FoxAlfa

I agree, it is not like they got in to space first (:sarcasm: - internet you have to write those things :D)... but we are getting off-topic...

Community: "the R-27 and R-77 must be bad since they are soviet missiles from the 80's" Soviet missiles complex and engines from the 80tis: S-300, Tor, R-73, Tunguska, P-270 Moskit, P-700 Granit, RD-170....

I guess for full detailed simulation of the R-27 we would need a full fidelity Fulcrum or Flanker?Although I would love to see more improvements in it regardless... autopilot addition for a start, but I am quite happy with aero interim tweak.

Absolutely, weight and processing power being major ones, but early solid-state electronics were prone to overheating and other reliability issue.

Also keep in mind there were some advantage of late analogue systems vs early digital systems, so it is not clear-cut digital > analogue.

Hard to tell, for sure missiles are now performing more 'inline' with other missiles modeling and the charts that are available. The drag and maneuvering is in the 'ball park' with others. CFD might show that the range limiting factor on those charts isn't the drag or aerodynamics but that is something else, for now missiles are closer what one would expect based on other missiles. Of course guidance, electronics and chaff susceptibility are open for discussion, but less concrete data is available there. About chaff susceptibility (this is for all SARHs), I think a short delay of 1 sec or 2 sec is needed before missile decides to switch from a notching target and pick up off bore chaff since now a millisecond of notch is enough for a missile to go for chaff (talking about implementation of a fix, attribute it to antenna scan time, not RL). The missile should have narrow gate, and if target is lost, it should continue ballistic and try to requite target in that arc, if it pick up chaff in that gate, that is ok... but currently even after a millisecond of notch the missiles chooses a chaff that is quite off bore-sight and are lost

Smoke output seams to correspond to RPMs now... closing 10. Probably connected to this fix from the patch: MiG-29. The engine nozzle will open if the throttle is pulled back independently from the airspeed. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3986611&postcount=1

I redid my test for the R-27r... before it was missing and had speed of 1780kmh when it missed, now it is hitting with speed of 2240kmh.... so major difference... now the speed loss is in 6-10% range like on other missiles I tested.

The one thing I couldn't figure out does the switch also disable auto-STT from TWS or not... since that would be nice thing to have.

Unfortunately leaving the Eagle for later makes a lot of sense, they always can keep it as "Ace in sleeve" to boost up sales later. Also if released now it would take away Air-to-air sales from the Viper, as well as some sales from the Strike Eagle which is bound to get some sales as "Charlie" stand-in especially if CFT get to be removable.

Although, I prefer to stay away from non-argument discussion... but can a REAL person considered Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton? Whose opinion is to quote the interview: "Within its kinematic capability, the AA-10A is a very good missile but its maximum employment range was a real disappointment." and he did employ it "We fired 11 AA-10As and 12 Archers in varying scenarios. We learned a lot about the radar and the missiles. That we conducted this exploitation was not classified. It made the local newspapers. The results, however, are classified." https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 Current implementation of AA-10A has is limits in old modeling and will be improved hopefully soon, until then, I find discussing the missile a bit fruitless till we see how it changes.

Mmmmm the beauty that is Fulcrum

Excellent, it is much appreciated :) it will relieve a lot of pain till you get time to model CFD's

There is bug in FC3 MiG for targets in lookdown above 3000m, it only picks them up at ~40km, but it should pick them up at 60 to 70 km according to the documentation (that is almost 50% of volume less covered in lookdown than it should), and here is the chart of the ranges based on "Радиолокационный прицельный комплекс РЛПК-29 истребителя МиГ-29. Ч.1. - Рига, РВВАИУ, 1990."

Honestly I been flying the MiG-29 on Blue Flag PG and didn't find it lacking in any sense. I can pick my fights and disengage at will and nothing can keep up with me... Amraams are good, but once R-27 and R-77 get updated their advantage margin will drop. Link 16 is nice, but good pilots shouldn't relay on Data link... on Blue Flag Caus '80ies I feel I can win any fight or just runaway from any disadvantage fight, what I can't say for Hornet or Viper... only Eagle can keep up, but again in a merge again I have clear advantage.

Well the actives did change the landscape a lot, but in SARH only environment it is a beast... F-15 has a disadvantage close in due to R-73 and Шлем F-16 would lack long range missiles F-18 speed and power M-2000 missile number and again Шлем/R-73 It is no wonder why JG73 pilots have very high kill count against other NATO squadrons and very high opinion of the Fulcrum

Honestly I would love multiple version, and also ED to setup a framework for multiply version in exosphere.... I would love F-18A, F-16A, F-15A in DCS...

A good listen about the MiG... Jagdgeschwader 73 Pilots had quite a high kill count against NATO aircraft at the start, until wester tech and tactics cough up.

Excellent question, apart from being legendary fighter used by 30+ Air forces including NATO and a long service history it will bring its excellent kinematics and Thrust-to-weight and a new flavor to the MFDs brigade. It will increase the fidelity of all "red" weapons and systems laying ground from for all future "Red-Air" projects. Also getting full-fidelity version would benefit also all GCI assisted aircraft (M2000C has guidance system, F-14, MiG-21, EEL and any future ones) since it would bring more GCI infrastructure APIs and implementation. With GCI modes, EWR modes, auto-target prioritization, correct smoke vs RPM modeling, working NAV panel, controllable Fuel Tank Jettions and CM profiles I think it will only get more effective, not less. Although I understand you hotas concerns, I been flying with RL layout for years and I don't find anything lacking and even find it to be a straight forward one. Embrace the challenge and 29 will reward you.

Excellent, it would be much appropriated! Reducing turning drag and fixing 'Fox-1 notch bug' would relieve a lot of pain and bring the R-27 closer to other missiles modeling till you are finally able to 'level' all missiles to the CFD modeling standard. Thank you!

Fulcrum

Understud, I was just hoping there could be a small tweak done to reduce the issue till CFD can be done, since it looks like we will have to wait at least a year and been waiting for 2 already.

And since we know Aim-7 is more accurately model, can we get turning drag tweaked for R-27 since non-maneuvering range is quite good, its just when its starts to turn its speed loss is quite excessive compering too all other missiles as well as turn radius is twice as big as missiles much smaller fins. Here is the table again: and the link to test, I can provide the tracks if needed also. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3887106&postcount=263 I think small tweaks if possible in turning drag reduction and turn radius would move missile much closer to others missiles modeling till we get CFD.

Which would then cause bigger drag and Aim-7 was pulling much bigger AoA causing even more drag, but the Aim-7 lost 30% less speed.

The just going to notch for less then second to trash missile fix will already help a lot. Other arguments are all connected to the turning performance of the missile. The straight ranges against non-maneuvering targets are excellent and on the ball, unfortunately when the missiles starts to turn, the drag and turn radius seams way too excessive compared to other missiles... If you look the results from my test, Aim-7m was able to have ~30-40% higher turn rate with ~55% shorter turn radius, pulling 3x times AoA with a much lower speed loss ( 9% vs 39%). All other tested missiles speed loss for such a turn was in ballpark of 9%. I know to be exact CFD is needed, but I am not sure if turning drag can be reduced a bit as stopgap measure before the full CFD is done?