Ktulu2

No, R-73 could hit you through a 10G turn and 60 flares because of the 30seconds spool down time from AB of the F-15

No, they don't because if you shoot them head-on directly on the intercept point, as soon as the ennemy shoots ONE flare the missile goes for the mysterious bright glowing light.

The problem also is on the fuze's side : yesterday I had aim-9s fly so close that I thought they were going to impact fuze (but in fact were just REALLY close) and didn't prox. fuze at all.

1-It matters for troubleshooting, as the mirage has a tank dammage model 2-SA-3=S-125 3-I was assuming it was a decent possibility, that's what the work ''if'' stands for... 4-Never blacked out at 6G, make sure you eat something else than bananas before getting into the pit ;)

For this kind of bug report, you need a track, if your friends were firing magics in a dogfight, no wonder it missed! The only missile that is truly usable in dogfight in game is the R-73. The SA-3 is a SAM meant to destroy U-2s...Horrible range/low alt. capabilities. A pilot can handle about any G for 5s before G-loc, after 5s max G is around 7-8G sustained, need a track to see if its wrong. Also, its harder to over-G in with its FBW which limits you quite a lot. Besides, what you are describing is not related to immortality, but agility!

AIM-9P-5 is all aspect, just horrible at turning.

Yes we play digital falcon simulator ;)

Not quite sure why you would want it, I mean...In DCS you will ALWAYS be inside burn through before firing enveloppe

Yeah... The P-5 is just as efficient as the P-3, the only difference is that instead of giving up from the rail, it tries to do something...

What!? not too sure what to think about this. Never heard of that kind of prox. fuzing. If you're talking about the ET, than each time the missile would go upwards towards the sun it would proxymity fuze... Or do you think they wasted space and increased the missile's drag and weight to add a camera inside it for other than R-27XT? Seems VERY counter-effective given they have a radar that can be much more accruate and harder to CCM. Also, if the image gets smaller, that means that : A) the missile is off course and it would prox. fuze instead of correcting its trajectory. B)The missile somehow got close to its target, did a 180° like it was in wanted and it's seeker is now able to see its getting further AND does all of that fast enough to still be in acceptable range!? radar/IR is much better Also, saying ''that's what they want us to believe'' is quite a poor argument, given we could just stop playing sims as they could never be accruate.

104th enforces integrity check anyway...

In dcs, missiles guidance is very bad, so you can choose from two things at close range : 1- Just outrun it like many said if you are fast and manoeuver a little. At the moment against a good player, a 4NM missile going at a cold target is useless. 2-Drag it into the ground : Go full AB, go upwards and away or at 90° from the missile, than pull 9g and go downwards with the biggest angle from the horizontal possible and only pull up at the last moment before crashing, that will make the missile bleed its energy FAST and it will run into the ground if the vertical angle is big enough. I've defeated 2NM slammers that way...you just need to have a good starting speed.

I know, was just trying to prove that 45° is irrelevent for calculations of the maneuvrability of a missile.

Yes, there's the thrust of 2.2 F-15s concentrated on the winglet, so I HIGHLY doubt the wing would resist it.

Yeah, many (including me!) are saying that guidance is the problem in DCS, especially on russian missiles.

All right 1st : fin of the 120 dimentions : http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=28234&start=15 I'll take in consideration that 1 of the front fin is doing 45 of AoA. Aspect ratio : height/base :0.133/0.266=½ Cl=2pi*AoA in Rad = 2pi*(45/360*2*pi)=4.935 according to here : http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/lifteq.html Here, parasitic drag is highly negligeable compared to induced, so Cd~Cl²/(pi*AR*e) e is usually around 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-induced_drag SO Cd ~ 4.93²/(pi*½*1)= 15.5 (WEIRD... VERY HIGH) Surface = 0.114m² SO at mach 2 drag = ½*Cd*p*S*v²=1/2*15.5*1.1*0.144*666²=544509N Lift=½*Cl*p*S*v²=1/2*4.93*1.1*0.144*666²=173189N Total force = (L²+D²)^½=1/2*4.93*1.1*0.144*666²=571388N=58 304Kgf Now, thats a lotta jets burners concentrated onto a single tiny winglet, so no way in the world it survives that (2.2 F-15s) Now, i'm starting my aerospace bachelor in 2 months, so there are probably mistakes in here as i'm no qualified, but its the best I can do and i'm pretty sure its a decent approximation. (sorry this is wasted time, just didnt want to delay my post ;) )

The concept from a G limit is that the missile cannot whitstand a higher acceleration, not necesserely the force required for the acceleration : The fins might be fine at Mach 2 at 45° (Which I super-highly doubt, see time wasted below), but the radar/electronics/fuselage might break at that G. The ED's 550 was a joke, there's a video of a guy shooting one and keeping on flying strait and getting killed by his own missile because there was WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY too much drag.

the general formula for drag is 1/2*Cd*p*S*v² Let's say we have a 1% increase in drag, at mach 3 (1000m/s) that one percent becomes 1.01*v² instead of v² (assuming everything else =1, just to make it simple and prove my point) 1.01*10^6 vs 1*10^6, in metric that's a difference of 10^4N, OR 1/10 of the hornet's military thrust. Of course, the numbers are fictionnal, but the point stays : AT HIGH SPEED, THE SLIGHTET DRAG DIFFERENCE MATTERS Also, the drag coeff. of a plane perpendicular to the flow is ~2, vs ~.5 for a sphere. These are from wikipedia and mostlikely sub-sonic, but still gives you an idea. BTW 20% Cd increase would make the missile like Ed's R-550

Son, you're writing checks your rep can't cash... Seriously, 1) The 27 has bigger fins and fuselage as you said, that leaves a higher ''empty'' wight. 2) Again, 120 has it for G-limit

Try an unguided launch maybe

If you go back two pages, you'll see that R27 can get to that speed in game... You just need the good launch conditions

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnd welcome Digital Falcon Simulator talk Also, JunMcKill You have to expect public capacities to be quite optimistic... IF manufacturer stats are true, they are only in super optimal situations that are improbable in combat (i.e. mach 2 launch : 2+885/333~4.5)

Carefull : US missiles use low-smoke indeed, but it doesn't stop CONtrails (condensation). Russian missiles leave trail of aluminium oxide , not water. As missiles are based on a combustion reaction that releases water and heat and increases the pressure, nothing should stop from contrailing in the good conditions. Comparison : The mig-29 does a lot of smoke and the F-15 doesn't, but the F-15 can contrail.

In that case, you stop saying the 27 is more maneuvrable ;)

I don't see how you proved that... 1) The aim-120 is lighter, and given you couldn't give the lift force for both missiles, we cannot compare the centripedal acceleration. 2) You assumed a 45° deflection, but it is possible that the fins would not be able to survive the drag generated at the speed in this case and 45° could only be achievable at low speeds. 3)GG said the 120 had a higher G-limit, so that would make the 120 more maneuvrable at optimal speed.