IvanK
-
Posts
3070 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by IvanK
-
-
Why are we seeing these False targets on the Mir 2K when we dont see them on any other aircraft in DCS ?
As I understand it in DCS the only jamming modeled is Noise jamming. There are no false target generators in DCS. So imo all we should be seeing are jamming strobes ... like you see for the SU27/MIG29 and F15..... or however the RDI depicts them.
-
When are we likely to see R550 30deg x 30deg search and auto lock implemented ?
-
That book is ... Wait for it.... Wait for it... legen-dary!
Cold war aurframes ar the best! No need to do a PhD!
Hmmm a far better book and far more objective "Hostile Skies" by David Morgan ...none of the emotive FIGJAM stuff you find in Wards book :)
-
"I guess I need to read a little bit more into how jamming works to figure out if it makes even sense in terms of physics if narrowing the beam would mean faster burn through. Intuitively it seems so (the more focused beam could be distinguished from the noise created by the jammer earlier than a beam which energy is spread over larger area), but my intuition has been wrong before
"In a former life using the Cyrano II in the Mirage III a standard technique to increase burn through range against a simple noise jammer was to Spotlight the target. This was done by stopping the antenna azimuth scan over the jamming strobe (Physically you placed the Lock on cursour or TDC at the same azimuth as the jamming strobe but not at target range). You then pressed the lock on lever. This then stopped the azimuth sweep and provided a narrow pencil beam. If successful the target blib would then appear in the jamming strobe, You now had Azimuth and range.... though of course this technique could also be taken by the jammer as an attempted Lock on also.
-
Some more info. The lateral translation of the contacts with roll in RWS and PID varies as pitch attitude increases. See in the trk below. as Pitch attitude increases or decreases the contacts move rapidly across the screen with roll inputs. They even swap sides. The greater the pitch attitude the greater the horizontal translation of the displayed contacts. As someone elsewhere alluded to this is a pendulous type motion. Its as if the radar centre point being used to calculate and display the contact position is offset from the radar boresight.
As can be seen with roll inputs resulting in perhaps 10 degrees of heading change result in contact azimuth shift way in excess of that especially with high pitch attitudes.
-
On Ejection the 3D model of the seat is an ACES II rather than the MB10 :)
-
The pre purchase info says ...."Martin Baker SIII S-3 ejection seat" .... No such animal :) Most F5E's stuck with the original US Northrop seat. Some countries upgraded to a Martin Baker BRQ7A seat (Brazil and Iran for example). The SIII S-3 moniker sounds more like a Stencil seat designation ... not that the F5E was equipped with these either.
The images released show the Belsimtek F5E to be equipped with the Northrop seat.
-
This from Version 1.5.3.53108 Beta
With contacts displayed in both PPI and B scope close to head on. Apply roll inputs you will notice large azimuth changes to the displayed contacts even with very little actual heading change. Contacts are moving in azimuth in direct response to roll input. They shouldn't as radar antenna is both pitch and roll stabilized.
TWS (PID)
If you designate a target in TWS (PID) weird movements in the antenna elevation caret are observed with roll changes. If the target is displaced off the nose rolling in the direction of the target will see the antenna elevation caret rapidly going up the scale ....implying an increase in antenna elevation. Rolling away from the target sees the antenna elevation caret rapidly dropping down the scale implying a decrease in antenna elevation.
Its as if in PID the antenna or TWS tracking cell is no longer pitch and roll stabilized. It looks as if certainly in the case of antenna elevation its absolute and referenced directly to the fighters fore aft axis.
STT (PIC)
If transitioning from PID to PIC the problem goes away and the STT contact and antenna elevation caret behavior is logical/normal.
TRK below illustrates this behavior.
-
in the Mirage III the Bog Standard R530 had an Auto fire capability as well. With Auto Fire selected on the R530 would fire at a point known as Topt. this was about 2/3 of the Rmax of the missile. In current terminology you could consider it as Rmax2/Rttr
-
I thought this thread was about the Mirage breaking up at high speeds or something...
Just to clarify, what you are referring to is "braking", i.e. using the wheel brakes. Not trying to be nit-picky, but for the benefit of those where English is a second language as it does have it's quirks...
Thanks for the head's up though.
Only occurs in close in scissoring :)
-
V1 is runway stop speed :), Vr is rotate speed :)
-
The aircraft pitch response after landing feels a lot more natural now imo.
-
Probably closer to the FA18A avionics wise ... display format and mechanization was almost identical.
-
+1 great read and infinitely better than harrier over the Falklands by Sharkey Ward
-
My point is MSVGAS even with full backstick you shouldnt be able to hold the nose up..... it happens even with stick neutral in the mir2k. I understand the C of G related issues.
If the real Mir2k behaved like this there would scraped tails left right and centre..... and the sumpies would soon get tired of replacing nozzle flaps :)
-
Just flown the latest update (1.5.3.52018) I see little change in the Mir2K desire to hold its nose up in the air to very low IAS in the landing roll out. If you overcook it even full forward stick wont get the nose down ... brakes are about the only way to do it. This is most unnatural and unrealistic imo.
I have 1500hrs or so on the Mir 3 and broadly speaking the landing roll out (with Auto command engaged ) would imo be very similar to the Mir 2K with full authority FBW. To me I would think that around 100Kts or so the Flight controls simply wouldn't have enough authority to hold the nose up.
-
"When it first came out: runway roll-out would eventually lead to the nose setting down by itself after sufficient speed has bled off."
..... is undoubtedly the correct response. The nose remaining high at Low IAS is an impossibility unless there is some truly horrendous aft C of G thing going on.
-
Bump :)
-
"I think the radar can switch automatically from PID to PIC (FC3 radars do) on certain conditions but I'm not sure it's implemented right now. Didn't test that actually."
Its an assumption but I would presume that if a Super R530D launch is tried from PID(TWS) the radar should attempt to go PIC(STT) automatically before launch. This is how the FA18A was with if an AIM7M launch was attempted on the TWS L&S target.
-
Thanks Rlaxoxo... not running any mods. might try editing the magictone sdf
-
Hear like helmet unticked ... will tick and try again
-
I mean R550 Magic II
-
Even with the Miss Vol switch full clockwise the R550 tone is too soft imo.
-
Here's one for you, does anyone know what sort of look-down capability the AN/APQ-159 has? And if BST will be modeling the ground clutter that we see in the manual?
Given its a straight pulse radar then very limited. It would rely on judicious pilot use of manual gain control and use of antenna elevation to maximize the use of side lobes (keeps target out of main beam clutter). lookdown detection ranges will be very low.
"
Radar contact azimuth bug.
in Resolved Bugs
Posted