MiG-29 landing approach in LockOn and IRL

[RvEYoda]

You're welcome to test that on HL anyday.

[Crusty]

Thing that has always struck me about this game.......ED keeps saying it cant do things like the f18 because of lack of data..then what do they do with all the aircraft it does have open source data for ?. it compromises or ignores it to fit its own in game dynamics limitations (which will allways be the case..i know)

 

I just wish sometimes for more Honesty...some wish eh?

[TucksonSonny]

Why dont you come up with some real material?

As I said these were charts ED put on their site and some are results of the game. Where they come from originally I dont know. "F-15 manual" is pretty vague.

 

Under what conditions were your numbers taken for example?

How about you try to present something concrete for a change!

 

16 deg/s was taken from MAXIMUM achieved sustained rate. Means No payload and not very much fuel, afaik tyvm.

Unfortunately I do not know which engine model or f-15 model this data is from. As I also said, earlier to ED charts this was the only number I had found.

 

In no way do I consider my deductions earlier flawless, as they were based on this assumption(which I also stated!). I also said I agree with you if you show me real numbers for max rate, but instead you just laugh at me.

 

Consider me out of this forum for a while after this thread. I don't like this atmosphere of "thinking different/disputing beta testers or ED implies being an idiot"

 

 

Please leave this guy alone

(I am talking about GG):

 

You really can’t discuss with these guys (Let us call them the blue fanboys) because:

 

1) They will claim that your source is not correct over and over

2) They will never came up here with some real material/proof/charts or whatever

 

Being in the same blue camp it is unbelievable that people can be so naive.

 

Let me explain how GG his mind is working: In his little world he thinks that Mig’s do suck and only an amraam sensor technology is working…

 

He even did say that on this ru forum with the exact words: “Migs do suck”

 

They have the same idea about European technology (in his mind mirages, eurofighters etc. sucks too).

[Groove]

GG, you need a fake acount for posting on such threads !

[504MrWolf]

Why do we have these threads?

 

Johnny quote me mate "THESE THREADS SUCK" ;)

 

You cant possibly argue these things when there are MILLIONS of variables, the only way you can start these threads is by STATING the boundaries of your information base.

 

IE: "Hi iam a F-15 Pilot here is a photo of me in my jet, here is my USAF pilots licence (facsmile) and here is a sworn and signed document showing im not a 15 year old vsimmer ;). Why does the LOMAC F-15 @ FL10 wieghing 10k kg with full fuel not out turn the etc etc......"

 

THEN and ONLY THEN can anything posted in replied be taken semi-seriously, its a game and its as good as it get atm!!

 

Argue the toss forever it wont make much difference, just go enjoy the game if you dont like the problems and dynamics go play something else.

[Vekkinho]

I'm not sure about F-15 but I believe that best cornering speed is somewhere between 330-450 kts. Pilot pulls not more than 4.5G to achieve it and it's withstandable compared to higher speeds that allow more Gs but pilots suffer.

 

So there's no need to go that fast during dogfight unless you're trying to disengage, hit escape window and head home.

 

Realistic Blackouts and redouts in LO are a bit too extreme as I believe that most of the fighter pilots are able to withstand 9G much longer than we can in LO.

 

Accurate or not, planes in LO are modelled this way, we can only adapt to it and use 'em the way it was planned in ED.

[3Sqn_Sven]

... best cornering speed is somewhere between 330-450 kts. Pilot pulls not more than 4.5G to achieve it and it's withstandable compared to higher speeds that allow more Gs but pilots suffer.

 

4.5G's....no way dude.

 

Guys, as Wolf said, unless you do the real thing for a living you cannot know for sure. Data on the internet is just plain in-accurate, and cannot be trusted. I have yet to see data either printed in magazines or on the net or by the companies ie GD or sukhoi, that has turned out to be accurate.

 

I'm not a GG Fanboi but I tend to listen when he talks about the F-15 as he has an ex F-15 pilot in his squad, and I've seen how much good info he's been privy to.

 

And with regard to the original topic of this thread, amount of alpha on the jet when landing ruining your experience??? How long did it take you to do the maths and actually quantify that you were not enjoying it? What's the difference?? You wouldn't have even know before doing this research!

[Fox One]

How long did it take you to do the maths and actually quantify that you were not enjoying it? What's the difference?? You wouldn't have even know before doing this research!

 

 

It took me just a few days after original LockOn, then FC was released and I bought it and installed it. I started doing landings according to RL flight manuals. I know for years that in landing configuration the a/c produces way too much lift for a given AOA, for me it is obvious. Only this week I had the idea to quantify by how much LockOn is wrong.

 

It ruins landing experience, because in the flight manual there are some touchdown curves for 10 and 12 deg AOA, this is the AOA range for touchdown. And for the typical weight touchdown speed is 250-270, where for the same AOA at touchdown in LockOn you can touchdown comfortably at 200-210, the difference is not negligible. IRL doing the touchdown at such speeds the required AOA will DEFINITELY be waaay above 15 deg and the plane will hit the runway with nozzles. 15 deg AOA is nozzle-runway contact angle with uncompressed oleos according to the flight manual, with compressed oleos nozzle-runway contact AOA is as low as 9 deg.

 

I wouldn’t have know before doing the research… this is so funny :megalol:

 

You’re assuming obviously wrong that everybody has the same knowledge level as you. After having the flight manuals for both MiG-29 and MiG-29UB for almost 10 years, after seeing smth like 200 live MiG-29 takeoff and landings and spending dozens of hours between years talking to MiG-29 pilots… Unless you’re a real Fulcrum pilot there’s a chance that I might have more knowledge than you about how a MiG-29 should behave during landing ;)

[Fox One]

>0.6M = F-15

<0.6M = Su-27, and both outrate the 15 in instantaneous.

 

 

You’re right, also I suppose you know that Russian maneuvering characteristics comparative study Su-27/F-15/F-16/Tornado from airwar.ru.

 

What I don’t like is that the diagram looks so much like made using free hand :(

 

As a small note for anybody not knowing – the speeds are TAS in the diagram below.

 

The military/afterburner sustained turn diagrams from Su-27SK manuals are way nicer, do you know if there is any AB sustained turn diagram in that declassified F-15 manual, to make some comparison for various weights with the more precise Su-27 flight manual diagrams?

[Fox One]

Here it is, Su-27SK max AB sustained turn diagram, the speeds are IAS here and if someone will want to compute some turning times and turn rates using the well-known formula, there will have to make transformations to find out the TAS. Anyway Su-27 radome main pitot is PVD-18 series, so there is good data and tables available to reliably do the transform from IAS to TAS.

 

One more note – this diagram is for 50 percent fuel using the normal fuelling (also known as main fueling type). IRL Su-27 has 4 tanks:

 

tank 1 (3180Kg) – placed along the entire airbrake length

tank 2 (4160Kg) – in the middle of the fuselage, between those serious titanium spars

tank 3 (1060Kg) – actually two tanks, one in each wing. 1060 is for both

tank 4 (1000Kg) – between engines and in the “sting”

 

All weights are for standard conditions fuel density (0.785 IIRC).

 

IRL there are 3 types of fuelings: complete, normal and partial. Complete means full, normal means only tanks 2 and 3 are full, and partial means less fuel than normal. Normal fueling is the one used in routine training missions. Full fueling is needed only for long escort missions. Normal fueling means approx 55% of all tanks volume, so what you see in the diagram below is actually for 27.5% fuel!

[3Sqn_Sven]

Hey I'm not doubting your research I'm just dumbfounded as to why you cared about this particular facet of the sim so much...to the point where it "ruins the landing experience".

 

Each to their own hey?

[GGTharos]

Actually he wasn't the only one - the pilot you mentioned found the landing behaviour of the F-15 a little off, and of course we know that the AoA needle is busted, too.

 

Fox - keep up the good work. LO has a lot of inaccuracies, and a lot of them will not be fixed until we get AFM on those planes, which will take a long time. However your research brings to light many data that is useful :)

I will look for a comparable chart for you.

 

And heya Sven :)

[Fox One]

It looks like I accidentally deleted the diagram in the beginning of the thread, running out of attachment space. I also deleted it from my HDD, but anyway the facts remain...

[GGTharos]

Yeah - LO's SFM (like all FM's of that era) behaves poorly in extreme conditions - ie. high AoA, high speed, etc.

[Fox One]

With all the risks that some people will consider comparing LockOn a/c characteristics with the real life ones as boring, irrelevant, imprecise or unuseful, I will still try to analyze some flight characteristics that I consider important. Things that differ from RL by a pretty wide margin and IMHO they should receive some sort of correction in BS even if the supersonics will remain with SFM.

 

SFM is SFM but that can be improved too until supersonics with AFM will be made, and as I understood this will happen some years from now. I hope SFM will be improved at least about a few important things. If someone thinks that anyway it’s just a game and I take it too seriously he’s probably right :)

 

This is about straightline deceleration characteristics with engines at idle (MiG-29 aerodynamics manual (airwar.ru), pages 199-200).

 

The distance required at 1000 m altitude for the speed to drop from 800 to 400 IAS, throttle idle, 2XR-60 missiles, weight 13,000 Kg. The experimental data is very precise – autopilot altitude hold was used, RPM was already idle when I begun counting, the distance on the HUD is given in 0.1 Km increments.

 

Without airbrakes 16.8 Real life 11.5

With airbrakes 4.8 IRL 6.7

 

Same experiment at 8,000 meters altitude.

 

Without airbrakes 24 IRL 26.7

With airbrakes 8.9 IRL 15.8

 

First look conclusions – at low altitudes a/c drag is definitely low, at medium altitudes around 7,000 m is ok, and judging by the trend above 7-8 thousand meters drag is probably a bit high. But there is also the idle thrust issue (with zero value in LockOn for a/c with SFM), and in the manual on page 196 there’s a very interesting diagram with idle thrust (for one engine). In the discussed range of 800-400 Kmph at 1,000 m the idle thrust is actually negative, so the simulator’s a/c deceleration characteristics at that altitude can be at least partly explained by lack of idle thrust for LockOn’s MiG-29. At high altitudes the a/c decelerates a bit fast, but there should be a bit of positive idle thrust, so MAYBE airframe drag for LockOn SFM is pretty adequate, the main problem might be lack of idle thrust.

 

Also it is obvious that airbrakes are way too effective.

[Vekkinho]

4.5G's....no way dude.

 

Read carefully what I wrote m8.

 

Pulling more than 4.5G during constant turns would bleed speed below 330kts (even with full AB) and ROT would automatically decrease so there's no need to do that if pilot wants to maintain cornering smash. I'm talking about sea level turn performances. However, with increase in altitude cornering speed increases too but ROT decreases. So for example, cornering speed at 17000m would be cca 1.0M but ROT would be 11 deg/sec or less. Before you get offended and start quoting my wrong statements, I'm not saying that numbers I just mentioned in example represent real F-15 performance.

 

I believe that real F-15C performs much better at higher altitudes than it does in LO is same conditions. Remember, it was made to intercept and destroy MiG-25 but LO undermodelled Eagle's performance at high alts.

 

I did not say that 8 or 9G turn is impossible at speeds 330-450kts, but it's usually only necessary for evasive (break) turns.

[GGTharos]

Yep - actually, at least in LO, depending on how heavily loaded your plane is, you might want about 475KIAS to corner - especially at high altitude.

You should avoid dropping below 400 if you can help it unless you're about to pull the pipper on the guy - at 350 you can still corner, but any lower you start to struggle - for this reason maintaining at least 400kts in corner is good for your health.

 

LO's F-15 seems to like about 450-475 when heavy, and that lets you sustain a nice 6-7g at SL, IIRC. If you're lighter - half fuel tank or so, you might find yourself sustaining 8-9g at SL and accelerating through 450 to a speed where ROT decreases un-acceptably, so you have to watch for that, too.

[thesystem]

But the German Mig had down-tuned engines?

[ericinexile]

A new friend of mine who I've begun working fairly closely with in recent weeks was an F-15C pilot until age 55! (Now he's a union chairman, go figure.) One recent afternoon we spent an hour watching his HUD videos from the mid-90's. What I found really surprising was how this guy liked to get low and fast during pratice 2v2 engagements. His HUD videos looked just like something out of LOMAC with the FPV just barely popping over desert mountains at 500 kts as his TWS was announcing occasional pings that the terrain failed to mask. He ended the engagement after his F-16 opponent failed to acknowledge death by slicing the guy with the gun piper on the bottom half of a split-s and thus making further argument impossible. The point is that, for all its faults, LOMAC made that HUD video look amazingly familiar. In the quest to see this game improve one should not lose sight of the fact that it is still very realistic.

 

BTW, I was too embarassed to admit to being a sim geek so I had to sit through eternal explanations of HUD symbology, all of which I knew.

 

Smokin' Hole

[3Sqn_Sven]

Read carefully what I wrote m8.

 

Pulling more than 4.5G during constant turns would bleed speed below 330kts (even with full AB) and ROT would automatically decrease so there's no need to do that if pilot wants to maintain cornering smash. I'm talking about sea level turn performances. However, with increase in altitude cornering speed increases too but ROT decreases. So for example, cornering speed at 17000m would be cca 1.0M but ROT would be 11 deg/sec or less. Before you get offended and start quoting my wrong statements, I'm not saying that numbers I just mentioned in example represent real F-15 performance.

 

I believe that real F-15C performs much better at higher altitudes than it does in LO is same conditions. Remember, it was made to intercept and destroy MiG-25 but LO undermodelled Eagle's performance at high alts.

 

I did not say that 8 or 9G turn is impossible at speeds 330-450kts, but it's usually only necessary for evasive (break) turns.

 

 

I just don't know where you are getting the idea that any more than 4.5G sustained whilst in full AB will bleed speed. It won't. I just hit fly on the F-15 in the menu, default full fuel, 1 tank, and weapons. At 28000ft 4.5G will sustain 350kts, but at sea level 7G will...

 

Even a PC-9 (turboprop trainer) will sustain 5G at sea level without bleeding speed!

[Weta43]

BTW, I was too embarassed to admit to being a sim geek so I had to sit through eternal explanations of HUD symbology, all of which I knew.

:-)

[Dudikoff]

The distance required at 1000 m altitude for the speed to drop from 800 to 400 IAS, throttle idle, 2XR-60 missiles, weight 13,000 Kg. The experimental data is very precise – autopilot altitude hold was used, RPM was already idle when I begun counting, the distance on the HUD is given in 0.1 Km increments.

 

What if the altitude hold function is not implemented properly? E.g. it might be causing less drag than in reality especially in this scenario.

[Fox One]

Good question. I have just redone the experiment w/o autopilot and I received results differing from autopilot flying experiment by less than 0.5 Km at low alt and less than 1 Km at high alt w/o airbrakes. With airbrakes the results differed by 0.1 Km.

 

Also there was some years ago an ukrainian MiG-29 pilot on the russian forum and he said that IRL when you reduce throttles, the speed decreases much faster than in LockOn. And the numbers anyway are speaking for themselves. With airbrakes the difference is huge, and that theoretically will be easier to fix. At low alt w/o airbrakes the results differ from RL by almost 50%. Such a difference with all the indulgency in the world cannot be attributed to different atmosphere conditions, etc. If the speed will decrease as IRL at low alt, formation flying and any other kind of flying requiring precise speed control (like landing approaches :) ) will be visibly easier to fly ;)