Fox One

Su-27SK flight manual, book1. On the bottom of the page, they say for the planes equipped with SEI system Narciss-M the TAS appears as a counter on the lower-right part of the IPV display. That won’t be such a bad idea, to have this in LockOn in case some patch will ever be released, but actually my first choice will be adding the variometer on the HUD, that will be really useful :smilewink:

If anybody is interested, on Google Maps Saki airbase is high-resolution – you can clearly see the landing zone with front-rear deck edges marked, also the ski-jump ramp on the other end of the runway. You can even see the arresting cables – just paste in those coordinates 45°05'N 033°36'E

Of course IRL there is the plane’s silhouette on the HUD in search regime. On real MiG-29 (9-12, 9-13, 9-51) the IPV display works ONLY as a HUD repeater (no matter what regime), with the difference that the far right vertical line where the search area ends is not displayed on the HUD, also the scan area position in the vertical plane is shown only on IPV display, there is the antenna bar number currently scanned where in the same place on the HUD is the gun’s remaining rounds information. On RL Su-27 there is tactical information/ hud repeater option for IPV display, selectable with a switch on IPV, TAKT/DUBL. This switch is also found on some later-series MiG-29, but it does nothing. The other minor difference I know of is that in radar/IRST search regime on Su-27 the plane’s silhouette on the HUD doesn’t have the vertical “tail”, only the wings, but in lock regime, nav and all other there is the “tail” like in MiG-29. Bottom line, the decision to not include in LockOn bank angle on HUD in radar search regime was indeed very silly.

Your thoughts are correct. Regarding missiles in LockOn I’m disappointed for years now ! :D I hope in BS there will be some fixes and the missiles will use energy management like if you launch a certain missile at a certain speed, the missile’s motor (that has a certain total impulse) will use that amount of stored energy to add speed to the speed it got from the launching a/c.

Me too! The Su-17/22 will give everybody 10 times more satisfaction than Su-25. Too bad it will never happen. Also Su-22 uses the same ASP-17-series sight so weapons use will be pretty much as simple and straightforward as in standard Su-25. Also there is the big TV indicator on Su-17/22M4 late series for shooting TV-guided weapons. But the greatest russian attack plane for a pure delight in LockOn will be MiG-27K. It was the most advanced russian single-seat attack plane to see service in significant numbers (around 200). It had Kajra aiming station (a version of Su-24M's Kajra) and could use absolutely all A/G guided or unguided weapons, antiradar, everything. Also it doesn’t have ASP-17 sight like MiG-23BN and all MiG-27 series, it uses a HUD unique to the type. It also has the standard IT-23 TV indicator. Fast, powerful, supersonic, with ability to use any A/G weapons. Just imagine that in LockOn!

Thank you very much for the pics and especially for Su-22 detail an cockpit pictures with almost all the labels around switches visible and readable!

Is it just me or there is actually hope in the air that in BS we will see some nice fixed-wing a/c improvements too? (I mean not only new 3D models)

Surely do... Your father didn't worked for 32 years on russian built air defence radars ;)

Believe it or not, this has actually happened with a certain soviet-built SA missiles system, where there was such a hidden remote command blocking-system. There were countries using soviet equipment the soviets just didn't trusted... I can't give the link for the info, but trust me, I know from a very reliable source ;)

Standard Su-25 doesn't have autopilot IRL, but I have also said a few weeks ago that ED should at least get the RSBN-6S nav system like the real one with working control panel buttons and lights. If we look with what they had to deal with for BS, this should really be peanuts...

Same for me. Only if we try to imagine the huge complexity of building a supersonic with AFM... by comparison Su-25 with AFM is really nothing. With such complex onboard systems and wide flight envelopes, we will be really, really lucky if will get our hands on a supersonic with AFM (no matter what a/c) 5 years from today… Personally I’m kinda starting to loose hope :( . We will never fly a Su-27 with AFM and clickable cockpit and all the systems functional like Ka-50…

Fuel tanks are never dropped under peacetime conditions IRL. Only if there is an inflight emergency and the a/c type’s specific procedures call for the tanks to be dropped, they are dropped indeed in an unpopulated area. In wartime, let’s say two MiG-29 will be tasked with a CAP mission – due to pretty low range and endurance is almost sure there will be 1520 liter central tanks fitted. If there is no combat activity, the tanks will not be dropped. If there will be air combat, tanks will be definitely dropped. With central fuel tank MiG-29 has Mach 0.8 restriction IRL, there are also other restrictions. MiG-29 AA missiles IRL cannot be emergency dropped, because are directly-forward, rail launched (from APU-type launchers) and once mounted, the missiles can be removed only on the ground by sliding them back. LockOn has that wrong. For this particular a/c the missiles can only be emergency launched (unguided). Earlier fighters like MiG-21 had the option to emergency drop AA missiles (possible only together with APU launchers specific for each missile type, because as above the missiles can be removed only by sliding them on the rails, no matter if are slided by mechanics on ground or slided by rocket motors :) ). They could also be emergency launched (unguided). But on MiG-29 pylons cannot be dropped (together with AA missiles). On Su-27 underwing AA missiles pylons are also APU-type (VPU for tip launchers) and what applies to MiG-29 applies here too. But the under-air intakes and central pylons are AKU-type, which means the missiles are first jettisoned before missile’s motor will ignite, like in LockOn. Those missiles can indeed be emergency-jettisoned.

Good question. I have just redone the experiment w/o autopilot and I received results differing from autopilot flying experiment by less than 0.5 Km at low alt and less than 1 Km at high alt w/o airbrakes. With airbrakes the results differed by 0.1 Km. Also there was some years ago an ukrainian MiG-29 pilot on the russian forum and he said that IRL when you reduce throttles, the speed decreases much faster than in LockOn. And the numbers anyway are speaking for themselves. With airbrakes the difference is huge, and that theoretically will be easier to fix. At low alt w/o airbrakes the results differ from RL by almost 50%. Such a difference with all the indulgency in the world cannot be attributed to different atmosphere conditions, etc. If the speed will decrease as IRL at low alt, formation flying and any other kind of flying requiring precise speed control (like landing approaches :) ) will be visibly easier to fly ;)

I was wondering why the Russians never shifted to HUD system with flight path marker. There is also a Su-34 video available with some HUD images and they look exactly like this. HUD with FPM and real-word-scale pitch ladders seems clearly easier to use in a lot of flight conditions. Everybody is using it – US, UK, France, etc, Russia – no. Any opinions?

With all the risks that some people will consider comparing LockOn a/c characteristics with the real life ones as boring, irrelevant, imprecise or unuseful, I will still try to analyze some flight characteristics that I consider important. Things that differ from RL by a pretty wide margin and IMHO they should receive some sort of correction in BS even if the supersonics will remain with SFM. SFM is SFM but that can be improved too until supersonics with AFM will be made, and as I understood this will happen some years from now. I hope SFM will be improved at least about a few important things. If someone thinks that anyway it’s just a game and I take it too seriously he’s probably right :) This is about straightline deceleration characteristics with engines at idle (MiG-29 aerodynamics manual (airwar.ru), pages 199-200). The distance required at 1000 m altitude for the speed to drop from 800 to 400 IAS, throttle idle, 2XR-60 missiles, weight 13,000 Kg. The experimental data is very precise – autopilot altitude hold was used, RPM was already idle when I begun counting, the distance on the HUD is given in 0.1 Km increments. Without airbrakes 16.8 Real life 11.5 With airbrakes 4.8 IRL 6.7 Same experiment at 8,000 meters altitude. Without airbrakes 24 IRL 26.7 With airbrakes 8.9 IRL 15.8 First look conclusions – at low altitudes a/c drag is definitely low, at medium altitudes around 7,000 m is ok, and judging by the trend above 7-8 thousand meters drag is probably a bit high. But there is also the idle thrust issue (with zero value in LockOn for a/c with SFM), and in the manual on page 196 there’s a very interesting diagram with idle thrust (for one engine). In the discussed range of 800-400 Kmph at 1,000 m the idle thrust is actually negative, so the simulator’s a/c deceleration characteristics at that altitude can be at least partly explained by lack of idle thrust for LockOn’s MiG-29. At high altitudes the a/c decelerates a bit fast, but there should be a bit of positive idle thrust, so MAYBE airframe drag for LockOn SFM is pretty adequate, the main problem might be lack of idle thrust. Also it is obvious that airbrakes are way too effective.

It looks like I accidentally deleted the diagram in the beginning of the thread, running out of attachment space. I also deleted it from my HDD, but anyway the facts remain...

Here it is, Su-27SK max AB sustained turn diagram, the speeds are IAS here and if someone will want to compute some turning times and turn rates using the well-known formula, there will have to make transformations to find out the TAS. Anyway Su-27 radome main pitot is PVD-18 series, so there is good data and tables available to reliably do the transform from IAS to TAS. One more note – this diagram is for 50 percent fuel using the normal fuelling (also known as main fueling type). IRL Su-27 has 4 tanks: tank 1 (3180Kg) – placed along the entire airbrake length tank 2 (4160Kg) – in the middle of the fuselage, between those serious titanium spars tank 3 (1060Kg) – actually two tanks, one in each wing. 1060 is for both tank 4 (1000Kg) – between engines and in the “sting” All weights are for standard conditions fuel density (0.785 IIRC). IRL there are 3 types of fuelings: complete, normal and partial. Complete means full, normal means only tanks 2 and 3 are full, and partial means less fuel than normal. Normal fueling is the one used in routine training missions. Full fueling is needed only for long escort missions. Normal fueling means approx 55% of all tanks volume, so what you see in the diagram below is actually for 27.5% fuel!

You’re right, also I suppose you know that Russian maneuvering characteristics comparative study Su-27/F-15/F-16/Tornado from airwar.ru. What I don’t like is that the diagram looks so much like made using free hand :( As a small note for anybody not knowing – the speeds are TAS in the diagram below. The military/afterburner sustained turn diagrams from Su-27SK manuals are way nicer, do you know if there is any AB sustained turn diagram in that declassified F-15 manual, to make some comparison for various weights with the more precise Su-27 flight manual diagrams?

It took me just a few days after original LockOn, then FC was released and I bought it and installed it. I started doing landings according to RL flight manuals. I know for years that in landing configuration the a/c produces way too much lift for a given AOA, for me it is obvious. Only this week I had the idea to quantify by how much LockOn is wrong. It ruins landing experience, because in the flight manual there are some touchdown curves for 10 and 12 deg AOA, this is the AOA range for touchdown. And for the typical weight touchdown speed is 250-270, where for the same AOA at touchdown in LockOn you can touchdown comfortably at 200-210, the difference is not negligible. IRL doing the touchdown at such speeds the required AOA will DEFINITELY be waaay above 15 deg and the plane will hit the runway with nozzles. 15 deg AOA is nozzle-runway contact angle with uncompressed oleos according to the flight manual, with compressed oleos nozzle-runway contact AOA is as low as 9 deg. I wouldn’t have know before doing the research… this is so funny :megalol: You’re assuming obviously wrong that everybody has the same knowledge level as you. After having the flight manuals for both MiG-29 and MiG-29UB for almost 10 years, after seeing smth like 200 live MiG-29 takeoff and landings and spending dozens of hours between years talking to MiG-29 pilots… Unless you’re a real Fulcrum pilot there’s a chance that I might have more knowledge than you about how a MiG-29 should behave during landing ;)

Hello everybody Directly to the subject, probably everybody familiar with MiG-29 landing technique described in the real flight manual who tried to do the same thing in LockOn noticed that keeping the speeds from the manual the AOA during landing approach is very low, and approaches can be easily flown with considerably lower speeds than the recommended ones. IRL approach speeds for typical weight are: DPRS 320-330, BPRS 300-310, flare beginning 280-290, touchdown 250-260. I know that RL pilots are adding easily 10-20 Kmph to those speeds, but that’s another story. I’m trying to discuss theoretic characteristics and procedures the way are described in manuals. I have done the following test: entering on glidepath, after localizers interception and centering the things I engaged autopilot on automatic landing, but disengaged autothrottle and used manual engines control. I have done approaches with flaps up and down and took notes about the necessary AOA on glidepath. I have marked the results with bold lines on the diagram below. The landing diagram is most likely (not clearly specified in the manual) for the typical computed 12,900 Kg landing weight (standard landing weight for MiG-29) which corresponds to exactly 50% fuel. I used approximately the same weight during the experiment. In the diagram below (from MiG-29 aerodynamics manual) you can see how LockOn MiG-29 compares to RL. The above curves shows necessary AOA as a function of IAS for approach with flaps up, and I had a very pleasant surprise to see the differences are generally lower than 1 deg, so the plane’s necessary AOA on glidepath w/o flaps are pretty correct, and that’s very good news! Now check the lower curves – necessary AOA with flaps down. At 390 Kmph the AOA in LockOn is more than 3 deg lower than IRL. Check the difference at 290-260 Kmph range, that’s the most important area – that’s where IRL is the range between landing flare beginning speed and touchdown speed. The difference is about 5 deg! I would have said nothing for 1 or 2 deg, but 5! Also watch the difference between bold line curves, to see the effect of lowering the flaps in LockOn – it typically lowers the necessary AOA with more than 6 deg! That’s scandalous! :D Also watch the dotted line in 260-290 Kmph range – characteristics in ground effect, the necessary AOA is lowered by 1.5-2 deg when entering ground effect. It is obvious that lowering the flaps increases lift way too much. The visibility forward-downward in LockOn FC is (based on my measurings) about 12.5-13 deg, from MiG-29 piloting technique manual – 13 deg, so visibility from cockpit is correct. But due to low AOA at landing the runway visibility is way too good, landings are so easy and comfortable and can be flown with unrealistic speeds like 230-240, also the touchdown speeds are obviously small for a given weight assuming touchdown angle from the flight manual of 10-12 deg. I don’t know how the things are about F-15, I don’t have the manual. But Su-27 also suffers from the same problem – despite in Su-27SK manual there is no diagram with AOA during landing approach, there is a touchdown speeds diagram as a function of weight (and wind). If you fly Su-27 in LockOn and do the touchdown at the same speed as in the manual diagram for a given weight, AOA at touchdown will be smth like 9-10 deg, where the diagram in the manual is for 12 deg. Evidently this flaps problem affects the takeoff in the same way – 30-40 Kmph too low takeoff speeds compared to RL. Probably many simmers don’t give a damn about such minute details, considering them of no relevance. For me those landing characteristics pretty much ruin the landing pleasure. I know that ED team is very aware of those imperfections, anyway they never claimed that SFM is perfect. I also know that in LockOn BS the supersonic a/c FM will be left the same, and I’m BEGGING the ED team – please lower the flaps effectiveness BEFORE BS is released! Please don’t let us with this for a few more years!

I agree, but IRL the engines are reduced to idle right before tochdown, or immediately after it, so both engines should be at idle no later than 3-4 seconds after touchdown. There's no reason to keep an engine above idle MANY seconds after touchdown, so the fact that one engine opens nozzle many seconds after the other cannot be justified by different positions of throttles.

Anybody interested, please watch this video: http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/154/ In the end that Su-27 lands and the pilot doesn’t use the drag chute and makes aerobraking holding the nosewheel up as long as possible. See that airbrake is out also. From touchdown until it lowers the nosewheel it takes 21 seconds. Do the same thing in LockOn and time how long you can hold the nose up. You will be able to keep it 13-14 seconds with airbrake in, with airbrake out about 12. Let’s see why this happens. In LockOn Su-27’s aerodynamics characteristics are reasonably correct at low altitudes. The difference in the above example is mainly because the planes with SFM have zero idle thrust, a thing deduced by me experimentally. In real life when Su-27 lands the nozzle is in fully closed position, NO MATTER what rpm the engines have anywhere between idle-military. This is done to have as much clearance as possible in case the pilot goes too slow during flare and makes a hard landing, fully compressing the shock absorbers. It is to avoid the nozzles hitting the runway. Also in case of landing abort when pilot advances the throttles, because the nozzles are already closed will permit thrust to build up faster (as explained in AL-31F book page 292). It is not clear (to me) what signal causes the nozzles to close during landing. In AL-31F engine technical description book (airwar.ru) it says only that “the signal comes in landing case, when the a/c is still in the air”(page292). After this signal the engines automatics won’t let the nozzles to open, ignoring the governing laws that normally positions the nozzles in flight according to various engine parameters. IMO the nozzles closure is done either when the gear is lowered, or when the flight control sys switches to takeoff-land regime. In the video you can see how the nozzles opens seconds after touchdown, the right one at about 200, the left at 150-170 (my estimation about those speeds). Have no idea why they don’t open simultaneously. The nozzles opening during landing run is necessary to decrease the landing length. The AL-31F idle thrust is 250 Kgf (same book) with the nozzles opened, with the nozzles closed evidently the thrust is higher. Nozzles opening signal probably comes at a certain indicated air speed. Any chance such things will be implemented (this decade :) )?

You’re in big error here. AL-31F 12,500 Kgf thrust (that is bench thrust as everybody knows) won’t be the same with the engine installed in the fighter, not even at zero speed. There will be thrust losses caused by the air intakes ducts, and these are considerable. Let’s suppose that air intakes-caused thrust losses for Su-27 are similar (as fraction of bench thrust) with the air intakes of MiG-25 :) Watch in the MiG-25RB practical aerodynamics manual, page 79 – it’s the air intakes-caused thrust losses. You can see, even at zero speed the thrust losses are as high as 26%! Watch at low speeds the lower curve – this shows how because the lower lip of the air intake is down (compared to “lip up” curve above) it decreses the thrust losses (by inhibiting turbulence forming that will lead to pressure losses in the intake ducts, and finally thrust losses). The lip will decrease thrust losses with more than 8%. Air intakes-caused thrust losses is a big deal indeed, somewhere in the manual it is said that if the plane is heavy (or is flying with only one engine) during landing approach and the pilot for whatever reason has to abort landing, and will power up but will have little excess thrust, to not forget that when will retract landing gear the lip will also go up and will decrease a bit the thrust, so is better to retract gear when higher-faster-safer. Also in the graph you can see how the bench thrust is almost reached at high subsonic speeds, and the way inlets starts producing thrust at high Mach. In the same book, page 63, R-15B-300 thrust, military 7,500, max AB 11,200. So we have 15,000 and 22,400. On page 267, in the text – takeoff thrust military 12,200, max AB 17,600. So the average takeoff thrust is 81% of bench thrust in military and 78% in max AB. In LockOn takeoff performance for supersonic a/c is already outstanding, no need to increase thrust here. The thrust is low only at high altitude. In MiG-29 manual it says AB takeoff will take 7-8 seconds. I think you can do that easily in LockOn. MiG-23ML/UB practical aerodynamics manual, page 345. Takeoff forces distribution. It is in that manual, R-35-300 engine is 13,000 Kgf thrust. All you can count in the graph at zero speed is 10,500. That is 80% of bench thrust. Coincidence? No. It is SAFE to assume that in takeoff condition supersonic fighter a/c have about 80% of the bench thrust. So the Su-27 will have about 20 tons takeoff thrust. There are also ejector nozzle flaps losses (airframe-mounted on MiG-23). Anybody not convinced yet is invited to have a more in-depth lecture of those two books, air intakes chapters.

First hello to everybody, this is my first intervention here. From the beginning I want to say judging by the released screenshots and videos that I really appreciate what ED team is doing and the way Black Shark promises to be. There’s no doubt that it will be by far the most advanced and realistic flight sim available to the public in every respect, flight dynamics, avionics, everything and I’m really looking forward to fly it, just as everybody. But I’m more like a fixed-wing aircraft enthusiast, and no doubt MiG-29 and Su-27 enthusiasts aren’t a minority. So we will have Ka-50 with ultra advanced flight dynamics and all the gadgets in the cockpit, but will be left with this caricature Fulcrum and Flanker nav system? Many improvements were done to the weapons systems and I appreciate that, Russian radars starts to look more like the real ones. Sure, there’s a lot still to be done. But I find quite incredible that the nav system is almost the same as in Flanker 2 – 2.5. In MiG-29 the Horizontal Situation Indicator doesn’t work like the real one in ROUTE (MARSh) regime even today, after so many years! On the HSI the wide needle (not the yellow one) should point out to the next PPM. Now there are flight manuals available, there’s also that Su-27SK flight manual, everything can be easily checked by anybody. In real Su-27 the HSI instrument is not PNP-72-12 (was in some early serial Su-27 with early-type “sting” with only 24 chaff/flare ), it is a PNP-72-16 with an additional index and the way is interpreted in nav regime is different from the MiG-29. I’m convinced ED team know very well all of this, but please, will we have to wait until we’re old to have not-so-sophisticated things like that implemented? Please, give us avionics improvements for Su-25,-27 and MiG-29 while we’re still young :) Even to this day in RETURN (VOZV) regime the correct nav indication isn’t implemented. It should show the path to enter in the point of tangency at the 5 Km radius circle, etc like in the picture below. Also the director indication in the vertical plane in RETURN regime isn’t correct. Probably the developers will say this is not a priority, they don’t have the time to fix it. Yes, and building tanks and all kinds of ground nonsense is a priority! I don’t like flying Su-25T. Maybe its flight model is very realistic, don’t know, don’t have the flight manual, but the standard Su-25 is vastly superior in performance and I really enjoy it. Sure, there are some issues, like the huge efficiency of the drag chute, I mean the speed drops from 200 to 100 in under 4 seconds, does anyone on earth think this is realistic? But is nothing that can’t be fixed. The Su-25T without any stores flies like a Su-25 with 6 FAB-500, so I prefer to fly the standard Frogfoot. But on the RSBN-6S nav system there isn’t any functional light-button, to be able to know what waypoint is selected, what airfield. Is that really so hard to implement? The Su-25T already has variometer on the HUD. It will be really so difficult to have that also on Su-27 in all nav regimes? Forget about angle of attack on real Su-27 HUD for take off and landing, but please could we at least have the variometer? Also in landing regime when instrument approach is done and variometer indeed appears, the pitch angle shouldn’t disappear! I have noticed work is being done to new Su-25, -27 and MiG-29 exterior models, and they all look just beautiful, those planes will get what they deserve. But if the avionics and flight models will remain the same, this will have almost no value. My question to ED developers. I understood that in BS the flight models for existing a/c will remain the same. What about avionics? Any improvements? Are there any plans for future implementation of AFM for MiG-29 or Su-27? Probably some questions were already answered in the past so I appologise for asking again. Please don’t get me wrong. I respect ED team. I just want better fixed-wing a/c, like many other enthusiasts. I appologise for the length. Thank you for reading