AeriaGloria

Here is what I have found is the faster way to start up your Hind with or without the Doppler map working. Warning, do not use an actual Mi-24

Well you’re also limited that by while Su-27 hits best sustained rate at 1000 kmh. The Mach 0.85 G limit means you can’t achieve it above around 925-935 kmh TAS. If

Yes, forgot to mention

One thing though, flow separation (I.e stall) only occurs really at 40-50 degrees AOA, and AOA gauge only goes up to 30, which is still helpful as above 25-30 degree AOA is when you lose almost all lateral and directional control. For landing, I would consider about 15 degrees my limit, as the tail will not the runway at 16 degrees AOA As far as endurance and best range speeds go, for MiG-29 this is 4-7 degrees AOA. I would expect perhaps 2 degrees lower for Su-27

Better to post the mission. Are you setting AI to fire at max range?

I replied to you on Reddit. For everyone else here I will quote myself ”That’s because what you need is the flight manual. Minimum control speed- 200 kmh VNE- 1400 kmh IAS, Mach 2.35 VY- depends on profile: for MIL climb this is 870-900 kmh TAS. For AB climb this is Mach 0.9. Above 12 km you usually need to climb at Mach 1.65+ or 1250 kmh TAS when going for max cieling or speed VX- this depends on altitude and climb profile. There is no one VX angle. I often find 10 degrees with MiL power works for me until you get high. You can work it out manually by following the speed recommendations for climb profile VFE- 600 kmh IAS VR- maximum ground speed of front wheel, 320 kmh, main wheels is 360 kmh VLE- 500 kmh There isn’t much else. Best turning speed is 850-1000 kmh, though most people use 800-900 kmh for lower G and better radius.”

In real life no, you are limited to what is set on the ground.

“The ADI is weird and not roll stabilized, but moves as you roll the aircraft. Along with the unconventional HUD, the roll of the silhouette compared to the earth of horizon was double the actual roll! I had to look at it imagining that I was flying behind the plane and radio controlling it” - paraphrase of First US pilot to fly the MiG-29 with Valery Menitsky

Yea, during Su-27 development, test pilots said that having the brakes on the pedals was nice. So they ported it to Su-25

4700 kg Is 50%

Could you show me where this “lever on the stick” is? Su-27 has same braking with pedals

It is not practical in my opinion to have it like the “disable Microswitch by moving pedals from center” option, which presses microswitch only when pedals are moved 9% from center. And even if you made this deadzone say 1-2%, because when turning you often need the pedals close to center. Especially in left turns and the faster you go where flying straight might actually need left or right pedal depending on speed. People that fly with this setting often find the Yaw autopilot fighting them as they do a coordinated turn, making flying imprecise. They then use more pedal to turn then needed, leading to excess drag and lower performance. IMO however your setup, it should be selected to stay microswitch on before you takeoff, and only disabled when you deliberately want it so at certain stages of flight you want it to fly straight, such as quickly taking yours hands off the controls or eyes off the surrounding area. I currently have the “Yaw Pedal auto move” off right now with my pedals that have a foot pressure microswitch installed, because I do not want SDV-5000OA unknowingly trimming the aircraft the few times I used heading hold If I had FFB pedals that stayed in position, but had no foot pressure sensing microswitch, I would still need some other switch or button to switch modes if I wanted to fly like reality where Yaw heading hold is off 99% of the time and Stabilization mode is doing almost all my Yaw channel assist. However that would be the one case I would use “Yaw pedal auto move on” is with FFB pedals microswitch or not. Because then you could FEEL the SDV-5000OA trim the pedals, they would move and stay where you leave them so if trimmed you can just move them back. Center would always be center no matter how much they had been trimmed and you would always have full authority (since trimming works in game by reducing authority of the side that isn’t trimmed) But since FFB pedals are almost never used and not really made in scale, the whole working of “Yaw pedal auto move/SDV-5000OA auto trimming when heading hold runs out of authority” becomes a nuisance and something that hurts more then helps If everyone had FFB pedals, and with a microswitch, then people would probably have no problem understanding the use of the yaw autopilot because it would work completely intuitively, seamlessly, and perfectly. Since we don’t have that hardware, we have to struggle with needing to do things like have no pedal auto move because it hurts more then helps without the intended interface, or choose manual microswitch work because the default disable by moving from center mode is sub-optimal and something better yet automatic can’t be created since pedals aren’t made with microswitches On Ka-50 the PPR option that disables heading hold when pedals are moved from center actually makes sense because your pedals stay centered at all phases of flight, and don’t get trimmed. Not so on an aircraft who’s speed to pedal relationship looks like this

1. Yes, the hydraulic damper is able to move the pedals according to hydraulic force triggered by the autopilot system so that it can use the full authority of the anti torque control The only way for heading hold to work is pilot has to take feet off pedals or atlas more touch the top of the pedals. So only possible when pilot removed feet or uses only their heels. I think it is common misunderstanding to think the system works while pilot is using pedals for normal flight 2. A. I wouldn’t say it is needed to move the pedals for hover, but that I don’t think any pilot would really take their feet off the pedals and let the autopilot handle anti torque for takeoff or landing. Maybe to help hold once in position. Letting Heading hold take care of it also isn’t perfect because the nose needs to move left about 7 degrees before the Heading Hold is outputting maximum force. Again, I think it’s a misunderstanding that heading hold is there so pilot can take their feet off pedals for takeoff or landing. Is is there only for maintaining heading once already stable B. Our Mi-24 is a later model with larger anti torque rotor blade chord by about 12%. This gives it better Yaw control then earlier Mi-24D and 24V models. 3. Yes. Turning Pedal Auto move to off changes the Heading hold from having 118% authority + trimming to only 18% authority + no trimming. It is not harder to fly because SDV-5000-OA is only helping Heading hold, which is only needed to keep a specific heading, a function whose usefulness depends entirely upon your flying style. It has no function with the “stabilization mode” with microswitch pressed that actually helps dampen yaw, reduce ditch roll, and make maneuvering more smooth. It is most realistic with pedal auto move on and having microswitch in your pedals bound to microswitch. But understand that Heading Hold is almost certainly never used in takeoff/landing so pilots can take their feet off the pedals during the most dangerous phase of flight, and i would bet that many pilots go through whole flights while never using heading hold. If you are flying along a route, route hold is much better as it corrects for wind. Using heading hold by taking feet off pedals was likely good for allowing pilot to mess with some switch/knob or navigation, pay attention to some task and let heading hold keep the aircraft mostly straight. It is not something to actively assist you in all phases of flight at all times But that’s also part of being a simulator, some users use features much more then they would be used in real life; and some use them in ways they were not intended to be used, or use them differently because the implementation can’t be identical to reality (the “activate microswitch by moving pedals from center” giving the impression that heading hold that should assist you whenever you fly straight instead of having to be knowingly engaged in reality by lifting your feet)

Still means you end up with an aircraft that has worse turn rate sustained and instantaneous, worse acceleration, worse climb, speed, G limits. I’m sure a lot of that is due to the weight. Would be interesting to test them both in DCS at equal weight Edit: according to CL’s chart here, Su-27 with about 25% fuel (2350 kg, Su-33 is 2200 kg heavier empty), still beats Su-33 by a good margin However perhaps it is tested without emergency power. In DCS.silver.ru the Su-27 still has advantage with normal AB Su-33 but with emergency power added the Su-33 actually slightly beats it. https://dcs.silver.ru/165-7175,34,168,turnrate

While there are many similarities, there is very little Su-33 documentation or information public, and there is no way to “test” its flight model except the few things that we know, that it’s draggier and then the Su-27 airframe and should have worse speed and sustained turn characteristics with positives in AOA control ability and slow speed handling

There many things they could add, G suit, SPO-2, increases air brake area, rear periscope. I also believe there was a canopy change that increased rare visibility that ours doesn’t have. Especially if these are ME option so we can have pre and post 1952 versions

Su-27SK is 570 kg heavier in empty weight then Su-27S due to reinforcement of landing gear and structure for higher takeoff and payload weight. So I would assume the Su-27SK manual turn performance to be slightly lower then what we would of expect from an “ideal” Su-27S flight model

I don’t have a chance to check your track right now, but I’ve gotten all modes to work for me. Is anything bound to AP disconnect? I can set minimum radar alt and it will recover, climb above, then engage barometric alt hold. In return to level flight, alt hold, it will dive a bit before maintaining level

ED, I’m sure a lot of people would love it if you created a n optional MiG-29A 9.12S with the newer C-101/102 computer for R-77 use and 14% more range, along with 2 degree more AOA. That way you wouldn’t have to make a new cockpit and external model like you would for 9.13S, a just a few files changes for loadout/radar/flight control

I tested this. I couldn’t fire and just turn on IRST and turn off radar However it would work if it automatically switched to EO/TP upon lost lock, such as notching Target would still be covered by radar lock symbol (in MiG-29), so radar still active, but HUD showing only TP/EO However, if missile was farther then about 2-9 km, it would not work. Sometimes it would acquire at 2-9 km then lose it right before hitting. Sometimes it would just never acquire. Sometimes it would acquire at 9 km and guide the whole way with TP/EO. Extremely random

This part of the AIM-120 paper that ED released when the FM was remade is likely what you want

I will give it a try!

Does this actually happen? It will guide R-27R when it says EO? in DCS? Still means there is little to no reason for “EORL/TPRL” mode

The reason for firing missiles in the track is to show via telemetry the alignment of the missile axis, which you can tell via even F10 is aligned 2 degrees below boresight in MiG-29/Su-27, but 4 degrees below fixed net/gun boresight in Su-33 I also found this LUA difference between Su-27 and Su-33, perhaps has something to do with it, and hopefully can help point to the “why” if it’s intended or not, the Su-27 LUA shows “0” for “elevation initial”, and Su-33 LUA shows “2” for “elevation initial.”

I was testing things recently and found some stuff at odds with the manual for the DCS Su-33. According to manual for both, in fixed net, the “x” should be where to aim missiles for Fi0 mode. However this “x” is 2 degrees above the actual center of the missile lock zone in Fi0. In addition, DCS MiG-29 and Su-27, which share many elements including Fi0 mode and fixed net alignment, have the missile axis/Fi0 lock zone centered on the fixed net “x,” and the gun aiming at boresight 2 degrees above at the center of the fixed net However in DCS Su-33, the fixed net is 2 degrees higher, with fixed net “x” not only 2 degrees above the Fi0 missile lock center, but the gun and fixed net boresight is 4 degrees above this missile lock zone. It seems the HUD artificial horizon is two degrees lowered in Su-33, and the gun shoots much higher in the HUD symbology. The missile axis in both DCS Su-27 and Su-33 is 2 degrees below the boresight/AOA=0 line, but only in Su-33 is the gun and boresight of the fixed net 2 degree above true aircraft reference line (AOA = 0). This can only be explained by the HUD Symbology not only being tilted either 2 degrees down or 2 degrees high depending on the mode, but the gun being tilted 2 degrees higher then DCS Su-27. As far as the manual and everything I have read about Su-33 the structure of the gun mounting should not be different (as well as looking visually identical), and the fixed net should have the “x” in the center of the Fi0 missile lock zone. Either the gun really is tilted 2 degrees up and fixed net with it, or there is some error with how these are lined up. I understand if this is intentional and not communicated in the manual, but I wanted to make sure it wasn’t a bug or an error and if there is any reason for it to be this way Here is a track, thank you missile-gun-axis-test.trk Here is also 3 pictures of DCS MiG-29, Su-27, and Su-33 at low altitude and high speed over the ocean, with less then 1 degree AOA and level flight, while firing the gun with fixed net. You can easily see how the Su-33 fixed net is tilted 2 degrees higher along with the gun bullet trajectory, they are two big so here is a google drive link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10eVF7tHxP3hu8HEVrB05oqpiwoFLaMlu