Alfa

Yeah in the Su-33, there are only two flap positions - extended or retracted. Yes there are two different modes for the wheel brake - normal brake and "run-up" brake, which is used to hold the aircraft at stand still prior to take-off, but this is not used onboard the aircraft carrier though - at the launch positions, there are two remotely operated stop blocks in the carrier deck that are raised to hold the aircraft and retracted for take-off. But I cannot remember whether this carrier feature is simulated in FC3. It called "emergency thrust mode" and allows for a brief increase of AFB thrust by some 300 kgf per engine Yep - by some 10% apparently and IIRC the above mentoned "emergency thrust mode" is only available with the FOD grilles in the forced retracted position.

You got the manual?! - that sounds interesting.

You are welcome . Yeah my thoughts exactly . a nice looking SMT with the new cockpit and upgraded systems, but without that ugly hump of 9.19. I guess its sort of the "budget" version of the SMT and I cannot remember whether it has the upgraded version of the N019 radar(N019MP) or the Zhuk-ME...probably the latter though it could be a customer option.

it uses the 9.12 airframe actually: Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29SMT (9-12) - Russia - Air Force | Aviation Photo #1297445 | Airliners.net So no hump(not even the small one of the 9.13), but has the "swing-out" IFR probe typical of the SMT variants.

There is one interview with one USAF exchange pilot("Spanky") and if you watched it, he said that it was a modification that allowed them to simulate long-burn versions of R-27 and that he had an oppotunity to fly with "the body" of a long burn R-27 at one point, but concluded that it "probably wasn't a go-to-war kind of thing" You can mod all kinds of things - e.g.the Ukrainians recently managed to come up with a mod that allowed them to launch AGM-88 HARMs(albeit in a crude kind of way) from their MiG-29s - should we have that too then?

No one said that you couldn't use an -ER on a 9.12 airframe - on the contrary I started by saying that this has been done with a "hack" . What I did say is that its an impractical weapon on the MiG-29(whether 9.12, 9.13 or 9.13S), because of its size and weight. If you read the German Luftwaffe manual on the MiG-29, you can find a section detailing the various flight limitations with different load-out options - with a standard load-out of 2x R-27R and 2x R-73, there are no limitations other than those for the aircraft itself(clean) - this would not be the case with -ERs. Besides, as Yambo said, the aircraft in the photo is an upgraded variant for the Serbian airforce - considering the Kh-29s displayed beside it, it could well be that the "weight carrying capablities" were uprated as well. That the quidance system works in the same way, does not necessarily mean that you can just hang an ER on a standard 9.12 and use it as an -R without making modifications for the purpose....you are the one making assumptions It has nothing to do with "9.12 vs. 9.13 upgrade limitations" - there was a MiG-29S(9.12S), IIRC called MiG-29SD these days and even an .SMT variant(9.18) based on the 9.12 airframe. The point is that the version we get for DCS is the original "plain vanilla" 9.12 and as such should reflect the configuration and capabilities of this and not what it could potentially be modified to do or upgraded into.

The long-burn versions of the R-27 have been available for export for decades, so has the MiG-29B and MiG-29SE - yet only the latter is compatible with the R-27ER and IR versions(as well as RVV-AE). It was invisioned as a modular missile system common to the MiG-29 and Su-27, where the IR/extended range versions were intended as an additional option specifically for the Su-27 due to its wider mission prospect. In DCS you mean?

The SUV-29 of the original 9.12(which it seems is the one we get for DCS) did not have support for the IR- and long-burn versions of the R-27 - only the R-27R. IIRC use of the R-27ER has been achieved by a "hack" that pretty much tricks the WCS to think its a R-27R, which worked because, as you said, the guidance section and thus compability with the radar is the same. But whether this also involved the proper engagement parameters for the -ER is doubtful. At any rate its one of those things that might look good on paper, but in reality is a rather impractical prospect. Its just too big and heavy for the MiG-29 with subsequent flight restrictions, while providing only a moderate range improvement.

Finally!

The MiG-29 as such does not have a 4G limit for the centerline tank. All stores come with some restrictions that should be observed by the pilot for safe operation, but they are not systemic - i.e. the flight control system does not impose them. So its not a limit they can simulate other than the aerodynamic/weight effect of ordinance.

I seem to remember Chizh mentioning something about this on the Russian section once, but I cannot remember if they were going to implement it or just thought about doing it.

The Urals in the screenshots are not Ural-375 though(they have a different front-grill). They are the later Ural-4320 version - the cargo variants(with and without tent) are even of the late Ural 4320-10(from around 1993), which you can identify by the external airfilter-house on the mudguard.

There is a three-way switch(АП - ОТКЛ - АПК) on the MiG-29 radar panel, that sets how the SNP(TWS) mode operates in the presence of jamming. I cannot remember the details, but "ОТКЛ"(OFF) is the default position for normal operation, while the others are for trying to lock on to a jamming contact by other means - i.e. in the real aircraft there other options than just jumping out of TWS and enter STT. I think Vatikus knows more about this than I do, but just doesn't bother explaining it, since ED has said that there are no plans to change anything in relation to the system's complex. Besides, as you said, there is the question of the simple ECM modelling in general.

Thanks :) . Anyway, it basically says the same as the Luftwaffe manual, except for specifying the conditions for the max g-loads.

Where did you find those figures draconus? :) According to the Luftwaffe manual, the maximum allowed speed with CFT is M1.5 regardless of whether its full/partial full or empty(because its a drag related issue), while G-limitation is is + 4/-1.5 when full/partial full, but none(general aircraft flight limits) when empty. For wing tanks its M0.9 - again regardless of whether they are full or empty, while the G-limitation is +6/-1.0 when empty and +4/-1.0 when full/partially full.

The N010(and I guess N011 as well) combined hydro-mechanical steering in azimuth with electronic scanning in elevation, so Dudikoff is right :) . I am not sure what the initial design specs called for - whether it was for this or an actual PESA like on the MiG-31, but if you consider the volume and weight of the latter, its easy to see why that design wasn't achievable at the time for the Su-27....not to mention the MiG-29.

Thats correct :)

МиГ-29 (9.12) = MiG-29 = "FULCRUM A" МиГ-29УБ (9.51) = MiG-29UB = "FULCRUM B" МиГ-29 (9.13) = MiG-29 = "FULCRUM C" МиГ-29С (9.13С) = MiG-29S = "FULCRUM C" There is no such thing as a "MiG-29C" or "MiG-29A" - these are erroneous designations....either simply a case of applying "Western" designation system(like F-16A and F-16C) to Russian aircraft, or mixing NATO reporting names with the original designation - i.e. MiG-29 + FUlCRUM A = MiG-29A. Note that: a) NATO makes no distinction between the MiG-29(9.13) and the MiG-29S(9.13S), but calls both "FULCRUM C". b) Russian/Soviet designation makes no distinction between different versions of the "baseline" MiG-29 - i.e. domestic 9.12, warsaw pact 9.12A, commercial 9.12B and even the 9.13 is still just called "MiG-29".

NP I know the feeling :D

Yes.. Correct :) No a SARH seeker needs the launching radar to illuminate the target - an ARH doesn't :)

Interesting info about the functions Vatikus, but as far as this being a 9.12 vs. 9.13 difference, I don't think thats correct :) . I looked around and found that in the Hungarian MiG-29B it does indeed appear as you described - "запрос" by the button on the stick and a button marked "сброс" on the panel you mentioned - the photos you posted also appear to be of that version(judging by position of the AOA/G meter and master warning lamp). But on photos of a Russian 9.12(attached), it says "сброс" at the button on the stick, while there is no button on that panel - at the position, there is instead a 3-way switch entitled; "заxваt", with the options: "свой" and "чужой". So this appears to be what you talked about in regards to IFF. So it looks more like a difference between the 9.12 and 9.12B.

Yes it could be that the button was intended to have an IFF function at an early stage, but omitted later. The photo I posted is of a 9.13(one of the ex-Moldova ones displayed at Nellis). Then again I guess the button could have a dual functionality - e.g. press once for IFF interrogation/hold down for 3 seconds to break lock or something like that. AFAIK the Germans don't use the original IFF system(believe it was removed prior to them taking possesion of the aircraft), so that could explain why the button isn't in use for that function. But I don't know :)

Ah ok :) . No I haven't seen it described either......thats why I asked :D Makes you wonder if it actually has a function in the MiG-29.

Well its not a slider, but a wheel - but how is it marked then?

I don't know, but its accurate. What are you wondering about?