BlackPixxel

Radar performs now close to the specs. Thanks alot ED!! Now we just need those additional 15% of range for the MiG-29S!

It still is, but lookdown is now according to the manual. Quite a good improvement! Still no difference between 29A and 29S though.

Both! I did not try the F-15 (I don't know what ranges it had pre-patch), but the other FC3 aircraft got changed!

Missiles perform really well, and a fix of the radar ranges was a very pleasant supruse!! Thanks alot! Unfortunately the radar/OLS transition fix did not make it in the update, maybe you can add it in case there is a hotfix in a few days.

There is a small bend that could indicate the transition from boost to sustain, but maybe it is just a result of the nonlinear drag force. But according to a MiG-29 manual the R-27ER has 8.6 s to 11 s of burntime and a peak thrust of up to 7500 kg. This manual was propably not made much after the missile was designed and underwent real world testing. So the data should be pretty accurate. The mentioning of 6.6 s to 11 s sounds more like someone mixed up the numbers by accident. Even when compressing the new rocket motor configuration to 6.6 s the boost will not come anywhere near the 7500 kg. That one table I posted earlier had a boost of 2 s with 7500 kg, and a sustain of 8 s with 2238 kg. That sounds very reasonable and would propably be a better configuration than both the old and the new DCS values. Where the values in the table come from is unknown though.

Ah, thanks!

Mhmm, is that chart from an official document about the R-27, or a third party estimation? I also found that chart in the mycity-military forum, but I got the impression that it is from some "Bauman" (person/group/university?).

@Chizh could you post that thrust chart that you mentioned? Or is it not for the public?

Old configuration is 10 s, new configuration is 8 s for DCS. If you try out both configurations, then you will see that they end up with pretty much the same results. Here are the values I used based on Chizh recent post, fuel flow is estimaged. -- Engine data. Time, fuel flow, thrust. -- t_statr t_b t_accel t_march t_inertial t_break t_end -- Stage -1.0, -1.0, 2.5, 5.5, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0e9, -- time of stage, sec 0.0, 0.0, 23.6, 14.7, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -- fuel flow rate in second, kg/sec 0.0, 0.0, 54935.0, 34335.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, -- thrust, newtons The old config is a bit more efficient in that it spreads out the sustain over a longer time, the new config is a bit more efficient in that the ratio between boost and sustain is not as extreme. But in total, for a straight flying target, after 11 s both configurations ended up with roughly the same speed and traveled distance in DCS. And from that moment the motor does not matter anymore.

If it is not some secret source, would you mind posting that thrust chart here? Thank you!

Is the total impulse staying the same when the burntime varies from temperature? 8.6 s to 11 s is about 25 % variation (similar to that Aim-7 example). 6.6 s to 11 s is about 50 % variation. I am just wondering, because the manual says 8.6 s - 11 s, which is almost the same as the 6.6 s - 11 s except for that one single digit.

Are you sure about the 6.6 s? Maybe someone misread the 8.6 s from the manual. 6.6 s to 11 s would be a massive variation.

Mhmm, very suprising values. Here is what a MiG-29 manual says: With the previous configuration it had those 7500 Kg in the boost phase, and 10 seconds of total engine operation time. Now it is just 8 seconds, which is below the minimal operation time of 8,6 seconds stated in the manual.

Excellent, thank you!!

@BIGNEWY Could you check again with the Dev-Team? From your response it seems like they misunderstood the issue. The issue is NOT that at high speed the oscillations etc. can cause failure. The issue is that at high speeds the G-limiter in the Su-33 is no longer working and happily allows for the overload to exceed the structural limits (in my video in yesterdays post, the overload goes above the range of the instrument, which means more than 10 G!). If possible, change the thread title to "G-Limiter not working at high speeds" to prevent confusion. The current title is wrong.

Not significantly less, the difference is actually not that much for high altitudes, as stated in the manuals. And in front aspect, the spectral components of the ground clutter do not overlap with the spectral components of the target, which is why there is not a big difference in lookdown when fighter and target are not flying very close to the ground. 9.13S model has additional 15 % detection range on top of the values of A/B variants. It has an improved N019M with a better processor.

Real world manuals and technical descriptions.

Radar in the real aircraft is good enough, it is just the DCS implementation that is below the real world values (for all FC3 aircraft).

Unfortunately the bug is still not fixed. Here is a video and a track from the current version of DCS. Up until a certain speed the limiter works, but then flying above that speed (appears to be around 1600 km/h) the limiter fails and allows for more and more overload as the speed increases. Watch the overload instrument in the video. At first the limiter does its job, but then the overload starts growing above the structual limit of the aircraft. The issue is not that the wings snap at low overloads, as initially thought, but that the G-limiter allows for higher overloads than the aircraft can handle at higher speeds. Su-33_Limiter_Bug.trk

Using the E-index like with the R-73E would propably have been too confusing. R-27ERE

Note how the housing for the connection of reference/datalink antennas to the seeker section is black. On quite a few R-27 shown recently it is black. It used to be white. Maybe a part that gets replaced when the R-27 goes through modernisation, or for newly domestic build ones.

Russia is now able to build its own R-27 missiles, and has been testing new upgraded variants in Syria. There are articles about that, and there are even some pictures of those new missiles. https://iz.ru/882783/aleksei-kozachenko-aleksei-ramm/v-boi-idut-stariki-istrebiteli-vooruzhat-raketami-dlia-duelei

With the current FM the range in ZPS, 900 km/h and 1 km altitude and the +150 m/s condition is about 10,49 km, so the update would shrink the range by about 500 m. Could you tell us the new motor configuration? Would be interesting to see!

So after taking into the consideration that the missile needs 150 m/s minimum closer when it reaches the target at the marked range for the proximity fuze to work, you still end up with less rear aspect range than before? Current version of DCS: 900 km/h ZPS, 1 km altitude Missile travels 18,7 km until it's speed is equal to the target speed (old condition) in 31.3 s. (Time is roughly the one from the normogram, which is good) In this time, the target moves 7,825 km, so the maximum theoretical engagement range with the old condition is 10,875 km, which is close to the value from the chart. And now the R-27ER should be reduced to 9,9 km in this scenario, even though it should have an even higher speed at when it meets the target? What was your change in the thrust profile? Soon R-27R will fly further than R-27ER

Here I drew in some of the ranges from your SUV-27 sim. They are consinstently less. Do you really think such a huge, consistent error would be a result of hand drawing? Especially at times where the range would be exactly on the circle?? Absolutely not! Totally implausible! The actuall answer for the SUV-27 consistently showing reduced launch ranges should be that it includes a safety margin. For example to account for unprecise meassuring of the target coordinates. Or simply because a shot at maximum kinematic range is a wasted missile under real conditions. These range charts are the best you have. They should be taken seriously. If the missile does not reach the ranges of the chart, then the simulation is not accurate and needs to be improved. Especially concerning is the fact that the R-27ER WITHOUT base drag is not able to reach the range of the chart. For example, there were claims that the modelling of the atmoshpere is inaccurate, with too much drag down low and too little drag up high. If that is the case, then it is no suprise that after CFD the ER does not reach the correct range at 1 km altitude.