Ironhand

The N001s that can fire the R-77 have a bypass channel that allows incoming radar data to be switched to a new all-digital processing system. When one of the new modes (several A2G modes along with 1 additional A2A mode providing R-77 compatibility) is selected, radar data is sent to the new subsystems, but if an old mode is selected the data is processed as before by the existing radar hardware. Quite honestly I’m not even certain the R-77 can be launched STT with the new mode.

Same place, same coordinates. Between and just beyond the ends of two lakes, Argentino and Viedma.

The 50% is 50% of the basic fuel load which is defined in the manual as filling tanks #2 and #3 with fuel having a specific gravity of 0.785. So 4160+1060/2=2610 kg or thereabouts. I suppose the other possibility is 50% of a partial fuel load which is tank #2 filled to at least 3400 kg with a top limit of around 4160. Which fuel load, though, doesn’t matter too much because the difference would equate to fractions of a second rather than many multiple seconds. And especially not the 40+ sec difference in the 1100-1300 acceleration range.

Thanks. I’m not sure what to make of that in terms of proof. While it’s specified there, it isn’t throughout. It could, I suppose, be an indication that, unless indicated otherwise, velocities are TAS. If everything is IAS, though, then our Su-27 is extremely out of line with publicly available specifications. There’s a world of difference between 13 sec (expected) and 49 sec (delivered).

If you have the time, do sift through. But, since ED has already said that how it behaves is more accurate than the charts, it may be a moot issue. The reason I’m so curious is that, while it doesn’t make too much difference in the 600-1100 speed range, it makes a tremendous difference in the 1100-1300 sped range. In the latter, it’s the difference between 14 sec and ~50 sec at 2000 m. I believe in the “Сопротивлeниe” (Drag) video you posted above, he came in at 49 sec. No matter how you look at it, the speeds don’t line up with the charts. But in TAS, they end up a hell of a lot closer in the higher speed range.

Yes. Ran across that while reading last night. Still haven’t found any indication of whether the V is Vпр (IAS) or Vист (TAS). Have yet to see it in any of the materials I’ve looked at. Our Flanker is much closer, especially for the 1100-1300 bracket, if it’s TAS. Edit: K-27 is the GRAU identifier for the R-27 (perhaps while in prototype?), something I didn’t know until today.

Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out. I’m seeing about 3 seconds difference myself at the 2,000 m altitude for both the 600-1100 and 1100-1300 km/h marks but the latter mark especially depends on whether you’re measuring IAS or TAS. My runs have been with 4 AAMs and 2622 kg fuel.

Thank you.

Nothing in there references afterburner that I see. What sensor is “seeing” in front aspect is the heat caused by air friction.

Yup. And below that it lists “approaching” (F-15) 16-18 km, “in pursuit of” 60-70 km

Anyone know which instrument/system or whatever ТТТ and СГИ refer to? I’m not familiar with either one and the numbers are different depending on the column you’re in. Also I don’t see the weight, armament etc listed in the image. Also, are the airspeeds IAS or TAS?

According to the manual R-Max1 is for targets certain not to maneuver. Even then, somewhere in there, it states to wait until the target is slightly inside that range before launching but that may be due to imprecise range measurement. EDIT:

That video's acceleration starts at 3390 m and he drops from there. If I'm at a significantly higher altitude, my IAS would be less, not more, than his all things being equal. As for known facts, what season is it? I'm assuming winter given the look of the sky. That may or may not be snow on the ground. Our Su-27 does not match the charts. ED's response is that the charts are wrong. They have different information. I can overlay the two flights in a video but I probably won't have an opportunity until sometime next week. You really don't need that, though, other than for a visual comparison. Just pick any speed range you want in the video and the TRK and compare the times.

Not flying the reference material. I am flying the Su-30 crash video that keeps being posted to prove that the DCS Su-27 transonic flight profile is wrong. How many missiles does that Su-30 have? How may kg fuel onboard? And how many seconds difference do you think the slight difference in flight profile add or subtract? BTW, I’m not saying that our Su-27 is correct. I don’t know if it is or isn’t. I do know that ED claims the charts are missing the transonic drop.

Here's the track but it matches the RL video time pretty closely. Video 500-1300 km/hr in 46 sec. TRK 500-1300 km/hr 44 sec. Su-27 Trans-sonic.trk

That’s probably true some of the time. But the “box” rises and falls with the superstructure. Plus you would think that the deck would be included especially when a waterline hit against the hull is included. But who knows? [Edit: Actually I do know that on the one occasion I checked, the bomb which didn’t score as a hit simply disappeared when it’s companion exploded. It was no longer selectable with F6.] My purpose in posting was simply to say that, when I tried to replicate MBot’s experience, I could. But it was just as likely (actually more than likely in my admittedly small sample) that both bombs would be “scored”.

Out of curiosity, I took a look at this last night and found it interesting. Whether or not this problem exists, seems to depend on where the bombs hit. Intervening superstructure or whatever makes a difference. In MBot's TRK, this is where the bombs hit. Notice the bomb circled in red. That's the one that doesn't explode. The one higher up in the frame explodes a split second after this screen was taken and it's the only hit that is recorded. Using MBot's TRK, I swapped out the aircraft to something I could fly and tried to put something substantial between the bombs. The result: The circled bomb also exploded once it hit. Just wanted to toss that out there. It's not a given that only 1 of 2 will be scored a hit.

My images show the extend that my head can move to the outside as well. SO no. I never felt that my head went through the canopy.

I see the "fog" but not as extensively as in your screens:

For your viewing enjoyment, start at 35000 ft and enter a Mach number. I used 2.6. Then keep increasing the altitude by 500 and watch the TAS behavior. Look familiar? https://aerotoolbox.com/airspeed-conversions/

To infinity and beyond!

Which is why I made the statement.

Exceeding M2.606 was never my goal. I’ll leave that to you F-15 jocks. I only got involved in this conversation in the first place because Vindicator’s issue intrigued me. There are certainly issues, the biggest of which is that TAS calculations cease at 36,300 ft and default to 1494 as the highest value above that altitude. As I noted earlier, I’ve seen some Mach/TAS/CAS calculators do the same thing. The altitude it happens at, though, is somewhat higher. I don’t know if the calculations become unreliable above a certain altitude or what the reason is. Of course it can exceed 1494. Just add a 20 knot tailwind and the GS will be 1514 in the real world. That’s the problem with being so fixated on the GS. It varies, not in the DCS F-15 but in the real world. If you’re top speed in the aircraft were 1600 kt, your GS would vary, quite literally, with the speed and direction of the wind. BTW, that 1600 is probably somewhere around the aircraft’s practical top speed. Various websites report various numbers but 1600 or slightly more is a safe bet. Get your hands on the aircraft’s real world flight manual, if you want more precise numbers. But I guarantee, max GS will not be among the listed stats.

I said that I wasn't going to look into this further but I should know that I can't leave a puzzle unfinished. One tidbit to add: 36,300 ft is the magic altitude. Above that you are locked at 1494. Below that (and I don't know how far) it can increase. I don't know if they are getting the speeds from a table or what but...the calculation stops at a lower number (1494) at 36,300 ft. That might explain why different people are experiencing different things. I've seen something similar occur on some TAS/Mach calculators. In fact, some will even warn you about it.

I don’t doubt your experience in the sim but you seem to doubt mine. I never include wind in a test mission unless it’s a test parameter. So it wasn’t included in the test mission that led to my statement earlier. Perhaps you can bring your superior time in the F-15C to bear and help me solve the following conundrum: