AeriaGloria
-
Posts
5847 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by AeriaGloria
-
-
The KOLS head itself is about the size of the R-27T/ET seeker head, but behind that opaque cover I would bet the actual mirror of the R-27T/ET is smaller and collects less light.
However, like R-73, I would bet the cross seeker of the R-27T/ET is InSb sensor material. While KOLS 14 element seeker is using worse PbSe (same sensor material as R-60M, but of course much larger material and more sensor elements using a cross type seeker arrangement). Brochures for R-27T/ET give a 15 km head on range and 70 km rear aspect range against an “average target,” which I would assume to be tested against Su-15 (as for Su-27 material when they reference F-15 type IR target the actual test was done against Su-15).
I might test, but I would bet R-27T/ET is superior on all situations.
R-73 on other hand has charts that were also tested against Su-15 and show much shorter ranges then we see with KOLS in DCS. I would bet its seeker is also InSb, and it also uses a cross type seeker. But by virtue of being smaller must just not be able to compete with the much larger 14 element PbSe seeker of the MiG-29 (14 element in search, 6 in tracking though).
Thing is PbSe and InSb also see different wavelengths, it is assumed that InSb is much better at seeing a heated up airframe and thus better front aspect, while PbSe mostly looks for engine plume, and thus is much worse at front aspect and primarily good for side and rear aspect.
In this brochure. 36T is original R-27T/ET seeker. While it gives 15 km for front aspect, similar brochures gives 10-12 km for R-73, which if we compare to a chart for its seeker, is quite very optimistic
I know someone online who was able to scan German documents in an archive that also has a 360 degree graph of R-60 seeker acquisition, which gives a very good idea of the head on/side/rear aspect abilities of PbSe.
In that graph, R-60 does about 1.3 km head on, 1.6 km side on, and 4.4 km rear aspect. For AB its front 2.4 km, side 3.2 km, and rear beyond ballistic range. So you can see this is far below KOLS
4 hours ago, CrazyGman said:On another note. I really like how on the exterior model when you cycle through the IRST modes you can see the seeker move. In IRST search you will see it move side to side and up and down as it scans, and in IRST cc it fixes forward and moves up and down at a faster pace. It's subtle, but if you look closely you'll see it.
Fun fact, IRST sensor is exactly like radar in that it only needs to move 50% of the angle needed. So to look 30 degrees in one direction, both sensors only tilt the mirror/antenna 15 degrees since both are “cassegrain” type sensors.
-
2
-
-
6 hours ago, sylkhan said:
I have done some tests on sustained turn rate.
Clean, Alt 500m, 13000 kg
mach 0.55, 378 knots, 700 kmh, 6.5G SHOULD BE 7G (your chart "sustained G turn capability, max AB")
mach 0.6, 400 knots, 740 kmh, 7G SHOULD BE 7.5G (your chart "sustained G turn capability, max AB")
mach 0.63, 420 knots, 780 Kmh, 7.2G SHOULD BE 8G (your chart "sustained G turn capability, max AB")
mach 0.68, 453 knots, 840 kmh, 8G SHOULD BE 9G (your chart "sustained G turn capability, max AB")There is a big difference !
Can you confirm.
ThxI am not terribly surprised, though I am not so good at testing sustained rate vs instaneous. I will say from my testing your results sound on the money of about 0.5 G difference. I will see if I can definitively test it. My only question for you is where you got 500m as the charts seem to usually go 0m/3 km/5km.
4 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:When it comes to instantaneus turns, they are just G limited turns until you reach a certain speed after which the frame can't sustain max G. One thing to notice is that max AoA decreases with the increase in Mach number.
If you can't reach max G above corner speed that means that either AoA limit was exceeded or the elevator does not have enough authority or is somehow limited.
It should atleast come pretty close to the chart no? We are not coming close to AOA limiter here. According to “practical aerodynamics (MiG-29)” the G behavior we see here Where it pulls 9 G below Mach 0.85, then G decreases significantly to Mach 1-1.2 and then increases, is entirely due to the center of pressure moving back from transonic effects and the elevator losing efficiency/leverage as the airframe becomes more stable essentially.
-
Hello, I did some IRST testing. And Welp, it’s true the IRST is not very good
F-15/F-14
Head on-12 km, 24 km AB
Side: 16 km, 36 km AB
Rear: 20 km, AB, 42 km AB
F-4 slightly higher in Mil
F-18
Head on: 10 km. 22 km AB
Side: 14 km, 30 km AB
Rear: 19 km, 40 km AB
F-16
Head on: 10 km, 18 km AB
Side: 13 km, 29 km AB
Rear: 17 km, 35 km AB
-
3
-
-
Hello, before the FM change for the MiG-29 FF, this maneuver was pretty easy, a hammerhead turn described from a western pilot who had a flight in MiG-29 by Menitsky shortly after the end of the Cold War.
I remember this maneuver working really well, but it seems now the roll in the same direction as yaw is too powerful. I know this is related to or a direct cause of too strong of Lateral stability, so perhaps lateral stability is too high. Perhaps this has some knock on effect such as on the autopilot oscillations that are occurring.
And perhaps my piloting is just not as good and someone else can do it much better than me. I thought to atleast mention while the autopilot oscillations are being worked on
Description of the maneuver
“
At 500 km/hr (270 kts) indicated, I began a 4-g pull and continued bringing the nose up until the aircraft reached an 80-deg pitch atti-tude, at which point Menitskii said "stop" (which is Russian for
"stop"). I then held that nose position without changing the throttle setting and let the airspeed decay to around 250 km/hr (135 kts), at which time I briskly applied full left rudder and enough opposite aileron to keep the outside wing from picking up as it generated extra lift in the yaw.
I could feel Menitskii on the controls with me intermittently throughout the maneuver. The nose of the aircraft carved an effortless arc around the yaw axis during the float from right to left as the airspeed continued to bleed off, reaching a low of around 100 km/hr (54 kts) at the apex of the reversal. I felt in full control of the MiG-29 throughout this maneuver and could vary the yaw rate by playing the amount of rudder input. By this time, I could see enough of a horizon to complete the maneuver symmetrically using outside visual refer-ences. I allowed the nose to fall through as we headed back downhill, left the power where it had been set at the time of entry, and executed a 4-g pull to a wings-level recovery on a reciprocal heading,”
-
3
-
-
Okay here I focused on a slightly different aspect, the dip in G shown by the instantaneous chart at 0.85-1.1 Mach.
This track should show whether at 0 km, 3 km, or 5 km, it is pulling too much G at Mach 0.85-1.1. I know that tuning a FM is often a “balance,” and that this may have to do with it often barely or not even pulling 9 G instantaneous at say 0.8-0.85 G at lower altitudes such as 1000-2000m which I demonstrated with the first track.
In the “MiG-299G” track I instead tried to focus on the speeds it can hit 9 G from 0-3000m. Knowing per the chart it should hit 9 G at 0m from 0.55-0.85 Mach and 0.65-0.85 Mach at 3 km, I would say that the window it hits 9 G is just too narrow.
Instead of hitting 9 G at Mach 0.85 or right around it, I would routinely have a huge jump to 9 G and over at around 0.8 Mach. It would then stay at 9G or over until perhaps about 0.05 Mach above where the chart said it would maintain it.
So overall I would say it hits 9 G at too narrow of a speed below 0.85 Mach, and can hit too high of a G from 0.85-1.1 Mach.
Granted, the behavior is much more accurate and superior then it was before the FM was adjusted for FF release (which debuted with the FC3 module the patch before the MiG-29 FF release), I just think it needs a little extra touch to reach the DCS standard.
-
1
-
-
I didn’t expect the categories to be much trouble, I think the main thing with the categories is exactly what we saw above, being confused with the original FC3 categories. In which case, it’s simply a matter of time for people to get used to it, as well as the fact that by not having the frequency range to cover the EWR/AWACs categories of the original FC3 SPO.
The newer/realistic categories also help you learn a lot about radars in general, getting pulse and CWI signals when a 3rd gen guides a fox 1. HPRF signals confused as CW signals at long range. As well as extra features, for example being able to tell if a F-15/16/18 is close or far away simply by seeing if you have a flashing X or an “F” symbol.
Other inaccuracies are similar, for example the elevation lights will only trigger at short/medium range, but that also tells you something about the contact. You have a flashing light that estimates missile range from SAMs, and if aircraft are confused as SAMs ( the aforementioned case of flashing X) you also get an estimated missile range. It won’t always be correct, but with some practice you can begin to learn how dangerously close you are by checking category, signal strength, and where the flashing signal strength bar is.
For example with F-15/18, the flashing bar is around 45-50 km, which is close to a long range sparrow shot. Both will show F category within 20-25 km, giving you an indication of “I should either be in attack position or running.” The signal strength bar amount is now exponential compared to linear, but again with practice you will soon realize what is danger close.
Things I would consider significant weakness compared to FC3 is that it shows you being in the notch in an unconventional way (50 and 90 light together) and only at WVR ranges. You could make the argument however that teaches better and more realistic habits of using EWR for your notch angle, as well as telling you if you get these 50/90 lights together, the enemy is danger close.
Once you get the hang of it, I feel the only true weakness becomes not showing launch and not working with radar. Of course YMMV, but I would implore that it even took us time to fully understand original SPO-15, and understanding this one may take longer but be more rewarding and often give you more information then the original that only showed “P” and one light for every fighter at every range.
-
1
-
1
-
-
With more testing here is what I can tell.
At 0m, it matches charts wellAt 3 and 5 km, it also matches charts well
However, the main issue is something we don’t exactly have charts for, which is the region from above 0-2 km, more specifically around 0.5-2 km.
I think one thing going on here is that ARU begins is at its smallest amount of deflection from 870-1200 kmh between 0-2 km. Above 2 km, it begins to increase deflection again.
At 0 km, it is just enough authority to match the charts well. However once we raise altitude between 0 and 2 km, the authority is not enough the slightly thinner air.
What surprises me most is how big the difference is, at 0 m it has little issue often pulling more then 10 G, and hitting 9 G over a significant range.
At say 1-2 km, it will almost never go over 9 G, hitting 9 G at a very narrow range of speeds (920-940 kmh) if that, and often being limited to 8-8.5 G or less at 1-2 km between 870 kmh and Mach 0.85.
The instantaneous G chart indicates it has no problem hitting 9 G at 0 km from 0.55-0.85 M, at 3 km at 0.65-0.85 M, and 0.75-0.85 M at 5 km, which gives the impression it should atleast have no problem hitting 9 G at say 0.5-2 km from perhaps 0.6-0.85 Mach, which is not the case in game.
I am very surprised if 500-2000m is enough to make that much of a difference.
-
6 hours ago, Nimbur said:
I also have the same problem as described above, namely that regardless of which of the above jets fires a SARH missile or SAM such as the HAWK Site, no launch warning can be heard or seen. And I also noticed that the threat situation is displayed incorrectly on the SPO15, because in my mission, the radar of an F-14 was searching for me, but the SPO15 displayed the wrong threat types. I could then see, for example, that a ground-to-air radar was searching for me, e.g., an early warning detection system (EWR)
It also doesn't matter whether I have an F-18 or F-15 as an opponent in the mission, the same problem occurred, namely that the SPO15 is faulty and does not function correctly.null
As mentioned, this is for old an incorrect FC3 SPO.
On our more realistic FF SPO, if you reference the manual it will explain the categories
1. there is no EWR/AWACS category as they are outside frequency range. This category is actually for pulse radars
2. Most pulse Doppler 4th gen jets will be confused as a low power MRSAM/Hawk at long range. To show that it sees a low power Hawk, SPO will show flashing X. When the 4th gen gets closer, it will be properly identified as F, but still show flashing X.
3. There is no launch warning in DCS as SPO-15 only does this for Nike Hercules. Some pulse radars will only show P when launching Fox 1 as P is for CW Illumination, but this isn’t always the case
4. F-14 is the one exception among pulse Doppler radars as it functions differently, in which case it will show X at long range and P+X categories when within about 60 km as P is just for the CWI of Fox 1 guidance, which is often left on in F-14.
The manual will explain much more -
Hello, I’ve been testing the new SPO-10, and I do love the physics based approach of the newer SPO-10 and SPO-15!
However, it does seem to be missing one function from the changelog. Hopefully, this function was simply not added to the build.
“At high signal power level, particularly against slow-scanning radars you will see the effect of side lobes passing over (either multiple pings, or visible gradual increase and then drop in power level as evidenced by additional sectors lighting up and dropping while the sector closest to source stays lit).”
If this is modeled and I simply do not see it, please let me know how I can see it.
Here are two tracks one of high and one of low closure
-
1
-
-
59 minutes ago, Lixma 06 said:
You can deploy it - but it'll get ripped away immediately.
This is at 290kp/h
According to flight manual, the maximum permissible speed of releasing the chute is 310 kmh, so this may be a bug
-
2 hours ago, IvanK said:
I am presuming your source is this Document:
I have used Google translate on pages 306-310 that describe the Air to Air Gun modes. I accept that some of the Google translation is awkward but I see no references to this 6 deg and 12 deg lead difference.
Trying to make sense of the google translation I have a hunch that this mode is using radar/IRST derived range and angular rates to derive the firing solution. In this mode it is similar to FA18 old director mode ( pre BATR etc). In the standard mode I think its using radar/IRST range but measured on aircraft body rates so in effect an LCOS solution rather than a director solution.
If you have another reference that talks about this 6 deg versus 12 degrees I would be interested to read it.
So, I have a read a few sources, and I believe I did misunderstand parts when it mentioned the aiming circle on a scale of +/-6 degrees and the aiming dot on a scale of +/-12 degrees.
However I did find a passage confirming that this “asynchronous invisible” gun mode will function as long as lock is maintained.
So comparing what we see in DCS with this, It would have been more accurate of me to say “the asynchronous visible gun mode allows aimed fire up to 6 degrees of lead, and the asynchronous invisible target mode allows aimed fire/lead as long as the target is locked.”
I’ll amend the description.
edit: Found an interesting mention in a manual. One manual here describes “enable asynchronous invisible gun mode when engaging a visually invisible target or when during attack the angles of moving crosshairs exceed the maximum indication value of the ILS-31 indicator.” Yugoslavian manual
-
39 minutes ago, IvanK said:
I think its more a mode specifically set up to allow guns shots on targets in IMC (so not visible) rather than some sort of high lead tracking solution. In all the gun shots in your video you would have been able to achieve a guns tracking solution with the stock radar locked gunsight mode.
Thats my take on it trying to figure it out in the Russian manuals.
A bit hard to force the AI for me to make a 6-12 degree angle shot. Manuals say that it allows 12 degree lead vs the 6 degree of normal, and while it says the “invisible” target thing, what’s funny is that I believe it also says even the regular gun mode is fine for invisible targets since you have the circle on target that simply needs to be lined up with crosshairs.
So to basically try and “sell” its main advantage without confusing people who would wonder why its an “invisible” target mode when even regular gun mode works on invisible targets, I decided to mention the high lead advantage of it and demonstrate how to aim in this mode (even if the AI currently wasn’t giving me 6-12 degree lead shot), so that players would atleast be prepared to aim when they did need the high lead advantage.
I was thinking of adding some of this information into the description about manuals referring to it as invisible target mode, but I already had a good paragraph in my description and I’m not sure how many people read them.
-
35 minutes ago, sylkhan said:
This confirms my tests.
I have done numerous online tests (dogfighters servers), and it turns out that the Mig-29 is the worst dogfighter.
At speeds < 800/850 km, the Mig-29 turns really badly, and performance is poor, with a lot of drag.
The F-18, F-16, F-15, and M2k, JF-17 all outperform the Mig-29, even the F-14 turns better at low/medium speeds, lol.
I win all the time vs Mig-29, i Lost all the time vs other fighters.
Is the real Mig-29 really that bad?As we see from the charts I attached, sustained and instantaneous, it shouldn’t be
-
1 hour ago, Dača said:
So TACT currently does nothing?
It will always do nothing. It should never does more then what you see here.
Lazur is basically a HUD mode with a guidance circle and target info/guidance symbols
-
No, it would need Narcissus box and datalink antennas for that.
This is just simulating what TACT switch does without any of the needed datalink equipment
-
1
-
-
Because I have 0 intention of using long alignment and pretty sure few people do as well lol
-
1
-
-
Above a certain speed a pedal stopper appears at 1/3rd pedal deflection that requires extra force to move the pedals beyond that point.
-
17 minutes ago, TotenDead said:
Doesn't the SPO-15 have digital brains?
You could say it’s a digital analog hybrid. Atleast the data processing is digital.
-
This is also about instantaneous turn. It should have no issue hitting 9 G at low alt from Mach 0.55-85. Mach 0.65-0.85 at 3 km.
In addition the instantaneous chart and the two sustained turn charts show that it can reach 9 G at 900 kmh (20 deg/s) with atleast up to 2x Archer loaded. Doing that sustained, the instantaneous chart shows it should have some pull in reserve (not needing full back stick as it does now)
-
The 4 uses of the control button or what is listed in binds as “Target Acquisition Button Depress,” basically if you press the TDC slew key on the stick.
It allows you to manually turn on/off laser in gun mode, useful for saving laser life and to quicken the 30 second on/32 off cycle of the laser so you can re attack faster.
What most are probably interested in is using it for KMOD ranging. When locked onto a jammer in radar mode or IRST locked while too far for laser or avoid radar ranging in COOP, you can use KMOD ranging to get a one time range with estimated closure.
It also functions as a shortcut to turn TWS/TWF off if you do not wish to target the enemy it selects
And also enables a sort of “High Lead” Gun mode that allows you to aim the gun with up to 2x the lead angle of the regular gun mode!
-
3
-
-
That does look odd. What about your AOA gauge, it is frozen, is this the English cockpit bug this patch or is pitot heat or some other switch off perhaps?
Either way, it’s stuck at 15 degrees, and with LEF flap down as we see in your turns the AOA limit should be 26 degrees. When it hits the AOA limit the stick and elevators are automatically tilted down 2 or 15 degrees depending on speed.
It becoming “awake” part way into the mission also makes me suspect pitot tube freezing. Pitot tube freezing could also affect ARU and reduce elevator authority at speeds where it shouldn’t reduce it so much.
-
1
-
-
Hello, it seems to be that MiG-29 can not reach the stated instantaneous G load, and it is low enough that it also can’t reach the full envelope of the sustained turn rate numbers.
Here is a track with 2x APU-470, and 2x R-60, and 50-55% fuel in order to reach 13,000 kg gross weight, which seems to be the most common testing metric other then the same with 2x R-73.
in addition there is a max G load graph we see in both books and manuals that goes from below 300 kmh to 900 kmh, showing over 20 deg/s at 900 kmh “with missiles.” And there is a sentence in the “practical aerodynamics” manual that states:
“For example, the maximum speed of turn in a steady position of the aircraft without weapon mounts at an altitude of 1,000m, Mach Number 0.8, with 50% of remaining fuel (aircraft weight 13,000 kg) is 19.5-20° a second.”
Partway through the track I also jettison the R-60 to show a “without missile load” configuration.
Images are from Yefim Gordon or GAF TO-1 from Amazon. According to instantaneous turn chart, we should approximately have little issue hitting 9 G at lower altitudes from around Mach 0.55-0.85, or around 700-1000 kmh at lower altitudes. And above this speed the transonic zone is reducing elevator authority until around Mach 1.05-1.1 (according to practical aerodynamics.) Instead, we are limited to basically 8 G from below 900 kmh, which should be our maximum rate 9 G speed.
-
3
-
-
Hello, F-14A 135 early shows up different then F-14A 135 and F-14B. Perhaps it just needs to be updated to 135 and B, I don’t know.
135/B shows as P+flashing X until it’s P+C during lock.
135 early shows as Solid X and F at a higher signal strength.
One track “125early” is for 135 early, the other is 135 but SPO-15 would identical for F-14B
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Lyrode said:
If this SPO does have trouble with hprf emission, what about mprf in pursuit mode and Coop mode?
I get the feeling ED is referring to MPRF even as HPRF, basically, anything above LPRF, which was normal until the pulse Doppler age.
Would love if anyone could tell me if this is feasible. SPO-15 in game shows same signal strength from front and rear antennas, however rear antennas are slightly weaker.
I can upon a mention in a document about the bomber version of Beryoza which uses 16 identical azimuth antennas, so different then ours. However it says this equalizes signal strength between adjacent zones, so I wonder if this causing the equal signal strength, if it is in fact a real characteristic. Also helps explain why 85-95 degree emitter only does up close close beyond just being in side lobes.
“The station is equipped with protection against false triggering of the receiving channels by weak signals received on the side lobes of the azimuth antennas. To achieve this, the input signals of all 16 channels are summed, the resulting signal is inverted, attenuated by a factor of Kpod, and fed as a suppression signal to the input circuits of all channels (Fig. 3). Signals received on the main lobes are attenuated slightly, while weak signals are suppressed. The gain of the suppression circuit, Kpod, is selected such that the signal reception areas of one sector and two adjacent sectors are equal.”
-
1
-
MiG-29 G load
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
I’ll try and do your test at 100m.