Top Jockey

What do you mean, exactly which landing characteristics in the F-14 aren't good for you ? Regarding landing the F-14 at the boat, I can only recal the bubble effect behind the Carrier, but other than that ...

Yes, if I recall correclty according to the E.M. diagrams it appears to be preciselly those values.

1. Always was accurate for me ... other than that on a remote possibility, maybe some bug from some late open beta version ... 2. Never looked that much at the alpha when I'm fighting ... I look mostly at my airspeed and try to maintain it. 3. The corner speed for the MiG-29A if I recall correctly should be around 370 knots.

Yep Yep, as sad as it might be, that's the reason why many of us don't frequently buy more modules : The never ceasing escalation towards ever more powerful and more expensive hardware ; for much that I highly appreciate DCS modules, PC hardware is highly expensive to keep $pending so much.

No problem by me. For me, it does make more sense to use an already existing thread ( like this ), instead of replicating more threads with no end. So, in your opinion which airframe MiG-29A or MiG-29K, does have better dogfighting characteristics ? ( ITR, STR, climb rate, nose authority, wing loanding, CL max, all that stuf. )

Buongiorno Benvenuti ! Grazie. Sono portogheze, ma ora sono venuta qui solo per praticare un po' il mio italiano. Perché sono un ragazzo molto colto e tutto...

I would very much like for you to be right ... however, I'm not that confident. Take this very own thread (progress pictures) for instance - itself isn't showing that much progress, is it ?

So Im I, when is it comming ?

Thank you. Very interesting read also.

Hello, Sure, neither was I implying that. About the 2nd and 3rd bold, I really didn't know that.

Very good, pertinent view and diplomatic way of sharing some truths, as others also stated already (real life data for a given AC). I fully understand your point, but some points remain however : - although the Air Marshal's mount is the MiG-29 and therefore some bias is to be expected, I wouldn't call it an interview from somewhere; - also, regarding ITR and STR, he specifically states the very opposite of what one does experience in DCS - in real life supposedly the MiG being superior in these parameters ... hence my surprise on all this; - if those (his words) were bold faced lies / exagerations, wouldn't an opposite side (from Mirage squadron) version of the facts be known also ?

Sure, very interesting and useful also. If I recal correctly, the first version of that doc didn't have so many aircraft. By the way, at page 9 why doesn't the MiG-29 has the "starting fuel" (orange) performance data, for ITR, STR and Climb rate ?

Hello GGTharos, Realism, regarding to what aspect - real life war scenario ? I'm not trying to establish that. I'm trying to ascertain pure airframe vs airframe capability in technical terms let's say. So are you of the opinion that in real life, in the conditions I've mentioned at the table in previous page : - 'airframe wise' regarding Sustained Gs performance, the Mirage 2000 C really is that much superior than the MiG-29 A ? ... also, I've specifically compared every jet at that excel sheet with internal fuel quantity for exactly the same time in full afterburner.

Yep, asked that question in the Mirage sub-forum a few days ago, and they said that issue is already fixed.

Yes, that might be an important part of the reason it performs below my expectations ... believe it or not I do have a print screen of that explanation from @bies ! While the Mirage 2000 C does have 'relaxed stability', the MiG-29 A does have 'stable design', with the consequent known effects in their respective maneuvering capabilities. The thing is, before begining experimenting so much with the different types in DCS (and reading much, much more), I was expecting the MiG-29 to be on pair, (and probably even slightly above) the following airframes in some aspects : - F-16 A/C - F/A-18 C - Mirage 2000 C Even some time ago, on my mind it was also: yeah forget airframes like F-14 or F-15 against the MiG-29 ... "too heavy, not so 'refined' airframe, etc." I thought. Then one starts looking at data comparing the F-15C with the MiG-29A, and there comes a reality check ... T/W ratio ... wing loading ... lift coefficients ... not to mention stuf I don't yet know so well - lift to drag ratio and such. Even the F-15C nose pointing ability is much more hassle free than the MiG-29's.

Yes, it is correct, and back there I was comparing the MiG-29 against other types. However, this time I've took the time to look at things with a little more attention (experimenting several stuf), and comparing against the Mirage 2000 C ... and voila: even the delta winged can surpass it in STR.

Precisely - hence its tendency to loose speed quickly and such, it has been mentioned over and over. Besides, the aicraft which the MiG-29 was mentioned by pilots (earlier times) to somewhat 'compete' against in STR was the F-16 ... not so much the Mirage 2000 I believe ?

Hello draconus, thank you for your time. No, I'm not knowledgeable enough to challenge the DCS FMs, just a jet fighter enthusiast who wants to know which airframes are superior in some regards. And I trust the developers work and capabilities. The thing is, merely the MiG-29's ACM performance seems so 'weak' and subpar from what is worldwide known for, particularly when compared with the majority of the jets on that table in DCS, that one can't help to notice and feel that something kind of is missing there. About the interview: - sure the Air Marshal clearly admited that, specific data wouldn't be disclosed - but at the same time, he specifically said the the MiG-29 was superior in STR, ITR and climb ( which leaves us with the scenario he mentioned being only true, with more fuel weight and at higher altitudes ? ) - the Mirage's lower T/W ratio and delta wing, also raise questions for me regarding its Sustained Turn rate when comparing with the MiG-29 - also, the Mirage 2000 C we have in DCS, is a mid-80's version, correct ? About attaining more Gs in the Mirage in my tests than the real life FMs, sure i suppose the conditions on known real life FM diagrams are not so 'favorable' as in my DCS experiments. Regarding the NATOPS FM diagrams, yep it's from another sim, and I don't know where they compiled them from.

So, anyone else ?

Thank you @Ramsay. Will look into it !

Thank you. The only document I have with E.M. diagrams say's NATOPS, but is 'compiled' from another sim, so I don't know to which extent the diagrams are true to real life: - it is for the Mirage 2000-5F variant, and I don't know if this variant performance differs much from the -C variant in real life. (if they perform differently in real life in terms of E.M., then the document is of no use for this comparison) My point is, in the conditions: - sea level - 2 x IR missiles - total weight 9.3 t ( 20.600 lbs ) - at 440 kts ( IAS ) ~ Mach 0.65 The E.M. diagram (for the -5F) shows roughly 7.2 ~ 7.3 G's ... in the same conditions in DCS (with the -C) I'm getting 8.3 G's. Could anyone share some insight of what I might be doing wrong ? Thank you.

One question: Is the fix about the before mentioned high sustained turn rates implemented already ? Thank you.

Hello Ironhand, Yeah I'll compare with the NATOPS F.M. charts and try to find conclusions ...

I believe I can get more insight here. So, could anyone share your opinion on the following, and at the G load comparison table at the post below also ? ( Mirage 2000 C vs MiG-29 A Sustained Turn rates - the post where I experiment G loads at 5 different airspeeds. ) Thank you

Yeps, also had the same experience related to other stuf - AIM-9 spot / scan function ... thread deleted, and to this day no developments on that matter.