Bremspropeller

Steadily meaning linear or is there any other equation to it? Is there any more info on the ARI as well?

FWIW, out of th 29G manual: There's no mention of aileron throw being decreased to +/-5° above 18° AoA. It just mentions a reduction in aileron authority above 18° AoA. Now, the authority part may be bad translation (could be meaning authority as in "aileron effectiveness"), but then agian neither does it state a reduction in throw to 5° or any other value for that matter. It says the ailerons are placed 5° up from the aircraft's horizontal reference line in neutral position - that's a wonky way of saying the ailerons at neural are both 5° up to create more washout - in order to decrease any induced yaw during rolls. ARI is mentioned as a function of the AFCS Damper at high AoA (whatever that means): "Lateral control is provided mainly by the ailerons, assisted by the tailerons if the LEFs are IN, and by the rudders at high AoA, provided the stability augmentation system is operating." [...] "Aileron-rudder-interconnect is provided at high AoA by the stab aug system to improve lateral stability."

Technically the 29 has slats and the 16 has LEFs, but that's just a tangent on semantics. The 29G manual says the LEFs [sic!] are out when: - either of the two flap DOWN buttons is pressed - landing gear is selected down (gear down overrides flap up) - maneuvering (greater than 8.7° AoA for extension, lower than 7° AoA for retraction, Mach below 0.8 [+0.1 / -0.05]) More LEF trivia: - "LEF out" disengages differential taileron - the Damper AFCS mode will counteract any pitch moments due to LEF operation (unless flaps are down)

Which "roll angle"? According to the 29G manual, there's no difference between the two down buttons. That's what they're actually called: "One UP and two DOWN" buttons.

Vamos a la playa.

JG-3 (one sqn 21MF, two sqns 29A) and supposedly JG-2* (at reunification 2sqns 21M and one sqn 21SPS/K) were to be the two complete MiG-29 wings in LSK. JG-9 had the 23MF and ML and JG-7 (21Ms) had been disbanded by September '89. That left JG-1 (Holzdorf, 21MF and 21SPS/K) and JG-8 (Marxwalde, 21bis both subtypes) with 21s for the forseeable future. The 21SPS/K is a PFM with the gun-pod preparation. First flight at LSK was on 3 May 1988. Induction into DHS (~ QRA) at Preschen was in 1 December 1988. In terms of missing MiG-29 bases in GDR we have Falkenberg and Altenburg for GSSD and Preschen for LSK. ______ * couldn't find anything about that in JG-2's "Geschwaderchronik" though, just here: https://home.snafu.de/veith/jg2.htm Perspektivisch war durch die NVA eine Ausrüstung des JG-2 mit MiG-29 vorgesehen.

I have been landing and taking off from Holzdorf's aux grass strip without any issues. Even with a full tank and A/G ordnance she'll take off in military just fine. A grass runway is never unprepared. Quite the contrary.

It doesn't. While it's got way better sensors and air power projection (gas, range, weapon load), the 29 actually has better sustained and instantaneous turn capabilities*. It should also have better vertical capabilities. Plus in it's time, it had the helmet sight over the Eagle with Mikes at best. The Eagle can be dangerous WVR, but it's not a guaranteed win - far from it. Ze Germans found out that you could actually out-bingo an Eagle when playing a bit dirty. But that's in an artificial setup. _____ * that's from Spanky's video, who had a decent amount of hours in both jets

So it is three buttons for two functions. And as the flaps are blown up by airloads, they could have just left out the entire box and tie them to the gear-handle

The G manual says - maneuvering LEFs come down whenever necessary (AoA greater 8.7° and M less than 0.8 {+/-} and retracting when above said Mach or below 7° AoA) - LEF come down with flaps selected down - LEF come down with gear selected down (gear down overrides flap up) There's no mention of different LEF schedules and it just mentions one UP and two DOWN buttons. "Pushing either DOWN button extends all flaps. Pushing the UP button retracts flaps and LEF, provided gear is up."

Came to DCS for playing a combat flight simulator and ended up learning about types of power lines and their pylons. Life takes interesting corners sometimes

So the third button (Land) positively has no effect or function and is not tied to anything whatsoever?

Same with me.

You can see on the final-turn video above, that the throttle throughout the turn was below 80%. It is a very efficient airframe and the motors do have quite a bit of thrust in idle. Now for something completely different: What do landing-flaps actually do? There's no apparent difference to T/O flaps for me. Is that a controller bug? I saw a topic in the bugs section about that.

Is there a way to please make the aerodrome list in the DTC interface in an alphabetical order? Right now, selecting the proper airfield is a true chore, as they'reall over the list without any concievable ranking. I have so far only tested it on CWG. Thanks. Edit: Syria is fine.

I know, hence I wrote "air miles" on the last page, which is exactly that.

We don't. 1200km (650NM) on internal fuel with high altitude cruise (say FL400) is an abysmal range. We also just established that the range-indication is a slot-machine, not taking wind into account. Sure. But we're talking about a tactical jet over here. That means employing the jet not in some kind of arbitrary "the designer wanted you to do this"-mission, but in an actual tactical engagement with requirements dictated by the sitaution at hand. Under those circumstances, we'll have to see what the jet can do, rather than what it could do if we'de be sticking to some ideal design mission dreamt up by some higher echelon staff officer. The jet can loiter at low speed and high altitude for a bit. But it not anywhere near outperforms the opposition. It just can't carry enough internal fuel to cash in on the airframe's good properties. Leaving out the rough-field intake louvers and taking more gas instead would have been the better design choice. That's pretty much the direction they later took - which is kinda weird if they'd thought they had "enough range" before.

That's about the same the 29G manual states. Sadly, the "optimum" switch is not working yet, so I can't determine how much those figures change. It seems it's not giving out specific information or a calculation in regards to ground-speed like the FPAS in the Hornet, so it's just a thumb'o'meter.

You're all using an awful lot of words for finally agreeing with me: The MiG-29 has no range - even at high altitude, it falls short. I didn't bother testing the Viper at high alt, as I couldn't care for spending another hour on something I already know. I'm not trashing the 29 like you're assuming, I'm just stating a fact and I've proven it wih two datapoints. You're right that you can stretch the jet's range and endurance at high altitude, but it still doesn't hold up to contemporary aircraft. The need to go high to get any meaningful distance out of it is a limitation in using it tactically. You don't need to throw in systems-simplicity and engine-reliability. Those are not up for discussion here, as we're taling about range. Also, the F1 wasn't designed to be a "cruiser" - it's actually been designed for quite a similar role to the 29 but with different doctrinal backgrounds. And as it's predecessor (the Mirage IIIC) was always short on gas, they fixed that issue with the F1. Now, for something productive: What does the range indicator on the fuel gauge actually indicate? Neither my 29G manual, nor the manual coming with the module do actually explain it. Is it something like "800kg of fuel at 10km from the airfield, using X flight profile"* or some other definition? The way I read it so far, it's the max range to flameout but not acconting for wind ("air miles"). Is there any deeper meaning to it? _____ *random numbers

Not really. Just did a high altitude test with the 29A and F1CE - both with two heaters and a centerline tank plus pylons. The route: Pferdsfeld - Jadebusen - Damgarten -due south- Erzgebirge - Pferdsfeld. MiG-29A flew at 40.000ft and Mach 0.85 (~250KIAS). F1CE flew at 34.000ft and Mach 0.9 (~300KIAS) - the F1 can't go much higher without blowing the alternators below 300KIAS. MiG-29 started up with 10.000lbs of fuel and landed with about 2750lbs => 27.5% fuel remaining F1CE started up with 9370lbs of fuel and landed with 3770lbs => again about 40% fuel remaining The gap closes somewhat in relation to the numbers at low altitude, but that's also with the F1 flying 6.000ft lower and 0.05 Mach (~50KIAS) faster. While the fuel economy improves a lot at high altitude, the 29 is not a range wonder up there either.

450KIAS at 2000ft, clean with pylons, internal fuel only.

I'm not comparing. I'm telling you the 29 has no range. That's why aircraft have fuel jettison functions - to get down to landing weight if necessary. Just did a quick flight around Berlin with a couple of quick touch and goes at several airfields to test RSBM and PRMG functionality - cruise at 450KIAS at 2000ft, empty pylons, internal gas only. Merseburg - Köthen - Zerbst - Wittstock - Finow - (Falkenberg) - Merseburg. And an unplanned T'n'G at Leipzig each. I left out Damgarten in the north due to abysmal map-performance (and it was a good idea, as it shows). Checked the 29, the F-16C and the F1 against each other - starting fuel (ME): MiG-29: 7443lbs (100%) F-16C50: 7163lbs (100%) F1EE: 7156lbs (100%) I used Jet A for unit conversion, but the difference to any JP or F- type fuel is 150lbs max: https://whycalculator.com/jet-fuel-weight-calculator/ MiG-29 landed with about 350Kg (the gauge is way too granular to be exact - let's say 750lbs) of fuel. => Just about 10% fuel left. F-16C50 landed with 2700lbs of fuel. => About 38% fuel left. F1EE landed with 1600l (about 2800lbs) => About 39% of fuel left. Both the Viper and F1 could have easily diverted south to Altenburg (another 29 airfield) and both entered the pattern at Merseburg with over 500lbs more than normal IFR recovery fuel. The 29 would have been cooked in a weather diversion. Is it a perfect comparison? No certainly not. But it gives us a good initial impression for how much the 29 suffers at low altitude. If anybody wants to try a medium and high altitude comparison, be my guest.

I'm not debating the aircraft's performance in it's design-point, which is good L/D at low speeds. I'm debating the notion that you can get "good range" out of it, when flying high, which you'll get with any turbojet. And even more so with a jet that actually brings a bit of fuel to play with. The aircraft had "so much range", that on a flight from Preschen to Deci, they had to make a fuel stop in between (e.g. at Colmar) to keep legal IFR reserves. The 29A has roundabout 80% of the Hornet's internal fuel, which already isn't famous for having long legs. That was before they got to use the cruise tanks on the inboard wing-stations. Now let's do "F-15". The MiG-29 is a 1980s Lightning.

Having a low fuel fraction is not a skill issue. It's a design choice, limiting the aircraft's tactical capabilities to an unneccessarily narrow design-mission. That's just a fact no amount of coping can overcome.

Looks like Damgarten, Köthen and Finow also only recieved Fulcrums in '89. That would leave Wittstock, Merseburg and Falkenberg as the premier "mid 80s" Fulcrum airfields.