Alfa

Yeah :) Yes those are export versions - 9.12A is the warsaw pact version, while 9.12B is the one for other nations. 9.13 is the updated version(Fulcrum C) without N019M/R-77 - no export version of that. 9.13S is the MiG-29S - MiG-29SE for export. Don't know about that one - sorry. Yes and no - 9.41 is the new single seat MiG-29K and 9.47 is the two-seat MiG-29KUB. When Russia adopted these, they added the "R" for "Russia" denoting that the aircraft had been "domesticated" with all-Russian equipment(no third party elements as for the Indian version). Yes that was the Romanian upgrade(IIRC made with assistance from an Israeli company).

Its a 9.12 - i.e. baseline Fulcrum A.

Quite a few existed - MiG-29(9.12), MiG-29(9.13), MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31), but whether they were flown at airshows in 1991 is another question - I know that MiG-29M(9.15) no. 156 flew at Farnborough in 1992.

So do I then - I also remembered it as a single press for all......still in the wrong order though :) .

It should not. Bourrinopathe's reference picture is correct. The white button is the "break lock" or as the russian caption says "сброс"(reset). The source is wrong. There is no single "autopilot" to engage, but several autopilot modes, which are activated by respective buttons on a separate panel. The red button on the stick disengages any selected autopilot mode. There is also an autopilot "cut-out" lever on the back of the stick, which while pressed, momentarily disengages the selected autopilot mode. Edit: thats the one entitled "AP override" in the picture :) .

Correct :) . But its a little more complicated - in rough terms the fuel system is set up so that it starts by: a). draining fuel from tank- 1 into the feedertank(no. 2) b). once the level in tank 1 drops to a certain level, the system starts to compensate by pumping fuel into it from tank-3.. c)...which in turn is compensated for by pumping fuel into tank-3 from the internal wing tanks. d). ..this contiues until the internal wing tanks are empty. e). ..from then on the process involves balancing out depletion between tank 1 and 3 - tank 3 empties first followed by 1 and finally 2(feedertank). The external CL tank connects to internal tank 1, so when carried, point b). in the above process doesn't occur until the CL tank is empty. The external wing drop tanks connect to the internal wing tanks, so point d). in the above process doesn't occur until the wing drop tanks are empty. But there is an indication when the external wing tanks are empty Dudikoff - but only on the 9.13 gauge(has an extra empty-lamp for the purpose). The problem is that this gauge doesn't exist in the sim although the (RL)MiG-29S has it and the MiG-29(9.12) should have it if modified for wing drop tanks(which is how its depicted in the sim). Edit: I think I know what you mean now - while remaining quantity is only calculated for external tanks, the empty caption is activated by a flow sensor. The purpose of this is exactly to cut off transfer from external tanks as soon as they are empty to prevent compressed air from entering the fuel system. In reality the lamp is not even an "empty" caption as such - but rather an "end of transfer", which can also occur e.g. if flying inverted. Yes it would and yes the wing drop tanks impose bigger restrictions than the CL tank. The reason is quite simply that the fuel system of the original 9.12 was designed to only have the ability to carry the CL tank. The introduction of wing drop tanks with the 9.13 was just sort of a "hack". Yeah I think they do.

I don't know anything about the prototypes of the initial MiG-29, so I cannot help you there :) . But yes the 9.12 is the first production version(Fulcrum A) - known in the sim as "MiG-29A". No the MiG-29UB is 9.51. The first version of the MiG-29SMT is the 9.17 - current SMT version is 9.19. Ah not quite mvsgas :) Baseline version and upgrades: - MiG-29 (9.12) - exists in a Soviet version and two export ones(one for Warsaw pact and one for others) - MiG-29UB (9.51) - two-seat combat trainer without radar. - MiG-29 (9.13) - upgraded with ECM and wing drop tank ability and other minor improvements. - MiG-29S (9.13S) - same as above, but with upgraded radar(N019M)/R-77 compatibility - MiG-29SM (9.13M) - further upgrade of the above with guided a2g weapons. - MiG-29SMT (9.17) - initial SMT - more internal fuel, IFR capability, new cockpit etc. - MiG-29SMT (9.18 ) - SMT (budget) version based on 9.12 airframe - MiG-29SMT (9.19) - current SMT version used by the RuAF. - MiG-29UPG (9.20) - for IAF - most up-to-date upgrade with Zhuk-M radar, new HUD etc. Advanced versions: - MiG-29M (9.15) - new multirole variant - just about everything changed as compared with 9.12 - MiG-29K (9.31) - carrier version of the above with further features - IFR probe, new NAV system etc. - MiG-29K (9.41) - new further developed carrier version for India(initially). - MiG-29KUB (9.47) - two seat combat trainer of the above. - MiG-29M1 - new single seat land based version - no IFR probe. - MiG-29M2 - two seat combat trainer of the above. - MiG-35 - uber advanced version of the above(AESA radar, MLWS etc) - also comes in two-seat version. Just a quick rundown of the ones I can think of - there are also some more or less official ones like the "MiG-29G" where the operators have modified/upgraded baseline MiG-29s with new equipment. The "OVT" is a one-off tech demonstrator(TVC) which, like I mentioned earlier, is based on the last 9.15 prototype....so barely a version in its own right.

Aside from FBW control system, the MiG-29M(and -K) prototypes were completely different aircraft - new airframe, wings, engines etc. and had completely different flight characteristics. I don't know to what extend it would be possible to do a cobra maneuver(of sorts) in a "baseline MiG-29", but I have seen a MiG-29K(no. 312) do one - i.e. without TVC engines. I think the 315 is a 9.12 with wing tank modification(used for travelling to airshows) and that the 304 is a MiG-29UB.

There is(or was). Its the sixth and final MiG-29M prototype(no. 156) from 1991. Yes, but while the TVC engines are a "back-fit", the aircraft has always had FBW. The MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) prototypes from the eighties had FBW control systems from day one.

No the CL tank is emptied first. The sequence is as indicated by the order of the empty lamps(on the 9-13 gauge) - i.e.: - external CL tank - external wing drop tanks - internal wing tanks - internal tank no. 3 - internal tank no. 1 Internal tank no. 2 is the engine feed tank(and obviously emptied last) and has no empty lamp - only voice warning when 550 kg remains(Bingo warning). Not understood. In the real jet, there is a button on the back of the flight stick for jettison of the CL tank. In the "MiG-29G" modified to carry wing drop tanks, there is a (safed)button on the "WCS panel(below the AOA/G meter) for jettison of the wing drop tanks.

No only the top light - for the CL tank. As mentioned in my post above, only the fuel gauge from the MiG-29(9-12) is depicted in the sim and the 9-12 does not have the ability to carry wing drop tanks unless modified or the purpose. The MiG-29S(and MiG-29 when modified) have a different fuel gauge with an extra empty-lamp(second from the top) for the external wing tanks. Yes the RL jet has separate buttons.

You can't in the sim - unfortunately the functionality of the fuel gauge leaves something to be desired, but I guess its down to the simple system's implementation of FC3. There are no sensors in the external tanks, so only the internal fuel can be directly meassured. But in the real jet, there is a switch on the fuel gauge which selects whether the tape indicator shows remaining fuel as meassured(internal only) or predicted(both internal and external) - in the case of the latter, the fuel computer calculates the remaining fuel based on the total initial amount and how much fuel has been consumed(flow meter function). In the sim this switch is not functional and the fuel gauge is set to only show the remaining fuel in the internal tanks. But as others have said, there is a row of lamps on the side of the fuel gauge, which indicate when individual tanks are empty - the top one is for the CL tank. Another problem is that for RL MiG-29 versions capable of carrying wing drop tanks, there is a different fuel gauge with higher indication capacity and an extra lamp for the wing tank empty indication. This currently doesn't exist in the sim although both the "MiG-29A" and MiG-29S are depicted with the ability to carry wing tanks.

Yes but thats probably just a simplification of FC3. IIRC thats only the case for early CL tanks - I believe this was corrected at a later point, so gun employment is possible while carrying a CL tank. Its correct that the RL manual states this, but the question whether there is actually a systemic restriction in this regard or whether its just a direction for "good practise".

The MiG-29 only has one APU - there is an APU selector switch, which determines which engine it engages("left" or "right"), so its realistic that you cannot begin to start up the second engine at any time during the start up of the first. The manual(RL) states that, during manual start-up, you need to allow some 10 seconds interval after the APU disengages from the first engine, before placing the APU switch to the second and IIRC also that you should allow the first started engine to spool up to idle before pushing the start button for the next. There is also an automatic start-up option(APU switch set to position "both"), where both engines are started in sequence automatically - its the most commonly used and is faster, since the above mentioned APU power down/up interval is determined precisely by the system.

No - pulling harder on the stick is to override the pitch kicker, which is a function of the AOA/G limiter. The AOA/G limiter is disabled when the gear is deployed.

He was quoting me and out of context. The original reply was in response to a question about whether there is any difference in the flight control system between the real "MiG-29A" and "MiG-29G", to which I replied that there isn't because the "MiG-29G" is an "MiG-29A" - i.e. that its not an actual separate version, but just a slightly modified MiG-29A. Bollocks. You can call it semantics if you like, but an official designation is one assigned by the manufacturer - not by "the Kremlin" or what an operator likes to call it.

Its not an official designation - these are made by the manufacturer(in this case MIG). "MiG-29G" is an unofficial designation assigned by the Luftwaffe - "G" for "Germany" and "GT" for "Germany-Trainer" - to denote modifications made by them.

Yeah I keep forgetting it too.

I just posted that info 5 post back mvsgas :) . Also I would advice you to remove that link - last time I posted it, the post was promptly removed by moderators(new forum rule).

Yeah that sounds a little excessive - IIRC the speed limit for the main gear tires is 200 kts(~ 370 km/h)

I don't really agree with that - I could write you a long-winded account as to why, but this section would probably not be the right place for it :) . No it was just one of them - Soviet "carriers" were really multirole cruisers tasked with; anti-submarine warfare(large powerful sonar suite and ASW helicopters), surface-to-surface warfare(engaging enemy surface groups with cruise missiles) and air defence - not just to protect friendly submarines from enemy long-range ASW aircraft, but also to protect the friendly surface group from air-raids by carrier launched tactical aircraft. So I don't agree that lacking an RWR could be a low priority :) . I don't know about the F-14, but since the Su-33 inherited practically the entire combat complex directly from the Su-27, it would seem more logical to just adopt the SPO-15 along with it, if the RWR wasn't seen as a priority :) .

Thats how it should be - its the artificial feel system. In the real aircraft it changes the required stick force depending on altitude and air speed. There are different regimes, but e.g. at take-off and landing its light. Below 3000 feet its only speed dependant and changes from light to heavy between 215 - 470 KTAS - from 650 - 810 KTAS it changes to light again. Above 3000 feet it also depends on altitude and becomes lighter as altitude increases. It sounds like thats what you are experiencing - i.e. the feel system is depicted by making control inputs more or less sensitive(since changing the required stick force isn't possible).

Yeah and its just one of several weird things about the Su-33. I guess it just came around at the worst possible time(collapse of the SU and economic crisis in the nineties). With only two dozen aircraft and a single semi-operational carrier for them to operate from, the Su-33 probably wasn't at the top of priorities for the Russian military.

Yes on some(older) variants of the Su-30(like Su-30K), but not on e.g. Su-30SM or Su-30MKI. As already mentioned, they are RWR antennas - more specifically for the SPO-15. Thats why newer Flanker variants don't have them - i.e. they have newer RWR systems(e.g. L-150 "Pastel") with different antennas/location. The Su-33 is something of a special case - it was intended to have L-150(hence no SPO-15 antennas), but didn't until very recently...so in reality the Su-33 has been flying without an RWR for most of its service life :) .

You are welcome :) Some other in case you are interested ; Wing tanks: +6 / -1 when empty, +4 / -1 when feeding - speed restriction M0.9. R-27R/APU-470(on inner wing stations): +8 / -1.5 - no speed restriction. R-73/P-72-1D: +9 / -1.5 - no speed restriction. Anyway, these limits are not systemic, but just directions for safe operation. So other than drag/weight impact by stores, its not something ED can "model" for the PFM.