Alfa

Yes its a rather silly term - it means the one that(determined by collected track info), will enter the engagement envelope of your missile first - i.e. range and closure rate. Yes that would be the situation - but again I am not certain about this and I don't how ED is implementing it :) .

Do you mean a timer function displayed on the HUD? - if so I don't know mate :)

Well in the "baseline" MiG-29 the TWS mode can track up to 10 contacts and based on this automatically picks the "most dangerous"(first tracked contact to enter missile engagement envolupe) for engagement - then automatically switch to STT for SARH missile launch when the selected target falls within missile launch parameters. For the modified radar of the MiG-29S, the new TWS mode does practically the same except that: a). of the up to 10 tracked contacts it can designate two(prioritised in the same way as described above) for engagement. b). if R-77 missile is selected the radar doesn't automatically switch to STT, but allows for missile launch from TWS directly. At least that what I have been able to dig out concerning the TWS functionality of the N019M(MiG-29S) and it also appears to be the way ED is implementing it. Thats a good question - from what I have read there is something to suggest that the system automatically assigns an Mlink for each of the two selected contacts - i.e. after launching on first priority target, the system automatically switches to the secondary. But I don't know if there is a "target cycle" function. In the case of the real radar I would say probably the contrary - I have read that with the original N019 it was only possible to designate the lead contact of a group. If this also holds true for the N019M, then the two targets must be widely enough spaced for the radar to see them as separate targets - yet close enough to eachother to be covered by the scan zone. But how ED is implementing this aspect I don't know.

But the rack in this photo is also AKU-470 - not APU-470 :) Another photo attached.

Ok but you are still right about the issue :) . The Su-33 also has those extra stations and should be using ejection launch(AKU-470 rack) from them, but doesn't in the game(well not in FC2 anyway). For the Su-27 the game representation is correct. For the Su-30 its a little more complicated - the model in the game only has 10 stations, which was correct for the initial pure interceptor variant, but in the game it is depicted as a multirole variant(range of armament) - and AFAIK both the upgraded(Su-30KN) as well as the new built Su-30MK have 12 stations. Anyway, since the launch sequence in the game is different for fuselage-(ejection) and wing stations(rail), while the weapon IDs are the same, it must mean that the launch logic is "hardcoded" for each station/aircraft type. So its probably not something we(community) can correct.

But there are several versions of the AIM-120C - why exactly C5? In terms of dates - yes something like that, in terms of technology - no :) .

I kind of disagree with that Pilotasso. In the case of the F-15C it took 7 years(1985 to 1992) before it got the AIM-120A. ....and a several years more before it got the AIM-120C. In the case of the Su-27 it took some 5 years before it got the R-27ER/ET(IIRC came along around 1990), as for the R-77(RVV-AE)......a couple of decades :D

Why exactly? :) The Su-27 was introduced into service in 1984, while the upgraded F-15C came along around 1985(IIRC). So the Su-27 and F-15C are completely contempory and at the time of induction their BVR armament consisted of R-27R and AIM-7M respectively....no "long burn" R-27 variants, no R-77s and no AIM-120s around.

Its a little more complicated than that Kuky. You need to consider that there are two lauchers available for the R-27 range of missiles: - The APU-470 rail launcher for MiG-29 and wing stations on Su-27. - The AKU-470 ejector launcher for fuselage stations on Su-27 ....and that: - The IR homing variants(R-27T/TE) can only use the APU-470 rail launcher. - The radar guided variants(R-27R/RE) can use both the AKU-470 ejector rack as well as the APU-470 rail launcher. - The APU-470 rail launcher can only be used on two wing stations - stations 3 & 8 on Su-27 and stations 3 & 10 on Su-33(see attached images) - The AKU-470 ejector launcher can be used on both fuselage and wing stations. Some Flanker variants(such as the Su-33, Su-35 and Su-30MK) have an extra set of wing pylons and due to their proximity to the engine ducts it is probably necessary to use the AKU-470 rack for the R-27R/RE. To me the Flanker in the footage looks like an Su-30MK variant launching an R-27R from one of those extra wing points.

Hornets do not have the ACES II seat - either SJU-5(early) or SJU-17a "NACES". I believe the seat in the footage is the latter.

How is that? The F/A-18C is merely an upgraded F/A-18A - there are practicallly no airframe differences and very few visible differences inside the cockpits. It was only with the "Night Attack Hornet"(from 1989) that the pit started to look a little different, but with the same overall layout. The MiG-29K is totally different from the MiG-29 on all areas - completely redesigned airframes and cockpit, new flight control system(fly-by-wire) , combat systems, in-flight refuelling etc......turning a simple counter air fighter into a sophisticated multirole carrier aircraft. The MiG-29M/K was a complete change in philosophy from the original MiG-29 and as such a much bigger step than even F/A-18A to F/A-18E.

I have highlighted a couple of passages that you should pay attention to :) Based on the above mentioned highlighted passages and that the PR material is from Aero India 2005, I am pretty sure that it concerns the "Bars-29" - a smaller version of the N011M Bars radar(installed in Su-30MKI) that NIIP promoted for upgrading India's MiG-29 fleet. I.e. not for the Su-30MKI, which already has the full size version of the radar. Anyway, in the end the Indians didn't go for it - the upgrade program for their MiG-29 fleet has already been finalised and deliveries commenced under the designation "MiG-29UPG", which is equipped with the Zhuk-ME radar(also installed in the MiG-29K/KUB) produced Phazatron-NIIR :) .

Yes I realise that the most recent Su-33 upgrade introduced further changes yet, but(as you know) the photo Kuky posted is of an old Su-33 pit - i.e. one of the late 80'ies prototypes, which had the highest similarity with the Su-27 pit.....and even for this differences are numerous. The more recent "in-service" Su-33 pit had further changes - e.g. new ADI and pressure altimeter, fuel totalizer gauge moved from the front panel to a separate housing above the HDD etc.(photo attached).

They are quite different Joey - the current Su-33 pit in the game is actually not very accurate. The front panel has a different layout with several instruments being different, the side consoles are different, extra handles(for naval systems) etc. In the current game pit many of these differences are depicted simply by swapping out textures, while other aren't at all. Building the pits in full 3D, it would require a huge amount of extra work to properly replicate those differences.

Except that its a Su-33 pit Kuky - T-10K5(bort # 69) to be specific ;)

The "MFD" image of MiG-29 and Su-27 shouldn't have a grid at all, so a better "fix" would be to remove it from the code altogether :)

No it isn't - hence the last part of my reply :)

I guess the "ideal" way would be to start with the "tub" - making sure that the varies meassurements are accurate, then start building up the main panels and finally fill in with instrument panels, switches, dials, gauges etc. But IMO it doesn't really matter where you start. Cockpits are rarely well documented, so no matter how structured your approach, you will be relying heavily on photo research and be making constant adjustments along the way anyway. So just find an angle - i.e. some object you think would be fun to try and model and then take it from there.

Yes thats what I had in the far corners of memory - didn't recall the designation of the test bed though. Thanks for digging out the info Hajduk.

I kind of doubt that Hajduk - if you look at the link I posted, you can read that the AL-31F-M1 engine is quite recent and approved for production only by 2007, while AFAIK that 2D nozzle experiment is far older.

Yes but the T-10 as such was completely redesigned because it turned out that initial performance characteristics were inadequate - i.e. practically an entirely new airframe and not just a question of engines. I doubt we will see something similar with the T-50 though - minor refinements and new engines yes, but I wouldn't expect radical design changes.

Interesting - do you have a source for this Vekkinho?(would like to read more about it). I also thought it was an early 2D TVC experiment(looks more like that than thermal supression meassures) and at the corner of my mind I remember having read once that such a design was initially investigated, but abandonned in favour of the moving nozzle system. However, a quick interweb search came up with the claim that it was all about IR signature reduction :hmm: . Anyway, I think you got the engine designation wrong though - AL-31F-M1 is AFAIK simply an uprated(max thrust in AB raised from 12500 to 13500 kgf) version of the standard AL-31F: http://www.salut.ru/ViewTopic.php?Id=662

Ah - so its a "firefox" exercise :D

Hehe yeah I figured as much - just wondered what the focus of the exercise was since the pilot is being "man handled" like that :) .

Like Combatace said, the image you found is actually very old - I knew I had seen it before somewhere, but couldn't remember what exactly it was about. On further investigation it turns out that it was an early 90'ies test concerning engine IR signature reduction meassures(3 additional images attached). Whether it also involved some experimenting with 2D TVC I don't know, but its definately not a current development concerning the PAK-FA :) . The PAK-FA is scheduled to get new engines, but there is no indication that these will have a nozzle design like that of the F-22 - so far the only published info concerns weight reduction(as compared with the current engines) and expected power ratings of some 176 kn in AB per engine.