how 'counter intuitive' it sounds :thumbup:

That's quite interesting. This always made me wonder: what would be the actual max range at which EOS can track the target, or should I say give the ranging information. I am guessing that a laser is used for these purposes, but I can't imagine a laser beam (might be wrong here) getting a range at 30+ km. From what I understand, ET is limited in range by its seeker primarily.

It's counter intuitive because the airplane is going down in a stall and you want to prevent this. What does one do when one wants the airplane to go up? One pulls on the stick, not push - that's the reason why I said it's counter intuitive. I don't think that the second part of your comment is fair, since you say that it doesn't make sense and you also suggest I should do more research. What was your comment based on? If you think something doesn't make sense, I can explain to you how these things work or you can put a counter argument, but please don't leave such condescending replies as it helps no one. In short all I can say is: yes, it makes perfect sense since if you are in a state of maximum lift coefficient (maximum AoA) this means you are providing the maximum lift possible. If in this state you have lowest speed possible this means that you are covering least distance possible in a turn, hence the smallest radius of turn.

I know, it's completely counter intuitive, but physics says otherwise - no language barrier I'm afraid :D. Now, just to make on thing clear: this holds true for a coordinated, constant speed (TAS) and constant altitude turn. In a fore mentioned turn, the turn rate is a function of only 2 parameters and it's true for all (ALL) aircraft (I know, this is also counter intuitive): True Air Speed (TAS) Bank angle That's it. The lower the TAS and the larger the bank angle the higher the turn rate TR and lower the radius of turn RT. This topic is highly counter-intuitive, just like it's completely counter-intuitive to push the stick away in a stall for example, hence why I said that I did extensive research on the topic. If you need more details of how and why is this true, I will be more than happy to share some more information :pilotfly:

Yeah, sorry I didn't point out what I meant - my bad. You can see at the moment the R-73 leaves the rail that there is a slight vibration on the air frame (you can see the HUD vibrate). Moment 0:13 of the video.