-
Posts
933 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Seaeagle
-
Heh I couldn't tell, but I think it looks strange. If I understand the numbers correctly, the AIM-7 has a higher output in boost stage(but for a shorter period) than the R-27R although it has a smaller body diameter. With the R-27R having a larger motor section and only a 6 sec burn time, I would have expected it to be the other way around - certainly not less.
-
Ah ok that makes more sense - thanks.
-
The first part is clear - the R-27R has a single-stage boost engine with 6 sec burn time, while the AIM-7M has a two-stage boost-sustain engine with 3.26 and 10.86 sec burn time respectively. But what does those thrust and flow rate figures mean? - the boost thrust is much higher than in sustain stage, so why is there only one figure for the AIM-7...is it some sort of "accumulated engine power"?
-
jackmckay, The links I posted above are from the manufacturer of the engines.
-
No it doesn't. All Su-27 and Su-30 versions have the AL-31F engine, which produces 12500 kgf in AFB. AL-31F: http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_2.aspx The Su-30MKI and Su-30SM have the AL-31FP - same engine(and power), but with a TVC nozzle. AL-31FP: http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_140.aspx There is a new upgraded version known as "product 117" which develops 14500 kgf - a variant of it(AL-41FS1) has been installed in the Su-35S(and I believe also in the PAK-FA). AL-41FS1: http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_141.aspx
-
+ Henry J. Kaiser(T-AO-187) class fleet oiler and Los Angeles(SSN-688 ) attack sub. There are also many significant Russian ships currently missing - such as: Udaloy class(Pr. 1155) large anti-submarine ship, Sovremenny class(Pr. 956) destroyer, Boris Chilikin class(Pr. 1559V) fleet oiler and Akula class(Pr. 971) attack sub.
-
Of course Sweep :) . I just wondered about the "more powerful engines" bit.
-
Yeah I also seen the -229 mentioned in connection with the F-15C, but must admit I didn't pay much attention(was never really "into" the F-15), so I guess I could have confused a theoretical prospect for an operational capability ...:hmm:
-
Well I don't know much about the F-15 - I realise that the -229 is associated with the F-15E, but I thought that some -Cs got it too at some point.
-
I don't know which engine is modelled in DCS, but if Sweep is right and its the -220 then the F-15 certainly doesn't have more powerful engines than the Su-27. Power in AFB: Lyulka AL-31F: 12,500 kgf ~ 27,558 lbf F100-PW-220: 23,770 lbf ~ 10,782 kgf ..and for comparison: F100-PW-229: 29,160 lbf ~ 13,227 kgf
-
I don't think the PW engines have anything on the AL-31F in terms of "care free handling"(e.g. watch "Bell manouver") nor that a slightly higher top speed(M 2.5 vs 2.35) is down to the engines, but rather to differences in airframe design and philosophy behind them. Yes - you can read more about it here(manufacturer page): http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_2.aspx Yes but there is a difference between "unbalanced" by design and "unbalanced" due to choices(of versions) made for the simulator :) .
-
Depends on the version though. It only got more powerful engines with the introduction of the F100-PW-229(from ~ 1989 IIRC) - prior to that it actually had less than the Su-27.
-
Changing the Y position of a surface ship.
Seaeagle replied to Dan-154C's topic in 3D Modeling for DCS World
How deep the ship "sits" in the water is down to the placement of the 3D model in the viewports of 3ds Max - the centerline corresponds to water level. I don't think there is anyway you can adjust that in the game - the parameters crazyeddie mentioned have other functions(perhaps related to the collision model). Yes they define the distance from center point of the ship - a positive value forward and negative value towards the rear. -
Possibly a Basic variant Su-30 for full fidelity Flanker
Seaeagle replied to carss's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Not if we are talking about the initial version - in fact it may even have had less than the Su-27 in DCS. Being an interceptor, it was slated for the PVO(airdefence forces) rather than the VVS(airforce) and IIRC the Flankers operated by the PVO didn't have any a2g capability at all(not even rockets or dumb-bombs). See the attached photo of a Su-27 cockpit - note the WCS control panel and compare it to that of the Su-27 we have in DCS. However, it supposedly had a more sophisticated datalink system allowing it to link up to- and control a flight of single seat Su-27s - i.e. a "mini-AWACS" function similar in nature to that of the MiG-31. There was a large TV display(looks like the same unit as in the Su-25T) for the rear crew member, who would act as the controller/radar operator(photo attached). -
Indeed. Mind you, the average age of soldiers in WWII probably wasn't much higher.
-
Possibly a Basic variant Su-30 for full fidelity Flanker
Seaeagle replied to carss's topic in DCS Core Wish List
If by "basic Su-30" you mean a "full fidelity" module of the original Su-30(Su-27PU) interceptor variant, then it should be quite possible since this was little more than an Su-27UB with an inflight-refuelling probe. But since the combat systems/armament range was the same as for the existing Su-27, the only additional features would be the two-seat multiplayer functionality and inflight refuelling. -
Identity released: http://cphpost.dk/news/dead-wwii-german-pilot-identified.html
-
Yeah like having to hold down a key while pulling the stick to maximum deflection or something like that.
-
Yes but that does not include anything on the combat systems, while the one Vatikus linked to seems to concern this aspect specifically.
-
Pull harder on the stick :)
-
On the cover it says: "МиГ-29Б" and "СУВ-29Э" (MiG-29B and SUV-29E). Since it concerns the export version of the MiG-29, its WCS and missile(R-27R1), the possibility of there being an english version is not completely inconceivable.
-
Yes you are right - I was just nitpicking on this :) . The 9.13 and 9.13S are often being mixed up and I can easily see why - from the Soviet side both the 9.12 and 9.13 were simply called "MiG-29" without any suffix to separate them, while NATO assigned the "Fulcrum C" reporting name to both the 9.13 and 9.13S.
-
Not quite right - the East German airforce did get an export variant, but it was the one for Warsaw Pact countries and as such practically identical to the Soviet version. Yes thats right. The downgraded version was called 9.12B and was exported to non-warsaw pact nations such as Yugoslavia, Iraq and Cuba. Hungary(although part of the Warsaw Pact) also got this version, but not until 1993(i.e. after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved) as part of debt settlement between Russia and Hungary. You are mixing up two different variants there: MiG-29 (9.13) is from 1987 and has the ECM and wingtank capability, but has the same radar and weapon capability as the 9.12. It was not exported, but with the break-up of the Soviet Union, some former Soviet states(such as Ukraine and Moldova) inherited some of them. MiG-29S (9.13S) is from around 1992 and is the same as the above, but has a modified radar(N019M) and R-77 capability. Since this variant only came about after the break-up of the Soviet Union, only Russia has it(presumably - not much is known about it). So the in-game MiG-29S is the 9.13S model.
-
MiG-29 needs flood lights disabled, show only instrument lights
Seaeagle replied to Pronin's topic in DCS: Flaming Cliffs
Yeah I think you are right that full internal lighting functionality isn't likely to be implemented for FC3. Thats why I suggested the simpler temporary fix - i.e. to separate floodlight from everything else and tie it to canopy open/closed state instead of just removing it all together :) . -
MiG-29 needs flood lights disabled, show only instrument lights
Seaeagle replied to Pronin's topic in DCS: Flaming Cliffs
Whats unfortunate about it?. In the real aircraft there are separate controls for floodlight, instrument- and panel illumination(see attachment). The floodlight is only for finding your way into/out of the cockpit - its not meant to be on at all times while flying the aircraft, just as you wouldn't drive your car with the cabin light on at night.