AeriaGloria

Yes, for Mi-8, your bucket speee, best loiter/least fuel burn is around 120 kmh. This will stay largely static as you go higher. Its cruise (best range) is 205-220 kmh bellow 1000m depending on exact altitude and weight. At ceiling, this is 100 kmh and likely limited by top speed For Mi-24 its bucket speed/least power regime is 140 kmh; and this only decreases slightly with altitude. It is 260 kmh for cruise speed, but manual stresses that 10-20 kmh difference in speed only yields 2-3% change in efficiency, and since the range tables are calculated for a constant 4x rocket and 4x ATGM load (which also hurts efficiency by 2-3%), it is within the margin of error. Like Mi-8, this speed becomes smaller as you go up and will eventually be limited by max speed. In surprised these two speeds aren’t talked more about by DCS players. They are very important for aircraft also, many people cruise too fast or climb to slow because it’s not often shared, and the value of saving fuel is often not seen. Less fuel you need, the lighter you can be and get more performance For both Mi-8 and Mi-24, you also have a “turbine adjust rpm” switch that changes target rpm for governor. This is 95-96% default; but by lowering it to 92% you get 2-3% efficiency gain. Similarly, you can increase it to 98-99% for more rotor lift for 2-3% fuel efficiency loss. The manual mentions increasing the rotor rpm this way to increase tail rotor authority at high altitude, but also works anywhere. I often use it as a “combat” mode

I do not know. The numbers might be less correct for tail rotor. I am only comparing the vertical force on the rotor shaft to the tai rotor lateral force. The study says the transducer was fixed to the shaft, so I would not think that the vertical stabilizer lift would be included According to the aerodynamic manual, you reach lowest pedal, about the 1/4th left at around 140 kmh. Pedal moves to around middle at 260 kmh. At 280 kmh, you might need 1/4 right pedal. For hover, you would similarly be around 1/4-1/3 right pedal. Above 140 kmh, the engine torque needed increases. 140 is your bucket speed, Lowest power for flight needed. So even though you are more fuel efficient over distance at 150-280 kmh, your powertrain still needs to output more power, more anti torque to fight the torque. IIRC, the vertical stabilizer is supposed to produce half the anti torque force needed at cruise (260 kmh), and power increase (looking at torque/EPR) is about 50% there compared to 140 kmh. I bet if the vertical stabilizer did not produce the lift it does, you would see the tail rotor doing 10-15% of the main rotor power at cruise speed That being said, the point that the tail rotor has 0 pitch is about 1/2 left pedal.

Someone on Reddit recently brought to my attention that multiple first hand sources say wing lift is 25% of weight. I realized this myself when translating the aerodynamic manual for the Mi-24 about a year ago but did not update this post However, I was also interested in how high the lift can get, and how it might contribute in other flight regions, or what regions it may be stalled. One thing I still would love to learn more about is the influence of the winglets, the contribution of the elevator to lift, and force of the vertical stabilizer. In addition, I realize that when I made this post so long ago, that I did not include all my figures and calculations. So using the Polish rotor head force study, this was what I came up with for the speeds tested 140 kmh: Wing: 500 kg Force, 6-4.3% of lift Tail rotor: 3.6% of thrust 260 kmh: Wing: 2000 kg force, 23.5-17.4% of lift Tail rotor: 5.2% of thrust 300 kmh: Wing: 2,170 kg Force, 25.5-18.8% of lift Tail rotor: 7% of thrust The difference in % of lift is to compensate for how the change from empty to max takeoff weight might effect things. If CG stays the same, and thus angle of attack, wing lift in this case should be little changed, but the rotor would need to match its lift to the remaining weight. Tail rotor figures are from the study using the force on the tail rotor shaft in the left direction compared to vertical force on the main rotor shaft

The SPUU-52 will limit right pedal depending on temperature and pressure. At high altitudes and temperatures, it might completely turn off

This must be an upgraded Mi-24D/25. Unless they replaced the ASP-17 with a spare panel and light shield

“F-14 was for fleet defense. It would never fly over a hostile nation or partake in offensive operations…..” In Ukraine today, 3rd parties have claimed MiG-31 achieving aerial victories up to 217 km of range with R-37M. That is, if you wanted to bring Ukraine present day into this. It may be intended as a flying SAM sight, but I don’t think that means it is always used as a defensive force only. F-14 was not meant to be used as mobile AWACS, but Iran liked using it that way. I love tactics and using these how they were intended to be used, but I don’t think that pegs into quite such a narrow role as “it wouldn’t have frontline sorties.” But okay, if 720 km/400 nm is short at 20 km and Mach 2.35 with aerial refueling, what is the range of F-15 or F-16 maintaining supersonic at 30-40,000 feet? I don’t know of any way to access that info; but might be interesting comparison. Might see if I can find supersonic range for MiG-29

I see 720 km and 1450 km for combat range. Which would be 400 nm for high alt high speed and 780 nm for 10 km Subsonic cruise. So not quite as big a difference as 400 vs 1300. With aerial refueling, the advantages from the height in missile/sensor range and descent, I’m not too concerned that wouldn’t make it a “counterpart” or “on par.” But alas, it won’t be in DCS for maybe decades.

Exactly, DCS is one discussion. MiG-29S not being relevant from low production miners is another One of the great things about the MiG-25/31 airframe though is its high speed efficient, 25 can get 1800 km range from cruising at Mach 0.9, or 1600 km from cruising at Mach 2.35. In MiG-25 manuals, Mach 2.35 is quite literally considered the most optimum high altitude cruise. It will not need to use full burner for it. MiG-31 also has the benefit of aerial refueling. Its engines seem to be not as powerful at high altitude, but at the cost of increased efficiency and power down low, where it is just as fast as MiG-29/Su-27 on the deck. It will get apparently 1,450 km at Mach 0.8 10 km cruise, and 720 km combat radius at Mach 2.35 20 km cruise. But anyways, it appears we are essentially at agreement. When MiG-29 “A” releases however, I will have as much fun as possible pushing it as much as it can in both old and new scenarios.

In my Cold War timeline, what AMRAAM is the F-16 using before 1992…. F-14 fighting MiG-31, how are they going to push MAR/WVR against a plane that will be cruising at Mach 2.35-2.8 at 20 km? Even a MiG-31 can barely hit its G limit at 20 km if you pull all the way back on the stick, and I don’t think much else will be able to pull much G or catch a MiG-31 up there if the 31 doesn’t want to be caught Tell me, If MiG-31 has Link 4 equivalent in 84, when was Link 16 introduced in F-16? Yes in 2000-2010, equal numbers/skill, redfor is getting slammed, not contested. But I don’t think MiG-31 is such an easy catch It is a lack of comprehensive upgrades and production of new models, in addition to classification making them hard to model, and Bluefor pilots often outnumber Reddit pilots 2:1 online, that leads to our curbstomp situation. But when MiG-29/31 are introduced, I definitely believe they are comparable and remain so for some time

The clicky mod is wonderful. No it’s not like full fidelity, but makes it so much easier and fun to do stuff around the cockpit without a bunch of bindings and keyboard combos. Just need to loo right to switch lights, click HUD to change it, click the AP button I want

Good thing they kept Beryuza unlike 29G

Thank you, this will help with the added Doppler warm up time, since the generators will be able to come online faster I believe

You see before words like “ not on par with,” or “is not a counter part” were being used, To me that does not mean “isn’t equal in some ways,” but roughly similar, with the end result depending more on how it is used. F-16C gets AMRAAM in 1992, that’s 8 years of MiG-29 having the longer stick in addition to its WVR edge. MiG-31 is here in 1984 before F-14D or AIM-54C If we want to bring production numbers, who operates what, and turn this into a “who would win war at certain dates based on number of airframes, or if both countries fight a battle with only these two aircraft they have at the time” then there’s not much I can say. For example, I do not subscribe to the idea that the MiG-31 only being capable of 5 G is somethIng that makes it “not comparable/on par with F-16/F-14” because it gains quite a lot of capability from not focusing on BFM. Speed, missile payload, PESA and wide angle IRST, data link with other assets such as Su-27, EWR, and MiG-23P. There is a lot of advantages over western airframes at the end of Cold War, even iF those advantages were eroded away. Does F-14/16 get PESA/AESA before 21st century? Did F-14D with its IRST, fielded in 1991 , operate in comparable numbers to MiG-31 at the same timeframe? Was it able to offload targets digitally to other platforms with less radar range? If our MiG-31 crew is at the same level as say our F-14/16 crew, will the MiG-31 just happily merge against their training and into a situation they know has the odds against them? Is anything western at the time able to intercept at Mach 2.8 over 20 km? Are we putting equal emphasis on BVR/WVR? Are we going to assume the western pilots are better from more flight hours? We could go on forever like this! Does Phoenix beat R-33 in range? Yes. Did F-16C get AIM-120A in 1992? Did MiG-29S get R-77 in 1991 while having R-27 variants since 84? Yea. Is MiG-29/31 comparable in role and use to F-14/16? I believe so. Does Russia begin to lose the advantages they inherited from USSR because of economy until modernization post-2010? Of course If you include China on red side like you mention, and take into account how these assets are supported and used, it becomes more grey? I think so, especially say 2005-2010. Or are the US jets also not comparable to USSR jets in certain ways also? For a long time they are lacking HOBS TVC missiles with HMS, AESA/PESA, IRST focus, or a widely deployed and cross platform compatible GCI datalink unless you want to pit F-106 against MiG-29/31? Is MiG-31 designed for BFM or meant to be used that way? Or perhaps is it’s lack of maneuverability a compromise to fly faster and higher than any Western fighter with the first PESA and likely the longest range IRST of the Cold War. Does F-14 being designed to carry bombs/rockets in the rare event it was needed mean it wasn’t built or designed to be a Long range missile carrier like MiG-31? I apologize for making this such a long message. I just can’t accept that a missile being shorter ranged, or having AMRAAM after 92, or low production numbers and lack of domestic sales automatically disqualify any MiG from being comparable. But I completely understand that if real war broke out, the advantages of these eastern platforms will have the odds stacked against them. How about, 4 MiG-31 against 4 F-14, 4 MiG-29 against 4x F-16C. Equal skill and tactical situation. Are they “comparable” or on par? Are the F-14/16 pilots going to dismiss MiG-31 as not having an advantage and to not worry since it will be easy to kill it WVR if Phoenix doesn’t work? What if it’s 1987 and MiG-29 has R-27R against AIM-9 only F-16C? US vs USSR/Russia? Sure US will win. Does that have a lot to do with economy and logistics? Sure. Personally, I find economics and logistics somewhat boring, and airplanes much more fun to talk about.

I dunno, F-14 was designed for fleet defense, and Aegis was a factor in it becoming obsolete, so flying SAM site is a pretty good comparison I think. Su-27SM, Su-30MKK/MKI all began operation in early 2000s. Are they a small lightweight fighter? No, but in 1992-94 you get MiG-29S, which has 90 km radar range, Fox 3, is that not good enough as a F-16C counterpart at the time of introduction? MiG-29K, an aircraft I personally believe is technologically at least on par with F-16C/18C, was introduced in 2009. For F-16C, Until it gets AMRAAM, it has AIM-7 for BVR only against MiG-29 from 1984 with 80 km radar, 35-70 km missiles, and HOBS/HMS combo. Was it equal to F-16C in every way at the time? No. Did Russian aviation basically lose ten years in the 90s? Yes, but I think saying F-16C has no equal until mid 2010s, is ignoring some of the subtleties, and larger airframes F-16C would face If you mean 2007 F-16C block 50 we have in DCS, then yes, I agree not until MiG-29K, Su-27SM3, are equals really ins service. But until then you also have things like 30MKI and MKK from 2001, does dual seats and large size disqualify it from being considered an equal? I guess it’s semantics and exactly what we are arguing

Ah, thought Israel was involved one way or the other! Thanks

What is the lower one? Doesn’t even look like super hind

I think GPS instead of moving map would be awesome. Make it easier to pre planned loft also. However your first two pictures are Mi-35M, and I think we are quite far away from having those in game

Are you sure this isn’t just a ferry Lo’s out? The only way to fire R-27T/ET from the inner 4 pylons is by an ejector pylon. And since it’s LOBL, it would need to be dropped with a lock, and maintain the lock until missile ignition (I bet the missile has a limited FOV under intakes, and the centerline I would think would be nearly useless, especially rear centerline!). Im sure it’s possible, but the fact that all Fox 2s are rail launched as far as I can tell, or tube launched, makes me skeptical of an ejector solution. Especially with the FOV restrictions. Radio waves go through more things then short wave IR and R-27R/ER is LOAL anyways.

Flight test does work. Press the switch, and HUD will say BIT while control surfaces move on the ground. After a bit it ends.

I would want the weather/terrain radar. Bomb sight would be fun. More weapons and mines even.

Idk about co-op, IRL it forces radar to MPRF, which is about 20-35 km range. Right now in DCS, any radar dropped lock with active IRST lock will be maintained by IRST, even in HPRF I know one thing we’lll get! We’ll know which bar is scanning! Right now ACM modes also scan whole area instantly, so will be much slower in vertical scan in FF. I think the only performance upgrade we’ll get for radar in FF, other then current scan bar indicator, will be having Lazur/Beryuza to guide us beyond sensor range. Oh wait… that’s after release….. Or that one day we will have S upgrade package with 14% range bump, R-77, and TWS2. I wish they did what Sukhoi did for 27, and put a closure speed indicator that Tells you exactly how close target is to notch. Since it can be 70-90 degrees depending on speed or not there at all. Su-27 also gets R-27 battery indicator, and it’s co-op mode works with HPRF One good thing about co-op in 29, in vertical scan or helmet or optical, radar/IRST/missile all look together and first to lock becomes primary sensor

Yea, I could be totally wrong. I’m sure the AOA sensors we see for MiG-21 onward and 4th gen US aircraft (idk when US first started using AOA input to gunsight) have a good use, and Soviets seemed to think they were extremely necessary for ground attack with slip correction. And of course, a gyro gunsight can easily be made to correct for average AOA. Unless we knew exactly what’s going on under the hood, I guess we can’t know. Would be interesting if so done found a really solid way to test the impact of AOA on the bullet trajectory in DCS

I think part of the theory right now is that what is happening might be correctly modeled, and the result of the ASP-5N not having AOA correction. On MiG-21 you begin to see AOA vane to correct bullets and rockets. I believe the positive AOA when pulling G would weathervane the spinning bullets down. Causing what we see. So you need to aim ahead of the target depending on G load. Sight works very well for me in straight and level flight

Sadly they are only making 9.12A, which correlates to MiG-29A model. I would love to have the ECM and fuel of 9.13 along with radar upgrade and R-77 of “S” upgrade package, but it seems they don’t want to do it. Sad because, I think there is enough info to do its Gardeniya jammer to the same fidelity we have for the new F-16/18 break lock jammers. “Backward engineering” the switchology shouldn’t be too hard. We know the change in HUD symbology and radar range increase. I think the ECM/low production numbers gets in the way ( I think only a little more then a dozen were produced for Russia from the factory with the S upgrade), as well as being able to sell as separate module or upgrade Also, S upgrade was applied to 9.12 also. In which case you get no jammer and extra fuel, but increase radar range 14% and R-77 with TWS2. So what I would really love, is what if one day they make a separate upgrade package for 9.13S, or even make just regular 9.13 or 9.12S. They could sell it as a 5 variant pack. How many years In the future would this be? I don’t want to think about it

On the deck you hit G limit at Mach 0.8-0.85 depending on weight. if it lower alpha limit with increase of speed and thus stopped you exceeding max G, like the way MiG-19 ARU is designed, I would be very surprised but pleasantly so. As there is yhe lack of G limiter. According to CL’s charts, you should be pulling 9-12 degrees AOA on the deck at Mach 0.8-0.85 at 8-9 G