FoxAlfa

There was a look down bug effecting all FC3 aircraft, meaning that low alt penalty would climb with the aircraft, which got fixed while ago... so look down performance is better for all FC3 aircraft

R1 is 90 km. R1 is not the same as Rmax since there are engineering safety include into calculations, like wind, trigger passing speed, temperature, hit probability etc... Also some pilots stated that missiles should be able to pull 3g for more then few seconds pass R1... That is why Rmax > R1...

You are using Rmax wrong... it is R1 and R2 ranges in Russian manuals.... so Rmax not necessarily equal R1... especially since manual instruct pilot to fire R1 which would be exceptionally low probably shot if Rmax = R1.

Another launch video with parameters in hud shot

X-31 launch... from cockpit...

NWS/Lock button works only with Flaps up. so Flaps up, hold and it will turn well

Can you give exact stats and load so I can cross check? Thank you!

Yeah that would be good to have it... I did list it few years ago in my list: As you see, some of the stuff did get fixed... but I think this is one a bit more major, so I am not sure how much ED is willing to spend time on FC3.

Unfortunately no, I but most of the new stuff was rehashes in to a upgrade package of existing 29's into SMT standard as cheaper option... In a way SMT was downgrade from 9.15 M that could be applied to exiting aircraft

The picture is from the Yugo MiG-29, so export 9.12b, the pictures of the HUD are 9.13C as far as I can tell. The both version of Su-27 I have are completely missing info on engaging Jamming targets (I guess it is limited not to give info on ECM and ECCM stuff). Also, worth noting that in the MiG-29 manual the AP indication isn't noted or mentioned in STT part (Combat Employment)... only stressed out and noted in the Engaging jamming targets part of the manual as important.

you are looking at the wrong section... you need the appendix of engaging jamming target...

There are unfortunately two things that need to be fixed and are reported to improve the HOJ use: - R-27 family uses pure tracking instead PN in HOJ mode, severely limiting its range (this will hopefully be fixed when the missiles get full CFD and move to new API/AP) - STT mode is lacking 'AП' indication next to the HUD when you lock the target, before this was a less of the issue, but with Vipers and Hornets Jamming only when locked, this information gain lot in importance.

As far as I remember there is autolock is when the target enters missile range in CНП. My information might be wrong, but this switch turns this off, which would be a nice thing to have. As a note, AFAIK no such switch in Fulcrum.

The appearance of non-sense is since they are proposing a SAM system based on R-27... that is why the numbers or speed, and alt are weird... but that shouldn't influence burn-time, which is again in align with the MiG-29 manual of 8,6-11 sec

The ones @BlackPixxel posted here that are based on data from Polish Military Academy and Company delivering R-27 from UKR to Poland: They give longer burn times for R-27ER family of 9.5, which also corresponds to the MiG-29 manual of 8.6-11s based on temperature, instead of current 8s in DCS.

It got fixed

@Chizh Any feedback regarding differences of burn-time on R-27E based on these new charts? Since most of the other missiles are update, are we getting closer to moving R-77 and R-27 to the new API?

<64>Fox Mig-29

So, we are talking about a bit more range and a bit more speed down the range, but slower to get there. Longer burn time makes sense, since you don't want to overspeed the missile too much since that v2 really hurts at too high speed....

I can't exactly recall, how long is the boost/sustain and burntime on DCS R-27ER just for a reference?

I will just leave this here:

If you want nice video of R-27 being fired and hitting a look down flanking target here, you go: Again, it is hard to tell any parameters from the video.

I think most of issues raised in this forum come since missles don't have a common base they are built from in to the simulator. Ones have use old API, other new... AP also... Drag modeling is based on judgment calls... Some have been CFD some not... End even the CFDs have been performed with different software... So, only way to put most of the things to rest is to establish a common base line. So CFD is needed with same parameter sets (not a sliver built but it should establish drag relations between missiles) and migration to new common API/AP. But this takes a long time and lot of recourses, finishing AIM-120 is a good step forward after that we can only hope ED focus their efforts on other AA missiles with higher priority on the R-27 and R-77