MiG-29S EOS flying at 4000m not detecting F-15 that's straight hot and very low

Please Ktulu, the last thing I'm asking you, do you seriously see any flares dropped between 10:22:27 and 10:22:40 ?

Oh no my bad not 22:30, I thought you meant just before (1st ET), though that missile seems nearly stalled so not surprising it couldn't pull too hard.I do see some that 22:46 though lol

do you even know what a kinematic defeat is

do you even know what a kinematic defeat is

Quoted from Buddyspike Forum: "(players play DCS since at least 3 years and have many hours of flight in fighters online, like me for example)"

He should know, what with his 3 years of experience.

Sorry...this is too much.

DanielNL, Kamerad...we should really sit down in teamspeak one day, I can explain a bit to you, you seem to be making alot of threads and posts about stuff that is basic level or known behaviour in DCS, blaming the equipment instead of your own mistakes.

please, GG, everyone knows that to convert a rocket motor to smokeless, you just have to "let the smoke out"! Open up the control section of the rocket, and start looking for big round cylinders, most likely labeled "Cxxx" on the circuit card. These are where the smoke is stored, just stick a salad fork through each one, close it up, and fire away!

Never knew Lucas was into solid fuels development.

Please Ktulu, the last thing I'm asking you, do you seriously see any flares dropped between 10:22:27 and 10:22:40 ?

Hi Daniel, take a look to this interview to an american pilot that flew MIG-29G, of course, maybe the IRST of the G german version is not equal to the Russian MIG-29S, but it's interesting to read, and I quote:

"One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar. The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks."

Source: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

What was the altitude when the AMRAAM was launched? to calculate the TAS we need to know that

Lol right in beginning, I wonder how Roofies survived two Tor missile hits... ?!?!

 

Ha I evaded Ktulu's 2 Amraams, but HOW did my ET @ 10:22:40 MISS? SRSLY??? (withOUT him flaring!!! Or is Tacview broken?) ET at Mach 2.2 is FAR more manouverable than only pulling 10.7 G... (just look at the TacView, the missile makes what, a 5° turn? LOL??)

 

And LOL his AMRAAM going from

- 640 km/h (TAS) to 1430 km/h in just 2 sec.

- to 1820 km/h in 3 sec

- 2160 km/h in 4 sec 2510 in 5 sec

- 2930 in 6 sec?

 

R-27 ET and R-77 have same values I guess?

 

That second time it went to fast, Ktulu who was 5000 m above me already launched before he appeared on my EOS (he should have, a 12 km range)... :P

 

And R-27 ET only has 3-4 seconds burn time in DCS? Srsly? (how much does AIM-120C have?)

 

Why did my ET stop guiding @ 10:39:07 ? Any ideas? (It still had Mach 1!! It could've hit Ktulu at 10 seconds later since he was going hot again)

 

And what happened to my R-77 @ 10:39:31 ? Tacview problem or?

Don't need it at all. This represents less than 15g acceleration from the rocket motor.

It's just whining :)

The ET/ER have two stage motor, in DCS burn three seconds with 73,500 newtons thrust! and the second stage seven seconds with 14,560 newtons

The AIM-120C burn for eight seconds with a thrust of 16,715 newtons

In fact the ET/ER should be fasters than the AIM-120C, the firsts can fly at mach 4.5 and the 120 mach 4

If you want to calculate TAS vs Mach/EAS/CAS can use this link below, go to the end and fill the figures there (it's not 100% exact for supersonic speeds but is close):

http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html

Lol right in beginning, I wonder how Roofies survived two Tor missile hits... ?!?!

 

Ha I evaded Ktulu's 2 Amraams, but HOW did my ET @ 10:22:40 MISS? SRSLY??? (withOUT him flaring!!! Or is Tacview broken?) ET at Mach 2.2 is FAR more manouverable than only pulling 10.7 G... (just look at the TacView, the missile makes what, a 5° turn? LOL??)

 

And LOL his AMRAAM going from

- 640 km/h (TAS) to 1430 km/h in just 2 sec.

- to 1820 km/h in 3 sec

- 2160 km/h in 4 sec 2510 in 5 sec

- 2930 in 6 sec?

 

R-27 ET and R-77 have same values I guess?

 

That second time it went to fast, Ktulu who was 5000 m above me already launched before he appeared on my EOS (he should have, a 12 km range)... :P

 

And R-27 ET only has 3-4 seconds burn time in DCS? Srsly? (how much does AIM-120C have?)

 

Why did my ET stop guiding @ 10:39:07 ? Any ideas? (It still had Mach 1!! It could've hit Ktulu at 10 seconds later since he was going hot again)

 

And what happened to my R-77 @ 10:39:31 ? Tacview problem or?

I don't know why I decided to go trough the pain of reading this thread at 3 am... and for the first time I can +1 a Sweeper post

The ET/ER have two stage motor,

They're also really heavy.

In fact the ET/ER should be fasters than the AIM-120C, the firsts can fly at mach 4.5 and the 120 mach 4

Not necessarily. The 120C is Mach 4+, and the ET/ER are draggier. There's no easy way of telling that one would be faster than the other. While the thrust of the R-27E motor is known, the thrust of the AIM-120C motor is not known, it is only assumed.

This is a very deep hole you've stepped into :)

They're also really heavy.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. The 120C is Mach 4+, and the ET/ER are draggier. There's no easy way of telling that one would be faster than the other. While the thrust of the R-27E motor is known, the thrust of the AIM-120C motor is not known, it is only assumed.

 

This is a very deep hole you've stepped into :)

Then how was/were the 120C thrust value(s) decided in ED team? Rough guess, assuming the 120C would be an UUUUUBER missile compared to ET and Adder (R-77) ?? (just discussing thrust, engine burn time and drag here. Tbh. AIM-120C should have FAR more drag as these tiny wings on 120C can resist far less air than the russian ones (just compare size of wings in attachments below)

What was the altitude when the AMRAAM was launched? to calculate the TAS we need to know that

Which AMRAAM, which timestamp u mean?

Then how was/were the 120C thrust value(s) decided in ED team? Rough guess, assuming the 120C would be an UUUUUBER missile compared to ET and Adder (R-77) ?? (just discussing thrust, engine burn time and drag here. Tbh. 120C should have FAR more drag as these tiny wings on 120C can resist far less air than the russian ones (just compare size of wings in attachments below)

I'm not sure it works that way bud...

Actually no, he is right, this airplane broke Mach 3 in 1910 due to extremely low drag:

(Sorry DanielNL, couldn't resist :))

 

I'm not sure it works that way bud...

1+:lol:

They're also really heavy.

 

 

 

Not necessarily. The 120C is Mach 4+, and the ET/ER are draggier. There's no easy way of telling that one would be faster than the other. While the thrust of the R-27E motor is known, the thrust of the AIM-120C motor is not known, it is only assumed.

 

This is a very deep hole you've stepped into :)

The drag only can tell you how quick the missile will lose speed after reach the max speed AFAIK, if the missile manufacturer and almost all the publications online, says he can get 4.5 mach, that's is the speed calculated with the drag included! I think is the max speed reached after burn all the propelant of the two stages. And yes, the missile is heavier, but burn the fuel faster, it means that the weight is quickly reduced in a proportional way.

By the way, all the data I posted was inside the missile_data.lua of DCS

 

I'm not sure it works that way bud...

cripes :megalol:

Which AMRAAM, which timestamp u mean?

the one that you talked in your post (see below)

"And LOL his AMRAAM going from

- 640 km/h (TAS) to 1430 km/h in just 2 sec.

- to 1820 km/h in 3 sec

- 2160 km/h in 4 sec 2510 in 5 sec

- 2930 in 6 sec?"

Then how was/were the 120C thrust value(s) decided in ED team? Rough guess, assuming the 120C would be an UUUUUBER missile compared to ET and Adder (R-77) ?? (just discussing thrust, engine burn time and drag here.

They assumed an ISP for the fuel based on industry standards. The R-77 and R-27 ISPs and fuel masses are known, the fuel mass for the 120 is known.

What is not known are other rocket motor optimizations, such as the construction of the nozzle.

Tbh. 120C should have FAR more drag as these tiny wings on 120C can resist far less air than the russian ones (just compare size of wings in attachments below)

What you just said made absolutely zero sense.

Drag resists acceleration; if missiles accelerated as in a vacuum then you could just take the rocket thrust, divide it by weight and declare the missile's top speed ... at all altitudes. :)

Obviously this is not the case. As for 'he can get 4.5 mach', this is a figure without relevant parameters.

The fuel burn for this missile is very fast in the first two seconds (as you can see from the missile.lua), which is when the missile is doing the most work - going through the mach hump etc. The next 8 seconds have much less acceleration.

All I'm saying is that it's very tempting to declare 'this missile does that', but it's a more complicated subject.

Incidentally, I imagine the 27ER reaches M4.5 easily with high altitude, high speed launches :)

The drag only can tell you how quick the missile will lose speed after reach the max speed AFAIK, if the missile manufacturer and almost all the publications online, says he can get 4.5 mach, that's is the speed calculated with the drag included! I think is the max speed reached after burn all the propelant of the two stages. And yes, the missile is heavier, but burn the fuel faster, it means that the weight is quickly reduced in a proportional way.

 

By the way, all the data I posted was inside the missile_data.lua of DCS

Drag resists acceleration; if missiles accelerated as in a vacuum then you could just take the rocket thrust, divide it by weight and declare the missile's top speed ... at all altitudes. :)

 

Obviously this is not the case. As for 'he can get 4.5 mach', this is a figure without relevant parameters.

 

The fuel burn for this missile is very fast in the first two seconds (as you can see from the missile.lua), which is when the missile is doing the most work - going through the mach hump etc. The next 8 seconds have much less acceleration.

 

All I'm saying is that it's very tempting to declare 'this missile does that', but it's a more complicated subject.

 

Incidentally, I imagine the 27ER reaches M4.5 easily with high altitude, high speed launches :)

Agree, the calculation was made for an aircraft flying above 10,000 meters and 900 km/h

 

Incidentally, I imagine the 27ER reaches M4.5 easily with high altitude, high speed launches :)

They will do Mach 6 launched from Mach 2 at 50.000ft.

lol.... EOS isnt the best thing in the world.... its not a solve all.

if your not using the radar (or only using it to iff) YOUR DOING IT WRONG

here i am...a mig 21 driver with (limited) all aspect r 60ms....that NEVER lock head on.

and unless your RIGHT ****ING BEHIND HIM....the only way to get a lock....he has to in burner.

i wonder how much you would bitch if you flew a mig 21....

also.... "the 120c has tiny fins which resist less air...so it has higher drag"

THAT MEANS IT HAS LESS DRAG!

less air resistance DIRECTLY CORRELATES to less drag.

how does something that has less resistance.... have more drag?

this thread man....