Jump to content

Alfa

Members
  • Posts

    4980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Everything posted by Alfa

  1. The MiG-29 as such does not have a 4G limit for the centerline tank. All stores come with some restrictions that should be observed by the pilot for safe operation, but they are not systemic - i.e. the flight control system does not impose them. So its not a limit they can simulate other than the aerodynamic/weight effect of ordinance.
  2. I seem to remember Chizh mentioning something about this on the Russian section once, but I cannot remember if they were going to implement it or just thought about doing it.
  3. The Urals in the screenshots are not Ural-375 though(they have a different front-grill). They are the later Ural-4320 version - the cargo variants(with and without tent) are even of the late Ural 4320-10(from around 1993), which you can identify by the external airfilter-house on the mudguard.
  4. There is a three-way switch(АП - ОТКЛ - АПК) on the MiG-29 radar panel, that sets how the SNP(TWS) mode operates in the presence of jamming. I cannot remember the details, but "ОТКЛ"(OFF) is the default position for normal operation, while the others are for trying to lock on to a jamming contact by other means - i.e. in the real aircraft there other options than just jumping out of TWS and enter STT. I think Vatikus knows more about this than I do, but just doesn't bother explaining it, since ED has said that there are no plans to change anything in relation to the system's complex. Besides, as you said, there is the question of the simple ECM modelling in general.
  5. Thanks :) . Anyway, it basically says the same as the Luftwaffe manual, except for specifying the conditions for the max g-loads.
  6. Where did you find those figures draconus? :) According to the Luftwaffe manual, the maximum allowed speed with CFT is M1.5 regardless of whether its full/partial full or empty(because its a drag related issue), while G-limitation is is + 4/-1.5 when full/partial full, but none(general aircraft flight limits) when empty. For wing tanks its M0.9 - again regardless of whether they are full or empty, while the G-limitation is +6/-1.0 when empty and +4/-1.0 when full/partially full.
  7. The N010(and I guess N011 as well) combined hydro-mechanical steering in azimuth with electronic scanning in elevation, so Dudikoff is right :) . I am not sure what the initial design specs called for - whether it was for this or an actual PESA like on the MiG-31, but if you consider the volume and weight of the latter, its easy to see why that design wasn't achievable at the time for the Su-27....not to mention the MiG-29.
  8. МиГ-29 (9.12) = MiG-29 = "FULCRUM A" МиГ-29УБ (9.51) = MiG-29UB = "FULCRUM B" МиГ-29 (9.13) = MiG-29 = "FULCRUM C" МиГ-29С (9.13С) = MiG-29S = "FULCRUM C" There is no such thing as a "MiG-29C" or "MiG-29A" - these are erroneous designations....either simply a case of applying "Western" designation system(like F-16A and F-16C) to Russian aircraft, or mixing NATO reporting names with the original designation - i.e. MiG-29 + FUlCRUM A = MiG-29A. Note that: a) NATO makes no distinction between the MiG-29(9.13) and the MiG-29S(9.13S), but calls both "FULCRUM C". b) Russian/Soviet designation makes no distinction between different versions of the "baseline" MiG-29 - i.e. domestic 9.12, warsaw pact 9.12A, commercial 9.12B and even the 9.13 is still just called "MiG-29".
  9. Yes.. Correct :) No a SARH seeker needs the launching radar to illuminate the target - an ARH doesn't :)
  10. Interesting info about the functions Vatikus, but as far as this being a 9.12 vs. 9.13 difference, I don't think thats correct :) . I looked around and found that in the Hungarian MiG-29B it does indeed appear as you described - "запрос" by the button on the stick and a button marked "сброс" on the panel you mentioned - the photos you posted also appear to be of that version(judging by position of the AOA/G meter and master warning lamp). But on photos of a Russian 9.12(attached), it says "сброс" at the button on the stick, while there is no button on that panel - at the position, there is instead a 3-way switch entitled; "заxваt", with the options: "свой" and "чужой". So this appears to be what you talked about in regards to IFF. So it looks more like a difference between the 9.12 and 9.12B.
  11. Yes it could be that the button was intended to have an IFF function at an early stage, but omitted later. The photo I posted is of a 9.13(one of the ex-Moldova ones displayed at Nellis). Then again I guess the button could have a dual functionality - e.g. press once for IFF interrogation/hold down for 3 seconds to break lock or something like that. AFAIK the Germans don't use the original IFF system(believe it was removed prior to them taking possesion of the aircraft), so that could explain why the button isn't in use for that function. But I don't know :)
  12. Ah ok :) . No I haven't seen it described either......thats why I asked :D Makes you wonder if it actually has a function in the MiG-29.
  13. Well its not a slider, but a wheel - but how is it marked then?
  14. I don't know, but its accurate. What are you wondering about?
  15. Well you got better eyes than me - I cannot make out anything from that image. But yes it might well be "запрос". In the Luftwaffe manual, there is a reference to that button, where it says "запрос(сброс)" with the following description in German: "Luft-luft-abfrage(nicht genutzt) und lösen", which I would translate to something like: "Air-to-air query(not used) and reset". So it might have been intended for an alternative IFF function, but as the description says, its not being used. But there are plenty of photos of the MiG-29 stick, where(as in my image) it only says "сброс".
  16. No I cannot see anything on that image - check this:
  17. As Zmot mentioned, there are limitations in regards to engine operation(lubrication) - paragraph attached. But I could find no information regarding limitation of fuel supply during inverted flight - on the contrary the description of the fuel system seems to indicate that this is ensured. Only limitation has to do with external tanks - i.e. that when zero- or negative Gs occurs, transfer is interrupted momentarily to prevent pressurized air from these entering the internal fuel system. IIRC a pause of some 30 seconds is imposed after which, the transfer will resume(if return to "normal" flight regime has occurred ).
  18. Could also be mentioned that a "Lot" is the production within one fiscal year, which in turn is subdivided into blocks(often three). The reason why the lot is significant, is because new features/updates usually are applied per lot. In the case of Lot 20, it means that the aircraft was produced in FY 98. However, the DCS version has post-production features that were applied later(around 2004-2005).
  19. Who knows :) - it could simply be that, unlike the F/A-18, the F-16 wasn't meant to be an actual "strike-fighter" from the outset, but only slowly evolved into that over time. IIRC it was initially meant to be a low cost "counter-air" fighter to supplement the bigger and more expensive F-15(Hi-Low mix), but before it became operational the USAF changed the requirement somewhat wanting it to have a secondary A/G capability(sort of like with the MiG-29). This capability only evolved slowly - first with the airframe modifications introduced with the Block 15 and then further with the F-16C(from Block 25). But I guess they could have changed the designation to F/A-16 at some point along the way to denote the changing role. Edit: sniped by Revelation.
  20. IIRC it was a requirement from the outset that the "F-18" and "A-18" had to use the same airframe with little or no modification. For this reason it was determined that the advantage of having two separate versions was lost(since compromises between A/G vs. A/A capabilities had to be made anyway), while the versatility of having both capabilities in one aircraft was an obvious advantage - especially onboard an aircraft carrier. The challenge was to integrate onboard systems and make the same aircraft sufficiently capable of both tasks. So I don't think you could say that they "got lucky"......they had to work hard for it and continued to do so throughout its service life :)
  21. Probably just a little bug in the cockpit :)
×
×
  • Create New...