FoxAlfa

Not too much work like a new module,I think something in the ball park of A-10C II upgrade... and I wouldn't mind paying 20$-30$ for a FF upgrade...

Unfortunately I haven't got time to model and calculate all, also it would be much easier for ED to crunch the numbers since they would just need to add CG shift into their existing model. Anyway I will try to model it in everybody favorite missile fast mock-up tool KSP :D But lets take a shot in the dark guess....since the missile expands ~35-40% percent of it mass from the tail end, we can assume quite dramatic CoG shift... since the effects of the shift on static stability are linear... multiplied by AoA change... It could land in the similar 35-40% G reduction... with it decreasing as fuel is expanded... ofc I could be way off, but for sure it has quite effect on G what missile can pull of the line

CFD is good for getting Aerodynamic center, but I am pretty sure DCS doesn't model CoG shift. The thing is more the CoG is to the back, more the shape is 'static' in the air and less it is willing to turn. Basically all longer range missiles take into account this in their design are made to be maneuverable with fuel expended. Side of effect of that is lower maneuverability with a full fuel

I do agree that 120 modeling with CFD is excellent and it helps a lot in determinism Aerodynamic center of the missile, but there is a aerodynamic barrier that impacts ability to take tight turns under power. Namely AoA that missile could pull is limited due to CoG shift due to power being applied at the back. All this to prevent missile tumbling under power. If AoA got too high, the wings would turn in to air brakes and tumble the missile even faster. Once the fuel is expended, missile is much more of 'stable' design and can maneuver much more lively. And that CoG shift in reference to the Aerodynamic center is why making a missile that should maneuver under power (9X) and missile that should maneuver once rocket fuel is expended (120) requires different optimizations.

How is the current DCS R-27R compering to the mods one, just out of curiosity?

I am still waiting for anybody to provide a FLIGHT MANUAL Diagram that says Viper can safely go over 800 kts on the deck, Lockheed engineers don't spit on their fingers, rise them in the air and set the limit... they have their reasons... if you can't everything else is a hearsay and useless.

I just wondering has any work started on F1 or we are still waiting on completion of c-101 (since C-101 is probably the most complete module in DCS in my book...?

+1, I would love a Full Fidelity A-10A... never was a "Gib newest tech guy" myself

Also guys please make a difference of going over the limit up high and down low on the deck, two different things.

Yeah, people try to "game"/"meme" the DCS all the time when it suite them (usually get cross when others meme them). the bottom line no body here can say what happens to the viper on the deck above 1.2 mach, but Lockheed Martin and the test Pilot said, DON'T DO IT!!! So there is NO reason why our Viper should be able to do 1.4 mach with no issue (keep in mid that more powerful F-15 is also restricted and can't go over 1.25 on the deck both in DCS and RL)

The chart with the limit is of the engine variant we have, also the pilot keeps repeating that 800 kts is a real physical limit and you guys keep ignoring it since it suites you... it's like saying MiG-25 can go 3.2 mach since it did over the Sinai once (but it did blow up the engines) or F-15 can pull 13 g (it can but it warped the air-frame)... what I am trying to say to you, yes, Viper can go over 800, but there are consequences, and the lower you are the bigger they are since of the drag and heat build up. And currently it is over-performing by ~12% without consequences.

Can we get information regarding this, since it feels it is "lost in translation" between ED and RAZBAM, and it has been 5 mounts and it is hurting the M2000C a lot. If the answer is in the bug tracker but we haven't got to it, it is good enough and hopeful you will get to it soon. (check the line where the radar is looking and pitch position where the number is) There are workarounds, but it is quite immersion braking and it hurting the interceptor not to have the radar pitch working, it like bomber not having bombs working. Thank you in advance.

Car engine was illustration what happens when you go over the red line... No body said that the Viper would blow up at 801 kts... but it will if you keep going.... and the article is clear, "don't stretch the limits!", 800 kts in this case.

Yes I did and that is the exact point of the text. Will a car engine blow up if you go 500 rpm in to red line... it won't... but will it blow up for sure if you keep going... yes... he has been up to 845 knots UNDER test conduction. Also said that he would go over 800 knots if his life depended on it, but also stated to quote: "This is a very real physical limit, I strongly encourage you to respect it" All in all the text is called "Don't stretch the limits"

Excellent text! Thank you! To quote:"This is a very real physical limit. I strongly encourage you to respect it." I wouldn't mind if a random "engine fail" would be generated with increasing random percent pass 800kts as solution.

The charts are public available. Although, we usual are not sure what happens when limits are passed, for jet engines a good guess is compressor stall or AB starvation. But one would expect that DEC would step in and actually limit it to 1.2 mach and prevent any damage.

The Viper seams to be 100 knots too fast on the deck then chart or its intake design allow. The 1.2 mach is the limit, but in DCS you can go 1.39 with no issue. Screenshot: Chart: 1.16 The referenced manual number is lower right, but I did cross reference it with two other charts. Track: speedtest.trk

Best of luck and thank for all the great work! I really hope you become and official 3rd party for DCS!

There are many factors that are not modeled in DCS that degrade the missile/seeker performance in RL... so to have one value set high without those factors you end up with unrealistic missile. Bench-marking current Amraam seeker performance base on other missiles/seeker performance in DCS it does seam optimistic in my humble opinion, for a start it should require much more support to achieve such CCM performance.

Is it only me that thinks F-14 is over-performing? Straight wings or not it is still quite a heavy plane.

<64>Fox MiG-29a, and <64>Kazansky MiG-29a

Can radar be forced into 'radar correction' or so without launching the weapon? For 'maskirovka', test or training proposes?

Hm... no, Yugo MiG-29 didn't have working radars due to not being able to maintain them due to sanctions, that was part of the well documented scandal after regime change... hard to launch R-27R without radar... but R-27s seam to do quite alright in Yemen from 0 km/h ground launches

Yeah, it makes sense to do it then. Excellent, thank you!

I think thread is going off-topic a bit, so how about on-topic question. Can we get maybe get dual calculations for R-27 guidance? One for Datalink phase and other for SARH phase? P.S. Thank you so much for the drag changes, it is a great stopgap measure till CFD