Top Jockey

I believe that when the HMCS comes into play, those differences between any airframe tend to get somewhat "negligible" (specifically the ITR)... and Situational Awareness (first look, first shoot) is paramount.

This is also my perception too. For much that the F-16 might be the reference in Sustained Turn Rate, at the same time it is also limited on the AoA / nose pointing regard.

Sure. If you can tell me of any MiG-29's PC sim with more complete systems / features, and graphics as good as the DCS one we have, I'm listening...

Not sure about the correct term, but shouldn't it be " pitch rate " ?

Yeah, but there is no need to bash the product either... To call it "half" plane, doesn't seem fair... it is the most complete and realistic MiG-29 i know in the PC sim history so far. It has an Advanced Flight Model (the best available), and outstanding depicted cockpit and airframe graphics. Although the current MiG-29 module is not a full systems fidelity model (without many systems and clickable cockpit), it is a product appreciated for those who don't feel like spending many hours getting to know every detail of the several real life systems.

I've also tested that way in the past, but then I've come to the conclusion that, a more balanced test would be instead: - the fuel quantity for roughly the same flight time (for instance 3 minutes in full afterburner at sea level), for each of the 3 aircraft. It will very likely be a different percentage for each of them.

For much that I love the MiG-29, regarding the bold I must also ask you: Have you tried the F/A-18C ? ... stuff like "sensor fusion" in that machine are something outstanding. Truth to be told, in several decades playing jet combat sims I believe I never flown (virtualy) such a complex, complete and realistic aircraft, avionics and technology wise.

Glad to know it.

...don't sweat about it. For instance, the Brazilian Air Force used to designate their Mirage III EBR as " F-103 E ".

You nailed it ! That was exactly my doubt, why they were pointed at the target even though the 8 nmi laser was short. "Manage to guide", is when they go into almost completely nose down pitch attitude (roughly -60 degrees pitch) right after release, meaning they didn't even start tracking the laser beam. My doubt is now clarified with the sentences in bold. So this also explains why in a few instances, the bombs also started to drift left related to the target (when in close proximity of him already)... coincidentally my aircraft was also doing a small bank left turn to avoid overflying the enemy ship... I suppose I gained distance from target and the laser 'end-point' was pulled away from it. Thank you.

Hello, Yes, that I understood when Harker explained. What I don't get is, how do the GBUs manage to guide if I'm able to drop them from 13 NM at more than 30.000 ft, and the featured laser beam has only 8 NM lenght ?

So, after some hours of experimenting I concluded it was probably my error, here's what I've found: - using CCIP mode and releasing the bombs closer to the target, seems to diminish the possibility of GBUs fail to track the laser; - didn't have much success with AUTO mode, as it seems to only allow bomb release when very close to the target already, causing the bombs to overshot the target; After a considerable amount of tries, I'm convinced that my error was: Not giving enough pitch down attitude, considering the 30.000ft altitude I tipically release the GBUs... so I suppose the GBUs laser seeker FOV was probably not pointed (pitched) down enough to acquire the laser's reflection from the enemy ship... ( Initially thought I was pitching down enough, roughly -5 degrees at the least; but looking carefully, many times it were only -2 degrees or so. ) After this, giving for example: near -10 pitch down, every single (and pair) GBU-10 release sucessfully tracked the laser, and I was able to release from 13 ~ 14 NM to target, even from 32.000ft altitude - even when the bombs fall short from target, they were at the least pointed at it. In this case, I'm not understanding the laser 'end-point' of just 8 NM, or how it works.

Thank you Harker. It can very well be something like that and I hope it is. Indeed, when I return to that mission in the Hornet after some months later, something on the back of my head reminds me : things won't work if releasing the GBUs from much longer than those 12 NM i was used to, neither from very high altitudes also (ex. 35.000 ft +) The possibility you mention can also be the reason why on other instances, the bombs also started to drift left related to the target (when in close proximity of him already)... coincidentally my aircraft was also doing a small bank left turn to avoid overflying the enemy ship, and thus I was probably moving the laser 'end point' away from the target. Always used the Manual release mode because it looked simpler to me and lets me release the bombs at my will, but on the other hand it doesn't give TTI info. I will try your advices latter today, and after see how it works I'll report here. Thank you for your time.

Hello, I'll post this here, as I don't know if it's me doing something wrong or a possible bug. Droping GBU-10s on enemy ship (ex. Molniya or Neutrashimi), from altitudes from 25.000ft to 30.000ft, the very first bomb(s) pitches down - not tracking the laser, but the next bombs do follow it perfectly hitting the target. All the Stores and TGP pages parameters are well configured, so as the second or more salvo(s) of bombs sucessfully follow the laser, and effectivelly hit the ship. Only thing is, I always select manual mode (not Auto, CCIP, etc.) The first salvo can be of 1 or 2 bombs, depending on the quantity I chose: - if I chose 1 bomb salvo; only the 1st one pitches down and fail; ( 2nd, 3rd and 4th bombs will guide sucessfully to the target ) - if I chose 2 bomb salvo; both 2 bombs of first salvo will pitch down and fail; ( both 2 bombs of the second salvo will guide sucessfully to the target ) I release the 2 (or more) salvos with 2 seconds interval, and I'm already firing the laser from a few seconds before releasing the bombs, until impact on target. edit - release distance: ~ 12 nm to target - release speed: ~ Mach 0.95 - aircraft pitch / attitude: between 0 and -5 degrees (pitch down)

This ^ Also happened with me, I guess one tends to get 'formated' strongly by first impressions indeed... as the very firsts sims I played in the early '90s featured them that way. And so "western style" always was the way things make more sense to me - jets like the F-16 do have in my view, more complete HUD info. The MiG-29A and Su-27 variant we have in DCS, do have a more archaic HUD symbology and logic - but I still highly appreciate their own stile though. For instance, even the F-14A's archaic HUD are of much more interest for me than the D variant (as this is much more similar with F-15s and F-16s already).

That's how it works for me also, when I find it not realy necessary to change from guns to missiles only to confirm the current search mode / pattern. Eitherway, it's very easy to assign some button in your HOTAS to guns / missile mode switch.

... I believe it's a matter of experimenting several lock presses at a time, with the bandit / target positioned in different places around the HUD and look at its general position when lock is achieved.

Even better.

If I recal correctly from what I've read somewhere, what Cmptohocah mentions is that the Germans themselves de-tuned the engines a little bit to increase their lifespan, after already having them in service. So it might mean that, they arrived originally with their "full power" as per what is stated on the manuals...

Have you read the thread I mentioned above ? edit Also found the thread created sometime ago in the Russian forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/242422-sravnenie-manevrov-mig-29-i-su-27/

What I'm refering to is this, which for me makes all sense : On lift coefficient I don't really know much, I suppose it also may help pulling more G's with less need for an higher AoA while turning, again - Su-27 vs MiG-29A airframes comparison. Also, even today I cannot say for sure between the MiG-29A or the Su-27, which one does have the smallest turn radius.

Hello, There is already much info on the MiG-29's turn / maneuver capabilities in this forum. (Right from the LOMAC times also.) Me too, was initially convinced the MiG-29A was the "definition of perfection" in every aspect of close quarters maneuvering, (obviously before the recent euro-fighters, the 'Thrust Vector Control' advent, etc.) ... but IRL it seems the MiG isn't all alone at the top of the hill. Created that impression, probably because of early flight sims more subjective depictions, popular media, etc. In early times I even thought that the FC3 in-game MiG-29 and F-15 flight models were possibly swapped between each other ! Altough IRL it is obviously a VERY dangerous opponent while turning, actually there seems to exist details were the F/A-18C and the Su-27 are slightly superior to the MiG-29 in the maneuvering department. - MiG-29's absense of FBW; - stable design (more airspeed loss while turning); - lift coefficient lower than the Su-27... Using Google Translator, I once created a thread in the Russian forum... their majority confirmed the Su-27 does have a small advantage. If you want to know more 'technicalities' of why it could have been better, feel free to look at the thread below: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/220395-mig-29s-bfm-characteristics-doubts ... I've sure learned a lot from those guys.

+1 also interested here.

Very good. Those characteristics should give the 'K' variant, the BFM qualities I would have like to see in the 'A' variant right from the start, as an all time Fulcrum enthusiast. So I hope for even better turning performance. As, with the more I researched about MIG-29A (the 9.12), the more I felt that it was something of a let down IRL (for the first expectations I created). I mean, even the early Su-27 Flanker suposedly does maintain better turn rate at lesser airspeeds, doesn't loose speed so fast when turning, and probably also has a smaller turn radius, etc, than the MiG-29A. This was also much debated at the thread below. https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/220395-mig-29s-bfm-characteristics-doubts/#comments

You're probably right. I didin't yet research much on the MiG-29K, so I don't even know what kind of flight controls, and design stabibility, the 'K' variant has. Eitherway it doesn't surprise me much, it's a 20 year old flight model afterall...