Jump to content

Seaeagle

Members
  • Posts

    767
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

10436 profile views
  1. A few years back, all the FC3 planes got new updated 3D cockpits with lots of animated elements - I guess as provision for possible future FF modules, but mostly inactive in FC3. I am not familiar with the mod in question, but it looks like what they did was to make clickable overlays for the FC3 aircraft, tying existing functions(otherwise only accessible via the keyboard) to those "dormant" cockpit animations. Why ED didn´t do that themselves I don´t know - its an obvious way of making the "low fidelity" FC3 aircraft more interesting and enjoyable, so the only reason I can think of is that they want to maintain a clear distinction between FC3/MAC and Full fidelity modules with "clickability" reserved as an "advanced" feature only for the latter.
  2. Of course these things improve the operational usefulness considerably and make the MiG-29 more adaptable to NATO doctrine and tactics - thats why they were implemented :) . But retaining the original WCS/radar and armament, its still just half the package and in no way makes the aircraft "on par" with the late Viper and Hornet versions of DCS. So I guess it depends on your preferences . Whether you prefer the same route for the MiG-29 as ED took with the Viper and Hornet - i.e. 80'ies "legacy" fighters upgraded with whatever new equipment they could (get the documentation on to) stuff in or prefer them in a configuration closer to their original design for historical scenarios.
  3. There really is no such thing - upgrades performed to these aircraft in NATO service usually don't involve improvements to combat systems/armament, but merely practical items such as navigation and radio equipment, which doesn't make them on par with the late Viper and Hornet versions we have in DCS.
  4. You are welcome :) . There were a few extra tidbits I wanted to add - e.g. I remember some information about the new enhanced aerofoil design of the wings, but as you can see, it was not in that article, so I must have read about that elsewhere. I will add it later if I can find it again. BTW in your opening post, you asked about weight figures and G-limit. The weights seem to be practically the same for the MiG-29M and -29K - at least the max. TOW is stated as some 22400 kg for both, while I remember reading that, for the MiG-29K, the normal TOW is 17700 kg and the dry weight is some 12800 kg. AFAIK the max G-limit for the MiG-29M is 9, while its 8 for the MiG-29K. The MiG-29K had "bigger wings" - i.e. the outer foldable section is longer(the wingspan grew to 11.99 m and the total wing area to some 42m2), so I guess the lower G-rating of the MiG-29K is due to higher wing loading.
  5. Ok I finally managed to find the time to complete the rewrite. Its not perfect and there are a few passages I couldn't quite desipher, but I am a little hung up at the moment so I don't have time to improve it further. I have also added some pictures and and a little extra info when appropriate(e.g. a fuel comparison between 9.12 and 9.15). Anyway, here it is: Hope it was worth the wait
  6. Ok I found it. But my menory failed me a little. Its not in Russian as I recalled, but rather a Russian article that has been machine-translated into English with all the jibberish that entails and what I remembered as an effort to "translate" it, was actually an effort to clean it up and rewrite it in proper English. So give me a little time to complete that and I will post it here.
  7. Heh yeah and it may not even need to be added. Pr. 775 was in Flanker 2.0 and I wouldn't be surprised if the entry(CLSID) remains in the code and just needs to be reactivated with an associated lua script......at least that was possible in DCS previously.
  8. I have an old article in Russian on the development of the MiG-29M(9.15), that I started translating once - I will see if I can find it. its quite comprehensive and gives a pretty good account for all aspects of the aircraft.
  9. Yes but IIRC it was actually a little the other way around - namely that there was a requirement that the separate fighter and attack variants should be using a common airframe, which in turn meant having to make compromises and thus loosing the advantage of having two separate versions. So it was decided to merge them into a single type for both mission types, which as you said, had become possible with the advances in electronics. Yes especially the F-15(and F-14), but to a little lesser extend the F-16, which from the start had some secondary A/G capability. But anyway, Assimata's confusion is quite understandable, since the application of the "F" vs. "F/A" designations is not always logical - e.g. "F-117"(a dedicated attack aircraft) and what about the F-35 and F/A-22 :).....the former was concieved as a multirole aircraft with an emphasis on attack, while the latter was designed as a direct replacement for the F-15 with the same "not a pound for air-to-ground" philosophy(i.e. pure air domminance platform) and apparently only got limited A/G capability and the "F/A" designation due to political critisim of excessive cost for a single role fighter. The F-16 didn't altough these days its used(in US service at least) primarily as a strike asset.
  10. There is no post-launch control(datalink) of the missile if thats what you mean, so for proper employment the seekerhead needs to be cued to the target(which can be done by IRST, radar or helmet sight) and then acquire its own lock on it before being launched. When launch override is used, the seekerhead is looking dead ahead and will only be able to acquire something that passes into its FOV after launch, so its sort of a boresight employment with all the restrictions and low pk that entails.
  11. Yeah I read some years ago that it was the intention to introduce a modernised and uprated version of the AL-31F as part of a major overhaul in connection with the decision to retain the Su-33 in service. I cannot remember the designation and specifics of it though and I don't know what the status is. AFAIK the canards on the Su-33 are only there to help directing the airflow around the wings in order to improve controllability at low speed/high AOA carrier approaches. But like you said, more engine power could at least help to compensate for the extra weight(and drag?) of the Su-33 airframe compared with the Su-27.
  12. Thats clearly a mock-up(or static test) unit though with some rather odd looking items - e.g. the HUD pult and navigation panel look "fake". Its also the only photo I have seen with that combined EGT/RPM tape indicator. The small indicator with the circular display below the left MFD is interesting though - looks like it could be a dedicated display for the L-150 RWS.
  13. Yeah I agree - introducing modern technology, while retaining that destict Soviet "flavour". The cockpit layout was also used on the MiG-29M test aircraft - here the fifth(#155):
  14. Hmm how do you mean?. They were true MFDs and quite sophisticated ones as well - the lack of buttons on the bezel does not imply limited functionality, but just how its activated. Besides, I am not sure whether there isn't actually a "button" functionality there - i.e. as you can see, there are text indications with separator lines on the bezel, so I wonder if there could be a touch activation function. I am sure it does - whether we will ever be able to access it is another question though
  15. No there are no buttons(except for the brightness/contrast knobs) on the MFDs - AFAIK they were controlled entirely from HOTAS. Unfortunately there is very little information about them and this small photo: ...is the only only one I have seen showing a little of the symbology.
×
×
  • Create New...