Su-27 can't outrun the Mig ?

[Aliboy]

Hi..the range of the Mig-29S (3FuelTanks,4R77) seems to match a Su-27 (4ER,2ET,2R73,ECM) If you fly full afterburner at 7500m alt from Anapa heading for Bautumi you have to stop over at Gaudata in both aircraft but if you fly at 12000m alt the Mig-29S seems to outrange a Su-27 by quite a margin both can reach Bautumi but the Mig-29S does it with more to spare.In reality could a Mig-29S with 3 tanks perform air combat without damaging\over stressing itself ? or is the pilot required to get rid of the tanks if he wants to engage in combat.

[GGTharos]

There are g limitation on heavy stores (such as the fuel tanks) when it comes to air combat. What they are exactly for the MiG-29S I don't know, but a 5-6g limit would be fair in this case.

[IvanK]

Mig29 Fuel indications with respect to external tanks are bugged in FC2. They were correct in FC1.12.

 

The Fuel tape should reflect total fuel on board.

[GGTharos]

He talks about outRUN not outTURN ! but yes, with tanks you are limited (5) in Gs in real, meaning drop required - not in Lockon

 

No, he asked about air combat (ie turning) as well.

 

Right now with that fuelsettings (above), and under provided conditions from DCS the Mig29 is a worthy adversary in BFM vs the 15, but with more

realistic fuelcomsumption and more realistic accurate G-limitations the Mig29s chances would definitly decrease in endurance perspectives

 

btw: if you really wanna enforce the 5.5G limitation in a high-G sustain turn, just hit "H" for hold atitude = exaclty 5.5G constant :D << makes you wonder, someone

put that right value into the game, but not for payload G-limitation, but some wierd other exploited event ..hehe

 

Meh .. the limitation for the fuel tank was never there in LO/FC, what can you do, right?

[ARM505]

I suppose we all know, but it might help to remind everyone that g-limits do not necessarily mean that whatever was limited will break when you exceed it. ie 5 G limit with tanks doesn't mean the tank drops offs/disintegrates at 6 G. At some value, it will - but the real issue is wear and tear, which is basically irrelevant in a sim, since you get a factory fresh (in fact, even better than that) aircraft every time you click 'Fly'. So technically, whilst it may not be simulated in Lockon, it may not be that much of an issue anyway.

[GGTharos]

MiG pilots worry about bringing a clean bird to much more than 7g to start with ... you have no way of knowing what'll happen if you over-load the tank. It might rip your internal fuel tanks open.

 

I suppose we all know, but it might help to remind everyone that g-limits do not necessarily mean that whatever was limited will break when you exceed it. ie 5 G limit with tanks doesn't mean the tank drops offs/disintegrates at 6 G. At some value, it will - but the real issue is wear and tear, which is basically irrelevant in a sim, since you get a factory fresh (in fact, even better than that) aircraft every time you click 'Fly'. So technically, whilst it may not be simulated in Lockon, it may not be that much of an issue anyway.

[ARM505]

Agreed - but it won't happen at just a fraction above the published 'limit', and it is far less likely to happen to a squeaky-clean, brand new aircraft.

[vanir]

Quite true, ARM505 and also I rarely see the genuine disparity between early centreline mounting and later revision.

 

The early "conformal" centreline EFT mount on MiG 9-12 was poorly mounted and interfered with case ejection (gun cannot be fired) and was severely G-restricted. There has been some discussion about this with German and central European operators at the public forum. All 9-12 have this problem and the wing pylons aren't wet piped so it can't carry underwing EFT.

 

The Germans modified their ex-East German MiG-29A by fitment of their own developed hot area engine kit and derating (improved engine life), plus remounting the centreline "conformal" EFT so that it didn't interfere with firing the gun with the tank mounted. The tank is still G-restricted but not as bad as before. I believe they also wet piped the inboard wing pylons.

 

There are two Russian improvements of the 9-12, being of course the 9-13 production series and an improvement program to the existing 9-12 in service (for operation in mixed squadrons). One of those improvements is the mounting of the centreline EFT so that it no longer interferes with gun firing and afaik has no discernable G-restriction in the later version, although a 9G rating on the airframe itself is overly generous. The CFT won't fly off, but the base of the vertical stabilisers crack.

 

Also like ARM505 says a G-restriction in any case doesn't mean the object suddenly desintegrates in a mushroom cloud at the specified rating, it is simply the rating beyond which structural integrity cannot be guaranteed. That would be roughly 4G on the CFT with the Fulcrum-A, roughly 5G on the MiG-29G, and roughly 8G on the overall airframe for all models and the CFT for the Fulcrum-C or Fulcrum-A in Russian service with the update (which means basically the Fulcrum-A's still in front line mixed squadrons but not those in training squadrons, will use Fulcrum-C avionics/radar/weapons capability and wet piping of the wing pylons and other "9-13 standards", but keep the older small spine airframe, lesser internal fuel and lack the jammer; 9-12 models operated by export customers and ex-satellite nations will all be the old version but some like the Germans and other central European operators like Romania, Bulgaria have certain NATO-compatable or other upgrades...I think the Poles had the German improved-CFT kit fitted to all theirs as well as of course received all the German Fulcrums).

 

I know the USAF has some 9-13 it uses at Fighter Weapons and Naval Top Gun schools lately, which they bought from Moldova (formerly Ukrainie SSR) so these days there is opportunity if someone at the boards has USAF contacts to deterimine the real world restrictions and comparative differences between the 9-12 and 9-13 models soundly and precisely.

 

Admitedly most of what I have written here is anecdotal or heresay (although sources include Janes and a Fulcrum mechanic I've spoken with online from Romania iirc, might've been Czech).

[czarnyolek]

 

The Germans modified their ex-East German MiG-29A...

... I believe they also wet piped the inboard wing pylons.

 

 

There is no German 9-12 anymore as they sold all of them to Poland for 1Euro a piece. Quite recently Polish Air Force Command decided that fuel systems on all 9-12 migs in the force gotta be unified so what they done? NO, not wet piped wing pylons in old 9-12s, but removed wing fuel systems from ex-german 9-12 ;)

Just a polish way of doing things for you. Now they are unified:helpsmilie:

[Vekkinho]

...but if you fly at 12000m alt the Mig-29S seems to outrange a Su-27 by quite a margin both can reach Bautumi but the Mig-29S does it with more to spare.

 

MiG-29 in thin air / Su-27 in thin air, we talk great GW difference between these two- less RPM and less speed needed to keep lighter object (MiG-29) in level flight...

[Vekkinho]

I hate quoting myself but...

 

...ferry range of MiG-29A with max internal fuel and w/o any external payload is larger than range of a F-16Blk30 in same config...

 

...they call Fulcrum a short legged fella only 'cause of IFR lack...

 

...with RPM managed wisely MiG-29A san stay up in the air for more than 90 minutes. (RL fact not a LOFC experiment)...

[Aliboy]

Well lately while protecting ground pounders in the Su-27 I have been trying to keep the low Mig-29's at a safe distance and lock them to try to make them use their afterburner and chase me while dragging them away from the ground pounders but if people now start using this new load out In FC2 it wont be a very good tactic because in game people won't get rid of tanks when in combat because I guess it does not give them that much of a loss of performance as it would in real life that's the main point really.Thanks for the informative replies.

[GGTharos]

Do you think they'll give up two weapons for this?

[Aliboy]

Well honestly I hope they don't:smilewink:...but if I'm flying a Mig-29S alone in a crowded server I would like to have the comfort of knowing that if anyone chases me I can make it back to base full burn also If the server is not that full I can chase people for a much longer time.

[GGTharos]

All this means is that airbases are too close together.

 

Well honestly I hope they don't:smilewink:...but if I'm flying a Mig-29S alone in a crowded server I would like to have the comfort of knowing that if anyone chases me I can make it back to base full burn also If the server is not that full I can chase people for a much longer time.

[Aliboy]

Well I mostly play on the 104th server where its Glendsik VS Sochi and soon it becomes Krasnodar Center vs Maykop...but as everyone knows there are some people who will chase you all the way to your base with no intention of going home so I need to keep that in mind and have enough fuel to deal with it.

[borchi_2b]

so what i can say is that in lomac we stayed air borne with our migs in our squad for more than 120min

i would say it was about 125min iguess,

we managed fuel wisely and did not exceed over 90% during flight, ionce in bvr we used 100 just for theturn, nvere used he ab. it is possible

[EtherealN]

Well lately while protecting ground pounders in the Su-27 I have been trying to keep the low Mig-29's at a safe distance and lock them to try to make them use their afterburner and chase me while dragging them away from the ground pounders

 

Sorry, but wouldn't a better option for protecting your strikers be to kill the threat rather than run away from it? Because if you find me come searching for your strikers and you do that, what you are doing is giving me a buffet. ;)

 

Hold space through denying the enemy access to it. Kill them. :)

[Aliboy]

I'm not so sure I would rather not get into a fight and drag you in a direction away from the strikers maybe make you waste a few missiles on me but if you go in their direction I can warn them and they will have enough time to take cover and now I will be behind you while you are searching for low flying strikers.At least that's the basic plan lol.

[IvanK]

Talking of which. The history of the "Aggressors - Nellis Range" or the "Red Eagles", beginning from the first Mig-21 they snatched from Isreal in exchange for the ability for Isreal to purchase the latest F4s, from Area51 to the foundation of the "Contant Pack Squadron" (the select of the select of Pilots) and the expiriences US-forces made with russian Jets is a very interesting Story btw....

 

 

 

The program was called Constant Peg named after an early members wife, rather than "Contant Pack "

 

Good to see an Aussie Aggressor in the USAF to :)

Edited July 2, 2010 by IvanK

[EtherealN]

I'm not so sure I would rather not get into a fight and drag you in a direction away from the strikers maybe make you waste a few missiles on me but if you go in their direction I can warn them and they will have enough time to take cover and now I will be behind you while you are searching for low flying strikers.At least that's the basic plan lol.

 

Thing is, if I am there to kill strikers and you appear to be keeping distance and giving ground, why would I bother waste missiles on you? I'll only fire on you if I have good geometry, which pretty much means a case where you are aggressively keeping the airspace and pressing the fight on me.

 

You'll only make me stop going for the strikers if you force me to do so. To force me to do so, you need to attack me - put me in a situation where I either fight you, or flee, or die. If my mission is to kill strikers and I'm given the option of killing strikers or chasing you - well, your strikers are going to die. ;)

[Aliboy]

Ok thanks for the tips.