nighthawk2174

Also if you want to really understand what happened in Vietnam I'd recommend two sources: https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf https://www.amazon.com/Tiger-Check-Automating-Air-Air/dp/1421423278 Just a few snipits: -This is important as these early missiles had some serious limitations in terms of engagement envelope. Large safety distances/min range distances/limited maneuverability/limited lock archs.

There is a Russian thread comparing the F4 to MIG-21, although it soon moved onto comparing F4 to MIG23 as people came to the conclusion that that was the more interesting match up. I'll try to find it and post some of the stuff from there in here as there are Russian MIG-23 performance docs. IIRC the 4C was superior to the M (barely) and the ML was superior to the 4C by a decent margin but not the 4E.

So I've been doing some more BVR recently and I feel that this change: has either been not entirely effective or no longer works. Essentially one of the issues with the older model was that notching was way to effective, in both look up and look down. Especially if there was no terrain behind the target it should not have been as easy as it was, or if the terrain was well beyond the maximum detection range of the seeker. When the fix first went live it seemed to have worked very well and in both look up and look down active missiles were exceptionally hard to notch. However in recent testing it seems that it is now way to easy to notch a missile while it is in look down. It seems this is a factor of the size of the notch itself. And that there is no attempt by the missile to require after being notched. The missiles just go into 1g steady flight a few seconds after the moment its notched with no attempt to reaquire. From testing it seems most missiles have a notch width of ~100kts±15kts in look down, with look up being a lot less. This is as bad as early HPRF only radars such as the F14. This seems exceptionally high for a very modern radar with medium PRF modes. Especially if there is no clutter or the ground clutter is 20+Nmi away. Especially considering technologies available to PD monopulse seekers like this, or STAP. Or even just the fact that you can still track with a range gate if the MLC is sufficiently separated or if the S/N ratio is favorable enough. Which should happen for an active seeker only a few miles from a target with terrain possible 10's of miles away. ED has said that ontop of this S/N is now simulated? This doesn't appear to be the case. The fact is that that different terrains have different clutter amounts. A city will have significantly more clutter than the ocean, where all of the tests took place. Yet the missile was still notched just as easy as over land and still with the huge notch. Tacview-20210926-202038-DCS-TRAIN2.zip.acmi

Thanks i'm surprised their still WIP.

I wonder if this has something to do with either A) the MPRF bug that was reported earlier where it seems to just not be working. Or if the -x% detection range every x degrees down your radar points is getting affecting this.

Does the radar really not have any exp modes irl? Seems quite odd for such a modern radar not to have any ability to zoom in on close contacts.

Any updates its been months? This is a simple fix that only takes a matter of seconds. Hec here is the code I used in my weapons mod till ED banned such mods. -- MK149 shell("M61_20_MK149", _("MK-149 APDS"), { model_name = "tracer_bullet_red", v0 = 1160.0, Dv0 = 0.0060, Da0 = 0.00008, Da1 = 0.00008, mass = 0.0741, --Tungsten penetrator is 74.1g/DU penetrator is 73.3g round_mass = 0.253, cartridge_mass = 0, explosive = 0.0, life_time = 16.0, caliber = 12.1, --Is subcaliber shell s = 0.0, j = 0.0, l = 0.0, charTime = 0, cx = {0.12,0.7,0.80,0.22,1.9}, k1 = 2.0e-08, tracer_on = 0, tracer_off = 8, scale_tracer = 0, name = "MK-149 APDS", cartridge = 0,

The F15 CAS system manual is out there and it goes into a lot of detail. As far as i'm aware the eagle's current pitch rate is correct.

I see no reason it wouldn't be more than accurate enough, its capable to ranging the target with its laser which would give a very precise location. So long as the jets INS is functional to give the bomb coordinates it should be fine. Even without the laser ranger it should still be decently accurate, if you know the angular position of what the pod is looking at and your altitude/heading/location you can almost certainly get accurate enough target coordinates. It isn't complicated math.

If you wanted the best match irl it'd probably be the F100. They both seem to be very similar in performance. In game there's not really anything close.

Would love to see this fixed like the radar range. If that's getting fixed I see no reason this shouldn't as well.

Right except that (under normal circumstances) the F15 air frame cannot induce the g-loading needed to actual get into that range.

The effects of these are not going to be applicable on the time scale dcs simulates. Dcs is not simulating how this one over-g may take a year or two off the airframes total decades long lifespan. Or how small defects in manufacturing may cause some jets to need to be retired before others. This is not something worth simulating or even possible in properly simulating.

Not much of one yes, different G-suits between the different aircraft would have an impact on this though. The more modern G suits seen being deployed in the mid 2000's for the US are far superior to the ones that you'd see back in the late 70's. I'm sorry but its as simple as he's stated it, there have been more than a few over g instances with the eagle where the airframe was just fine. There was one where the from was bent with an excessively long 13g overload. And as far as i'm aware GG is right about most of the structural failures either being recent issues (and in it being fixed) on extremely old frames (as in mid 2010's recent) or structural failure where overload was not the issue. I've gone and read through the entire list of accidents and by far CFIT followed by an issue with the jet (often maintenance related) while taking off or landing then mid air collision are the most common. These three types of accident account for at least 95+% of the accidents listed. There is only one accident where structural failure was blamed. Aerospace structural design often has the requirement that a generous safety margin is in place, this is often ~50+% over the "design load" before you start getting permanent deformation. This is only a general rule though, and as such some will be on the higher end of this (F15/F14) or on the lower end (SU27). Plus it's hard to over-G the 9G flcs jets such as the F16/mirage (f18 technically but g limit is further reduced for air frame life).

I used the frontal area of the R27 so a little over .0415m^2. additionally its highly missile dependent on the exact shape of the drag curve. Nose shape in particular seems to have a major impact on this. The above example i'd expect a relatively flat curve as it's a rather high finesse ratio nose cone. Now this was one of if not the very first missile I did CFD on so maybe I should go back and redo it considering I've gotten a lot better at making more accurate geometry, meshes, and dealing with the small quirks of the cfd program I used. This is an example of a validation run I did as part of my R24 cfd.

Same here Subsonic and M3.4+ are very close to each other, my transonic drag however (M1-1.8) is much higher (peak transonic drag at 1.2 Cd0 of .081). Imagine a blending of the two between M1.0 and 3.0 and that's what I got as my results.

Its intentional

It not affecting the in range cue for switching from M50 to PGU is probably inaccurate. PGU as far better ballistics. I'd just go ahead and make a new thread.

Interesting! you wouldn't happen to have a link to somewhere their hosted would you?

Ed level thing they locked out these kind of mods for all aircraft

Does this also include a look at the FLCS? As it just feels like there is something off, I can't quantify it but something doesn't seem right with it.

Do we have a early to mid 80's manual for the 9.12?

Do you have the -220 manual?

Yes as far as i'm aware the tin shield is the most applicable SR for the current S300 version we have in game. Surprised it took as long as it did to add it (S300 has been in DCS from the start).

@BIGNEWY^ see above, as such shouldn't it be renamed in game to not list it as an SA5 specific search radar?