Cmptohocah

You can find out more about "black arts" in the following video:

Speaking of the vibration effects, it would be great to have this one also when firing A/A missiles: Not to hijack the topic, but I feel it's relevant.

This looks amazing! I saw you are using Notepad++ to edit the code. Perhaps, you want to try Visual Studio Code instead? It might help you work even faster.

I am on holidays at the moment, so I don't have access to DCS, but what I can confirm regarding MiG-29S turn performance (from memory) is: at 60 degrees of bank it pulls 2G and has almost identical measured turn rate as the theoretical value, so at least for this bank angle the performance is as expected - fight tests confirmed at full after-burner (AB) and carrying 2xR-27, 4xR-73, central fuel tank and 100% fuel load, the maximum sustained turn rate happens somewhere between 500 and 450km/h and the pulled G's are somewhere around 6-7. There is some degree of variation due to difficulty of maintaining the constant AoA/Gs, but this might be also a limitation of my control hardware. Flight conditions: standard atmospheric pressure, standard DCS temperature, below 50m MSL altitude (IAS/TAS can be considered same) and clean configuration (no flaps). Once I am back form holidays, I do some more flight testing and post detailed results regarding the Sustained Turn Rate. When it comes to Instantaneous Turn Rate, I had big difficulties measuring it since the maximum AoA for the MiG-29S seems to be somewhere between 22 and 25 degrees, but I will give it another try.

Don't know if I am late to the party, but regarding the turn rates and radii: I did some extensive research on the topic and it turns out that in a coordinated turn (no side slips), that has no altitude changes and with constant speed the aircraft will have smallest turn radius (TR) and highest rate of turn (RT) at the lowest speed possible. This is determined by the maximum coefficient of lift (CoL) the lift surfaces can produce, which in turn is directly connected to the maximum angle of attack (AoA) - basically just before stalling. The slower you fly the tighter the turn and there fore the higher the turn rate.

I found a great video explaining the entire topic:

Not sure if this helps, but on Su-27 you can pull up the dimmer glass for the HUD which makes it readable again - along with 3 tinny green UFOs, but hey nothing's perfect. Perhaps the F-15 has something similar?

If I understand correctly, and please correct me if I am wrong, IFF system works in such a way that the transponder (on the "painted" airplane) awaits interrogation from an external radar and once "pinged" it replies, ie. transmits a reply signal. Under the premise that the above is true: What could be the max. range of such a system? Does it have bigger, smaller or equal transmitting range then let's say a radar on the same aircraft or similar family or aircraft? One thing I've also noticed in DCS, is that in ECM environment once the radar burns through the jamming signals, the IFF also somehow starts working. Unless I am completely wrong, this doesn't make much sense since I can't imagine the IFF transponder having a more powerful signal than the ECM pod/system. Then again I might be completely wrong here as I am by no means competent to make such a claim.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think only AIM-120 should loose less speed when pulling Gs. I mean it doesn't matter if a plane, a missile or a washing machine is pulling the same amount of Gs, they should all loose the same amount of energy - they are exchanging speed (kinetic energy) for angles (change in flight path). My previous statement is in case when neither of the mentioned objects has any thrust whilst pulling the Gs. When it comes to Russian A/C getting more obsolete: well, all I can say is that I've flown Red A/C since the times of LockOn and it alwyas felt that Blue had slight advantage, but those differences were quite tinny, in my opinion. However, today I see things which make absolutely no sense: F-18s flying at 10km and bombing Russian fleet like they were wood-models Russian SAMs not being able to hit a target from 5-8km distance. Yes I have a recording of an F-18 dodging 5-6 SAMs being launched at it from different platforms. Try reading an RWR of Su-25T Try reading the instruments in a MiG-29A/S at night I am not even going to mention R-27s - this discussion was mentioned so many times Su-27 has a roll-rate and roll-inertia similar to something like A380, all though I've noticed similar behavior in an F-15 AIM-120s fired in TWS just need to be in the approx. area of the target because even if the launching radar looses its track (in TWS) they magically scan everything in front of them (once pit-bull) and lock-on to a target in a microsecond and then keep out sending LA warning to the target's RWR even when they have no more energy left and are just dangling in the sky (like a balloon) Try reading the instruments of an Su-33 during the day And yeah, for some reason ECM takes some time to "warm up" before it switches on

I guess this would mean that R-27 should be more manoeuvrable is the fuel-burning stage, compared to AIM-7 in this case (similar weight, bigger control surfaces) and once the fuel has been expended they should manoeuvre the same or the AIM-7 should have the advantage and the R-27 should loose more speed 'cause of bigger drag.

I just realized I have posted in the wrong sub-forum. This thread was meant to be started in "Flaming Cliffs 3.0" and not in "F-15".

So it should then slow down more quickly and be more maneuverable relative to its NATO counter parts, right?

When you press "R Shift + H" it brings up the HUD dimmer - kind of like sunglasses for HUD :D This is used when the sun light is too bright. HUD indications are then visible as before.

I was wondering if someone could help me understand this topic: R-27 seems to have much larger relative control surfaces then some other A2A missiles like (AIM-7/9/120). Why is that so? What is the benefit/disadvantage of having such large surfaces compared to the other ones that don't?

You can use the HUD dimmer, which basically makes it the way it was before, plus some cool tint on your HUD ;)

Yeah Su-27 is an excellent platform to deliver A2G ordinance - a little too good, in my opinion. Releasing sets of 6x100kg or 6x250kg FABs (bomb racks) does some pretty good damage, also.

The launch warning is active throughout the SST lock, even if the missile is lost. It's a good way to "block" someone's RWR and force them to manoeuvre.

I did some testing in DCS and the current behavior for SPO RWR (Russian version) is: LA warning starts after the missile has been fired and persists until the radar lock is broken. This kind of makes sense since I see no reason for the radar to get out of pulse mode - IMHO. I didn't check the behavior of the NATO RWRs yet. This is next on my list, but I guess the results should be the same.

If I understood correctly, this means that - theoretically - RWR should keep "buzzing" as long as there some sort of STT detected after the launch. Wether that be the same platform continuing the lock after the launch or a wingman - in a pair flight - having the target in STT even though the launching platform eventually lost the lock. Am I understanding this right?

When you say "supporting", you mean sending guidance info?

I am guessing this would then depend on the type of the signal being emitted by the launching platform. If this is true, I guess then it should be time based, since the platform that has launched has no idea if the missile is still tracking or not.

I have posted a similar question some years ago, but I don't think I have formulated it well that time, so: When should an RWR stop giving a launch warning, when there is an inbound SARH missile, and why?

Apparently AIM-120C does not loose track :doh: It passes me by and then does a 90 degree turn towards me at M 0.4 and then keeps me locked for another 20 to 30 seconds while it glides towards the ground as if suspended in mid air.

Well then, if all that is true (seeker picks up surface heated missile) then flares are 100% effective decoys. Because if an R-73 can track a maneuvering AIM-120 going at 800km/h heated only by friction, it will certainly not have any issues tracking a super hot flare (or flares) that is slowly falling through the sky.

Even if I did get an EOS lock on an incoming A2A (which I doubt is possible), how did it track the AMRAAM which had no booster operating?