RvETito

AFAIK the A-10's cannon is not just a weapon but a major structural component of the fuselage.

This cockpit is a move in the right direction. Actually anything improving the Su-25 virtual experience is a move in the right direction. Big time! :thumbup: Nothing personal, just my extremely addicted opinion :D

AFAIK the rotating IR beams form a trailing cone with angle of 60 degrees. I've noticed that within this angle A2A missiles are spoofed relatively easy. Personally I always have it on. It only affects missiles in the sim while it should make EOS' almost blind if they track you from behind but it's not modeled.

Being away from the sim world for a while, I just downloaded DCSW and installing it as I write this. Question - I have BS2 Upgrade 1.2.1 which requires BS1 to be installed but World installation instructions clearly state to remove any DCS products. Do I have to install again BS1 or just the BS2 Upgrade 1.2.1? And would BS1 be of any use with DCSW? I highly doubt it.. PS. It's good to be back.

Lipetsk hardcore -

Su-34 production line - http://gelio-nsk.livejournal.com/172070.html

Mi-8 kicking some a$$

Sounds like you don't fly the Su-25/T at all ;) The way it lands is actually what gives the amazing feeling of flight physics.

Here they are- 2 tracks in VFR with 25% fuel and weight exceeding the maximum take-off weight 8) and same story IFR in complete fog. Su-25 landing tracks.rar

Fuel consumption per kilometer flight is used only in civil aviation for economical calculations. For a plane like the Su-25 it's the specific fuel consumption that matters. If it's 0.416kg/kgf/h that means that at full power an engine burns 0.416kg fuel for one kilogram force of thrust for 1 hour.

You should use pitch angle instead of AOA for reference. On the other items: - depending on your gross weight your approach speed should be 320-350km/h - maintain sink rate ~4m/s - flaps FULL when speed drops to 400km/h - airbrakes as required. I prefer them deployed in order to maintain higher engine power, in case I have to go around this will help engines to go faster at take-off power if they were at approach idle. - after the inner marker beacon reduce speed to 280-300km/h - at the runway threshold (you should be at ~30m) fully cut power to idle and flare the airplane to touchdown sink rate 1-2 m/s, IAS should be around 250-260km/h When I get back home later today I will post tracks with visual and instrument approaches with light and heavy plane to illustrate all this.

I've seen it before and I wondered why the need of torpedo-type launch. Now I stopped wonder - the damn thing set the sea on fire! I can imagine what it could do the ship that dares to launch it :D

We use it at work to keep an eye on the airplanes that do a maintenance check flight after heavy checks at our facility. Not the most reliable tool though. Some of them never show on screen or just disappear. I told those pesky avionics guys to disable the stealth mode but they never listen.. :D

Pure beauty....

A-7 is fine ;) Not as much as the A-6 Intruder but still a good stick. That joke on viper's post makes the day "D

OT but I gotta say that US Navy has operated/tested the ugliest planes ever.

There is but it's "soft" - at 26 deg AOA the SOS system limits the stick pull. However, the pilot can overcome it by pulling harder, much harder.

It's not only the A2A aspect that differs the 9-13S from the 9-12. Both should behave differently in flight because the 9-13S has different type of AOA limiter and flight control system in general, also it's dry weight is greater, about 250kg more of internal fuel capacity but most important it has increased payload from 2000kg to 3000kg (6x500kg bombs with 2 bombs on each of the fortified most inner stations) and high caliber rockets added to the arsenal. We've got he 1150-liter wing tanks though. Also, are we sure how the TWS works and looks like on any of the 29's? Because the so called MFD in reality is nothing but a HUD replicator (IPV-31, abbreviation which would be translated as "direct visibility indicator") with slightly different indication. So for the level of simulation of FC I think the current A2A model is fair enough - you get the longer Alamo sticks plus the heater, you get active radar missile. I wouldn't like something imaginary to be put in just to "make it balanced". What do you complain about? Even in FC2 the 29S is still one of the deadliest BVR platforms. May be not that much exaggerated like in FC1 but now it's even more balanced in a favor of it's opponents. Lets wait for DCS: Fulcrum and discuss it again ;) PS> I wouldn't mind those 6x500kg bombs available for the 29S in FC3 :D

Since this thread evolved in another FC wish list and before it gets eventually locked I would say that most likely ED haven't had access to the 9-13S and NO19M documentation. Simultaneous tracking is already modeled and could be copied from the F-15 I suppose but how the indication would look like we (they) could only speculate.

Few F-16's

Bulgarian Mi-17's spreading some hate - http://airforce.mod.bg/bg/?page_id=2990 Note the picture from the cockpit!

Nowadays hardware (and software) are so advanced that humans turn out to be the weakest part. Think about it - all generations fighters are limited to 9'Gs because humans can hardly stand more; the only 5th generation fighter in service is grounded for an year because of oxygen problems. That wouldn't be a problem if there was no one to need that oxygen.

I don't believe there will be a pilot onboard the next generation fighter. Already read somewhere that the F-35 is the last US-built manned combat aircraft.

This should be the approved version for serial production. It has two pylons more for Igla air-to-air missiles (two missiles on each station).