Jump to content

FoxAlfa

Members
  • Content Count

    480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About FoxAlfa

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, P3D, FSX, FS9....
  • Location
    Everywhere
  • Interests
    Model Making, 3d Modelling, Programming
  • Occupation
    Game Producer

Recent Profile Visitors

5625 profile views
  1. When is Q1-Q2 update coming? Really looking forward to it.
  2. Well, 3-7 gives you fast accelerating missile with vastly better performance than R-27R sub 10-15 km, but pays the price with lower speed/maneuverability at range. 2-8 gives only better missile sub 10-15 km but better performance down the range. All in all 3-7 would make sense if R-27ER was to replace R since you get more bang for the buck in the same range gap, 2-8 makes sense if you want the missile that has better performance down the range.
  3. Do the math, it won't outspeed it anywhere. 2-8 where just spread better the energy it already has... and also some sources point it uses 2-8 spread in RL.
  4. Faster you go, more drag hurts you...when you have limited energy supply you don't want to overspeed it but keep it in certain speed range to get optimal performance.
  5. Hey, thank you for doing calculations! I also got roughly ~10% range gain, but effective range against maneuvering target should be bigger ~10% since the missile in a better drag speed range longer. Alos it would give that 10-15% range gain we are all hovering around. So, my proposal for the change is to change R-27ER to 2, 7500 - 8, 2238 configuration and keep the current drag. That would make sure that missile passes the graph range at all altitudes with some energy to spare, also increase its effective range without influencing the straight line one substantial. t
  6. Yeah, true, ISP are off but the stage weights also seam arbitrary slaped on. I did come across 2-8 sec split instead of 3-7 on other misslie forums and sources too. Some of them were talking about new 2014 version with 9000kg stage instead of 7500kg... I didn't find the claim credible enough to share... All in all 2-8 gives higher end speed at longer range but it takes longer to get there so I am not sure what is better. If you were supposed to use R-27R at closer range I would go for that configuration, if the R-27ER was supposed to replace the
  7. Could it be the difference between 3 sec burn at with a weaker sustain as in DCS instead of 2 sec burn with stronger sustain as in some tables that is causing the difference? The 2 sec burn would increase the range but reduce the speed, better long-range config in my opinion, R-27R should be for a closer range anyway. Current DCS config (if I am getting the math right) is 3sec at 7500kg and then 7sec at 1480kg vs 2sec at 7500kg and then 8sec at 2238kg. The energy sum is the same.
  8. As far as I understand the range is "ПР" Launch Allowance range, not aero max range. Graphs like that must include compensation for Temperature, Wind, Pressure, Last ditch maneuver, etc... so, pilot just knows when to shoot and not do calculations in combat. Yugo manual also instructs the pilot to fire at that range, which wouldn't make sense if there isn't a safety margin included. Trying to model a missile to stall on exactly on that range for different altitudes will always produce discrepancies and complication. The case should be to that line and beyond, never bellow.
  9. Add some of this stuff.... just to clear the list... 12. is optional and semirealistic
  10. For R-73 fuse speed needs to be factored in, we can expect that they are probably same or similar to R-27... so 150m/s overtake needs to be ensured for rear area shot
  11. The bug is that ground clutter climbs with FC3 aircraft if you look target that is 2000m or bellow ... so, there is no difference if you are at 17000m looking at target 13000m, or at 3000m looking at target at 500m. And all Fc3 aircraft are affected but you feel it the most on the 29 due to weaker radar. I presume it was done that way long ago due to hardware performance limitation
  12. Honestly this + FC3 lookdown bug at altitude. It is enough that for target to drop 2000m bellow you for bug to trigger and lock to be lost. That also limits the kinematics and height you can leverage against the target.
  13. Let me explain where PK are good and not good to be used .... PK when compering two missiles is useless, there are too many variable to give anything solid ... PK when looking in the context of training as for Amraam it can tell you something about the missile. Pilots train to support it all the way in training, they go into combat with that training and achieve a good PK, conclusion: Amraam is better when supported all the way and there must be a good reason for that.
  14. Swedish Airforce par example, or every other pilot that got a kill with an Aim120... they don't train to support the missile just for fun, there must be a reason, and in the video we see one pilot not going cold even drought there is a return shot on him. A video, document, or interview might give insight... Cheapshot is exactly that a cheapshot, that might be taken for positioning, missdirection or to turn the opponent. Without more info is hard to tell. Bottom line currently there is not difference in DCS, but hopeful soon there will be.
×
×
  • Create New...