Top Jockey

Here is a print of the G loading comparison table, with the G forces attained while experimenting on DCS. As in the previous post, what leaves me surprised is that for roughly the same speeds, the Mirage can pull more Gs than the MiG... which in real life isn't supposed to be. Any opinions on why, or what I might be doing wrong ? Thank you.

Hello again everyone, I've been comparing Sustained Turn Performance between several DCS jet fighters, (and I've been writing the values in Excel sheet). And, lo and behold, again I came surprised when for similar test conditions: - the Mirage 2000 C showed better (higher) Sustained Turn rates than the MiG-29 A ... which according the interview at the link below, in reality the contrary should actually be true. I'm not on the PC where I have the Excel with the G's load data, but the test conditions (in DCS) were : - 2 x IR missile and gun ammo - fuel for 2 mins. full afterburner - using unlimited fuel option - so I could establish what each airframe could do in those conditions. ( internal fuel quantity for 2 mins. full AB : 23 % for Mirage and 35 % for MiG-29 ) - ambient temperature: 18º C - altitude: 200 - 400 ft above sea level - speeds tested (in kts IAS at the F2 view bottom infobar) : 310 kts, 330 kts, 370 kts, 410 kts, 440 kts. Obviously this was in no way a "scientific" test, as it is very difficut to keep the aircraft's speeds and altitude constantly stable while turning. But clearly, on all of those speeds the Mirage 2000C was able to pull more Sustained G load than the MiG-29A - so what's wrong here ? https://hushkit.net/2019/08/12/mig-29-versus-mirage-2000-personal-account-from-by-air-marshal-harish-masand/

Yep, it was possible with the LShift + Enter key combo, but the columns style alignment gets distorted, depending on user PC zoom view...

Yep, tried that but no avail: - adding lines with 'Enter' the line number limit still appears - adding lines with space, it will again make the text columns appear mis-aligned depending on zoom size view. Thank you eitherway!

Thank you for the advice @MAXsenna. Indeed the LShift + Enter combo works as intended, but unfortunatelly it wouldn't help the text configuration I would like to give to my signature - still would be too many lines past the 5 line limit. Would like to config my signature as in image 1 - and your key combo does help give it a cleaner look (less line spacing), but the lines limit number is reached. It is possible to do as in image 1 with spacing, instead of adding lines with Enter or LShift + Enter ... but depending on each user's PC screen view zoom it can easily appear as in image 2... Any suggestion ? Thank you.

Are you using the DLC to help in the carrier landing process ?

Hello, Could anyone share some insight on how to remove / set the doube spacing between lines on my signature. Thank you.

Thank you all guys for the insights regarding the AIM-9 and SEAM in the Phantom. Also as far as I know (if I'm not mistaken) : - besides the capability of slaving the AIM-9 seeker head to a radar track; - SEAM also had the capability to make the AIM-9 seeker head perform a scan pattern by itself around the boresight / ADL (widening the target acquisition area) There's more related to this subject, CAGE / UNCAGE function, scan pattern types, etc. Anyone feel free to share your insight.

Hello everyone, I suppose this is the right thread for my question, judging by the title. Regarding the AIM-9 SEAM (Sidewinder Expanded Acquisition Mode) in the F-4 Phantom II, could anyone share some insight, on which airframe variants / missile versions used it, and how was this mode employed by the pilot as the Phantom did not had much in terms of HUD symbology ? Thank you.

Regarding the thread's question: - mostly because, it is the best PC sim (on all aspects) where a MiG-29 A is featured; - besides, it also comes with the F-15C and Su-27; - the A-10 also attracts me a bit.

Strange... Flight hours : 240 h, 34 mins - was still "Commander" (Navy ranks) Flight hours : 241 h, 03 mins - finally got to "Captain" rank Was this discrepancy possibly caused by an error in past edits (from me) of the logbook file ?

Hello @Home Fries and anyone who can share any insight, Just reached today the 240 hours with my pilot profile for the F-14 - therefore Navy pilot ranks, as I have the 'logbook improvements mod' installed. ... however its rank is still 'Commander' instead of 'Captain'. Any opinion on what I might be doing wrong ? Thank you.

Hello, Sure I understand. On the Hornet vs Super Hornet, I believe the 2.40 value I've read is for the first; and I believe the values might be different for each, as they are different airframes afterall... I see. Besides CL max, and other values I'm gathering, I'm looking at wing area and also total / overall lift area / surfaces. Hence my questions here, as in: - for the F-14 its wing area is 52,5 square meters, but its total lift area is stated as 94 square meters - which is quite significant; - therefore my curiosity to know total lift area for other aircraft also; - in the Mirage 2000C I suppose its total lift area value wouldn't change much from the wing area ? But I'm curious about that value for the F-15C.

From some website the MiG-29A CL max is supposedly 1.50. edit CL max for other types, I've gathered from around the web: F-14A : 2.20 (with unsweept wings) F-15C : 1.60 (as you mentioned also) F/A-18C : 2.40 ?? Su-27S : 1.85 Can't find the CL max for the Mirage 2000C. And I'm tryin to know if it's "wing area" (41 square meters) already include the controling surfaces.

Thank you ! Outstanding info on those charts.

Thank you @59th_Buncsi - very helpful ! Thank you @Pavlin_33. For max. sustained turn rate, I thougth that parameteres like CL max and Wing Loading also played a role... but I'm still learning.

@captain_dalan, I understand you. So, looking at the diagrams 59th_Buncsi posted : - for instance at sea level, the MiG-29A can achieve 9 Gs at a lower speed than the F-15C ; - respectively 460 kts for the MiG, versus 500 kts (Mach 0.75) for the Eagle. So having in mind that in the metrics / parameters / etc. I mention before the Eagle seems to have better numbers, my doubt (curiosity) is : What kind of parameters are responsible for that kind of differences ( higher speed for the same G and like Ironhand mentioned - lower sustained turn rate on the Eagle ) - airframe design ?

Thank you @AeriaGloria. Sure I've seen the comparison tables site - quite interesting. You can send the PDF if it isn't much botter to you - thank you!

Thank you @Ironhand. You nailed it - absolutely 100 % the kind of details I was trying to know !

Hello @captain_dalan, thank you for your time. Yeah, I know this is not exactly a 'scientific' way of measuring performances, but these a basic and more easily understandable parameteres. (And I know there are several others, like for instance one you've mentioned in the past: Lift / Drag ratio, etc...) But not being me an expert, I've chosen to keep things more basic and easy to understand. So I guess what I'm trying to ask is: - given the known "numbers" regarding the parameters ( T/W, CL Max, Wing Loading, and others of due importance ), can the F-15C airframe be that good (or even better) than the MiG-29A, regarding turning / maneuver capabilities ?

These bolds are also my impression ^ AIM-9 use (Bore mode) : JHMCS looks in a direction > AIM-9 seekerhead looks in that direction > AIM-9 seekerhead locks on target AIM-120 use (Slave mode) : JHMCS looks in a direction > Radar looks in that direction > Radar locks on target > AIM-120 will follow the Radar locked target (when fired) ... not the JHMCS Some particularities though : - although the Radar may have a target locked within its gimbal limits; - when at very close distances the AIM-120 might not be able to do a tight enough curve to reach the target (when fired).

Thank you for your time people! I know that some specific data on jets isn't always easy to find. My motive to try knowing this stuff is related to have a rough idea of some jets aerodynamic capabilities. Yep, wing area is easily available at wikipedia, but overall / total lift area / surface / etc. might not be that easy. But it is know for some jets, i.e. the MiG-29: - total lift area: 60,9 (square meters) - wing area: 38 (square meters) Thank you eitherway!

Thank you, Ironhand. Yep that in bold seems to be automatic around here ! The matter is, like on previous times (in this same thread also) I've asked people's own point of view on the matter (opinion), regarding a pure machine vs machine capabilities comparison (on jet fighters). I guess it's a side effect DCS World has on jet fighter enthusiast like me - it puts us curious about which characteristics one jet can be superior to other. Hence, seeing how well the F-15C performs in DCS, one gets curious to know a little bit more detail, on how it would do against the MiG-29A in real life, regarding turn rates and the such. Also, parameters like wing area and wing loading for several jets are easy to find, although others like "overall lift area" not so much.

By the way, would anyone know the: total lifting area of the Su-27 ? I've been searching through the web, but so far no avail. Thank you.

Hello, No that is real world data (might not be 100 % correct values), not DCS. Well, I merelly used empty weights, wing area from Wikipedia and the such. I know it isn't the most correct, but i calculated T / W and wing loadings with empty weights, just to have a very basic rough ideia, comparing wise. CL is what I managed to find in several sites (when available). Turn rates, turn radius, corner speed is what I'm asking ...