Jump to content

LO's MiG-29


Recommended Posts

Did anyone notice there are mistakes with LO's MiG-29 models?!

 

- Russian 9-12 (NATO:Fulcrum A) is R-27T capable and has a Laszlo datalink but we don't have any of it in LO.

 

- German 9-12A is export variant (there's no MiG-29G IRL), has SRO IFF removed and Laszlo datalink deleted and has only 3 radar modes (BVR, VVS and Ground). It lacks R-27T in it's payload but it's other way around in LO. Of course modelling an airplane with only 3 radar modes is a lot of work but making Russian 9-12 Alamo B capable is a simple line in default MEInit. Most export variants used in WarPac are of 9-12A type but have datalinks removed, reduced engine power and lack underwing fuel tanks (PTB -1150) option.

 

- 9-12B that were sold to Russian "not so close" allies like Yugoslavia, Cuba, Iraq, Hungary had only R-60s for IR engagement, they missed Shlem (HMS) engagement mode and had "old" Tumanskii engines.

 

- Russian 9-13 (Gorbatov, NATO: Fulcrum C) had Gardeniya active jammer and is used only in Russian service. Most of them are upgraded to S standard. But here's the mistake! We have stock 9-13 in LO! It's not MIG-29S as designated!

 

- MiG-29S (9-13S) recieved no NATO designation because it's externally same as 9-13 or 9-12 but many avionics are upgraded to S level. This means that it has N-019M "Topaz" radar and it can engage 2 targets simultaneously. This is made especially for use with R-77s. Pilots usually track two targets and launch their pair of R-77 in very short time frame. One of them for each target. Only S standard (and latter versions) can use R-77 but both airframes (9-12 and 9-13) can be and were upgraded to S standard. For instance that #999 MiG-MAPO demonstrator for Malasian Airforce is of S type although it's externally same as 9-12.

 

So MiG-29S shouldn't have Fulcrum C designation and we should have more realistic radar there. If we can have R-77s we should have radar that covers it. I not gonna nag about MiG's poor rate of turn and poor roll rate, but in LO it's also undermodelled.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Did anyone notice there are mistakes with LO's MiG-29 models?!

 

Did anyone notice the mistakes in LO-s F-15C?

 

- Russian 9-12 (NATO:Fulcrum A) is R-27T capable and has a Laszlo datalink but we don't have any of it in LO.

 

Not like anyone flies it. Specific datalinks are very difficult to model right now.

 

- German 9-12A is export variant (there's no MiG-29G IRL), has SRO IFF removed and Laszlo datalink deleted and has only 3 radar modes (BVR, VVS and Ground). It lacks R-27T in it's payload but it's other way around in LO. Of course modelling an airplane with only 3 radar modes is a lot of work but making Russian 9-12 Alamo B capable is a simple line in default MEInit. Most export variants used in WarPac are of 9-12A type but have datalinks removed, reduced engine power and lack underwing fuel tanks (PTB -1150) option.

 

And the point of spending time on an aircraft that no one flies is ...

 

- 9-12B that were sold to Russian "not so close" allies like Yugoslavia, Cuba, Iraq, Hungary had only R-60s for IR engagement, they missed Shlem (HMS) engagement mode and had "old" Tumanskii engines.

 

See above.

 

- Russian 9-13 (Gorbatov, NATO: Fulcrum C) had Gardeniya active jammer and is used only in Russian service. Most of them are upgraded to S standard. But here's the mistake! We have stock 9-13 in LO! It's not MIG-29S as designated!

 

How do you -really- know?

 

- MiG-29S (9-13S) recieved no NATO designation because it's externally same as 9-13 or 9-12 but many avionics are upgraded to S level. This means that it has N-019M "Topaz" radar and it can engage 2 targets simultaneously. This is made especially for use with R-77s. Pilots usually track two targets and launch their pair of R-77 in very short time frame. One of them for each target. Only S standard (and latter versions) can use R-77 but both airframes (9-12 and 9-13) can be and were upgraded to S standard. For instance that #999 MiG-MAPO demonstrator for Malasian Airforce is of S type although it's externally same as 9-12.

 

The ability to launch 2 R-77's has been seriously disputed - do you have any *reliable* sources that it can do this?

 

So MiG-29S shouldn't have Fulcrum C designation and we should have more realistic radar there. If we can have R-77s we should have radar that covers it. I not gonna nag about MiG's poor rate of turn and poor roll rate, but in LO it's also undermodelled.

 

Not really, it isn't.

In any case, how about fixing the -huge- issues with F-15 functionality? ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before addressing anything else, another bug, to be exact, a typo. The original MiG-29 isn't a MiG-29A - the A was a prototype. To add to the confusion, the production MiG-29 is the Fulcrum-A, NOT the MiG-29A as intuition would imply.

 

And the point of spending time on an aircraft that no one flies is ...

 

People who have a bit of self-control, don't rely on ECM spamming and can appreciate less weight on a plane do fly it. I'm pretty sure Vekkinho and myself aren't the only ones (and I can speak for him as well since we're squadmates, and only one S is operational at the same time).

 

How do you -really- know?

Vekkinho, if you still have photos of that MiG-29UB cockpit from Pleso AB, now would be a time to compare it with the screencaps.

GG, the cockpit in LO is an even older version than the solitary UB Fulcrum stationed in Croatia, as it has no visible buttons surrounding the MFD (which to the best of my knowledge all production versions do have), along with a very unusual (and misplaced, maybe?) panel between the HUD and the alpha gauge.

 

Not really, it isn't.

In any case, how about fixing the -huge- issues with F-15 functionality? ;)

 

Um. Don't you have other, F-15 related threads for that? Let's keep it on-topic, shall we?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Real men fly ground attack :pilotfly: where EVERYTHING wants a piece of you :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ability to launch 2 R-77's has been seriously disputed - do you have any *reliable* sources that it can do this?

 

Too reliable to talk about.

 

How do you -really- know?

 

See above.

 

In any case, how about fixing the -huge- issues with F-15 functionality?

 

I can't really talk of F-15 'cause I never flew it enough to understand the whole idea of that plane,and I can't really say "I like it" from what I see in LO.

 

Pilot's workload is supposed to be reduced in Eagle but I spend more time staring at those damn MFDs, clicking buttons than looking thru HUD. Click twice to designate while in TWS (or was it RWS?!) is a waste of time (and vital parts), pulling 9G each time I snooze results with G lock, tailslide is impossible IRL and F-15 display pilots usualy fly loops and Cuban Eights at airshows to impress audience.

 

Look Ma, I can do Split S just like Red Baron did back in WW1 is Eagle's best.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vekkinho can we know something more about you?

 

I curious because some of your statements you made.

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- 9-12B that were sold to Russian "not so close" allies like Yugoslavia, Cuba, Iraq, Hungary had only R-60s for IR engagement, they missed Shlem (HMS) engagement mode and had "old" Tumanskii engines.
O RLY? ;)

 

 

jrvipvo_mig-29_114.jpg

 

some of them R-60 sure have eaten allot since they've grown so much :D

 

oh, and here you can see the Shlem motion detector near the hud:

attachment.php?attachmentid=125101

Never forget that World War III was not Cold for most of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too reliable to talk about.

 

You tlak about it, or it isn't reliable. Period.

 

Pilot's workload is supposed to be reduced in Eagle but I spend more time staring at those damn MFDs, clicking buttons than looking thru HUD.

You're just not profficient with it, but yes, there is -too- much workload compared to the real thing in operating the radar.

 

Click twice to designate while in TWS (or was it RWS?!) is a waste of time

Not at all. Click once, you designate. You can now engage with AMRAAMs. Click twice, you go STT. You can now engage with sparrows.

 

(and vital parts), pulling 9G each time I snooze results with G lock,

 

Yep, G-lock is well overmodelled.

 

tailslide is impossible IRL and F-15 display pilots usualy fly loops and Cuban Eights at airshows to impress audience.

 

I havent' seen a whole of US aircraft perform them, even when they -can-. MiG-29's have managed to compressor-stall and crash during such maneuvers. Do you think that maybe, *maybe* the USAF prohibits such a display -just- for such a reason? ;)

 

Look Ma, I can do Split S just like Red Baron did back in WW1 is Eagle's best.

Uh yeah, ok :lol:

 

And a tailslide is a combat maneuver now, then? Is that it?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vekkinho, if you still have photos of that MiG-29UB cockpit from Pleso AB, now would be a time to compare it with the screencaps.

GG, the cockpit in LO is an even older version than the solitary UB Fulcrum stationed in Croatia, as it has no visible buttons surrounding the MFD (which to the best of my knowledge all production versions do have), along with a very unusual (and misplaced, maybe?) panel between the HUD and the alpha gauge.

 

I'm diggin' thru spindles of CDs and DVDs for that pic.

 

But I'm not sure it's a Russian MFD in that 9-51. Remember, it's not really placed at Pleso AB, it's in a ZMAJ/ZTZ research facility near Pleso, but aircraft engineers that still work there say that MFD was already in there back in March 1991 when that plane arrived. It's engine #2 suffered burnout during takeoff and plane managed to return and land safely but was permanently grounded. It still has cca 3000 L in it's tanks that bothers me, 2 pilots with all that fuel on one engine isn't really a safety procedure landing.

 

Many cockpit upgrades on Yugoslav MiGs were done in SOKO Mostar and lot of electronic spare and obviousely upgrade parts were made in EI-Nis during '80s. So I suppose it's domestic origin MFD there.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice there are mistakes with LO's MiG-29 models?!

 

- Russian 9-12 (NATO:Fulcrum A) is R-27T capable and has a Laszlo datalink but we don't have any of it in LO.

 

Are 9-12s usually flying with R-27Ts?

 

- German 9-12A is export variant (there's no MiG-29G IRL), has SRO IFF removed and Laszlo datalink deleted and has only 3 radar modes (BVR, VVS and Ground). It lacks R-27T in it's payload but it's other way around in LO. Of course modelling an airplane with only 3 radar modes is a lot of work but making Russian 9-12 Alamo B capable is a simple line in default MEInit. Most export variants used in WarPac are of 9-12A type but have datalinks removed, reduced engine power and lack underwing fuel tanks (PTB -1150) option.

 

For a start the "MiG-29G" does exist - it is not a MIG designation, but one assigned by Luftwaffe to the aircraft they modified for NATO compliance - e.g. note that(also in Lock-on) the MiG-29G has instrumentation read-out in Imperial measurements.

 

As far as the reduced engine power - I don't believe this is the case for the 9-12A as such, but rather something the Germans did to increase service intervals - again a "MiG-29G" feature. As far as I remember reduced engine power was only the case for the 9-12B and actually an engine setting ("training mode") that could be changed if need be.

 

 

- 9-12B that were sold to Russian "not so close" allies like Yugoslavia, Cuba, Iraq, Hungary had only R-60s for IR engagement, they missed Shlem (HMS) engagement mode and had "old" Tumanskii engines.

 

Hmmm....

 

- Russian 9-13 (Gorbatov, NATO: Fulcrum C) had Gardeniya active jammer and is used only in Russian service. Most of them are upgraded to S standard. But here's the mistake! We have stock 9-13 in LO! It's not MIG-29S as designated!

 

Wrong. There are only very few MiG-29S(9-13S) in service with the Russian airforce - something like a single air regiment(stationed at Kursk if I remember correctly) of which reportedly only a few airframes are airworthy. The 9-13 on the other hand is in wide spread service and not only in Russia, but also with several countries of the former Soviet Union and has also been exported.

 

- MiG-29S (9-13S) recieved no NATO designation because it's externally same as 9-13 or 9-12 but many avionics are upgraded to S level.

 

The MiG-29S(9-13S) has the same NATO designation as the 9-13 - namely "FULCRUM-C". The 9-13S is externally similar to the 9-13 but distinctly different from the 9-12 - the latter does not have the "humpback".

 

 

This means that it has N-019M "Topaz" radar and it can engage 2 targets simultaneously. This is made especially for use with R-77s.

 

Yes but...

 

Pilots usually track two targets and launch their pair of R-77 in very short time frame.

 

"Usually"?! :D - as mentioned above, only few 9-13S' exist in the Russian airforce, of which even fewer are flying and none of them with R-77s ;) .

 

One of them for each target.

 

That is debatable....there is something to suggest that this isn't actually the case, but that the SUV-29S/N019M upgrade merely integrates the R-77 to the firecontrol system and allows it to be launched....i.e. doesn't actually involve dual engagement capability(from SNP mode).

 

Only S standard (and latter versions) can use R-77 but both airframes (9-12 and 9-13) can be and were upgraded to S standard.

 

They can but they weren't :) .

 

For instance that #999 MiG-MAPO demonstrator for Malasian Airforce is of S type although it's externally same as 9-12.

 

The Malaysian "MiG-29N" is a "custom" version made specifically for the Malaysian airforce and is the only 9-12 version upgraded in this way.

 

So MiG-29S shouldn't have Fulcrum C designation

 

Yes they should - 9-13 and 9-13S both have the "Fulcrum C" NATO designation.

 

... and we should have more realistic radar there. If we can have R-77s we should have radar that covers it.

 

See further up - there is little in the way of information on what exactly the SUV-29S/N019M involves.

 

I not gonna nag about MiG's poor rate of turn and poor roll rate, but in LO it's also undermodelled.

 

Really? :D

 

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O RLY? ;)

 

 

jrvipvo_mig-29_114.jpg

 

some of them R-60 sure have eaten allot since they've grown so much :D

 

Do not mistake this one with what I'm talking about.

 

If you take a closer look you'll notice that #101-#110 and two-seater #301 had different camo patches. Those airframes dated from 1983 (Russia's first major production) and they came with small ventral fins but were removed during assembly and engine overhaul in "Moma Stanojlovic" Aeronautical Plant. Those planes are delivered in '87 and were 9-12B. However, Russia promised 16 planes in total and Yugoslav Government requested full featured 9-12A airframe and avionics. Second delivery happened in 1989 and those were planes #111-#114 and #302. They are of 9-12A type.

 

AFAIK Yugoslav airmen had ZSh-5 helmets but they aren't equipped with Sh ZUM-1 targeting system. Late variants had provision for HMS, but ZSh-7 is a helmet of choice for Fulcrums and Flankers, respectivly.

 

Check the camo here:jrvipvo_mig-29_101_rolling.jpg

 

 

Similar thing happened in Eastern Germany. 968th IAP from Altenburg was equipped with similar early Fulcrums that also had ventral fins below tailplanes but they even lacked Chaff/Flare dispensers. Most of them were retrofitted with broad chord rudders and dispensers, fins removed and sold to East Germany.They became Luftwaffe Fulcrums after reunification of Germany. Here's the photo of Altenburg MiG (taken in 1987):

968thIAPAltenburg.jpg

Now, one can surely tell that both Yugoslav and Altenburg Fulcrums miss nose wheel debris covers but later has ventral fins clearly visible.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anyone notice there are mistakes with LO's MiG-29 models?!

 

- 9-12B that were sold to Russian "not so close" allies like Yugoslavia, Cuba, Iraq, Hungary had only R-60s for IR engagement, they missed Shlem (HMS) engagement mode and had "old" Tumanskii engines.

 

As more of us argued it, I'd also like to. I can talk about our ones, we don't miss the Shlem, nor the 73s or any combat modes. We had R-60s too, now out of service, and never had the R-27T. (or it is Top Secret:D ) No offense, but I'm interested in your source.

[sIGPIC]http://www.forum.lockon.ru/signaturepics/sigpic5279_1.gif[/sIGPIC]

I could shot down a Kitchen :smartass:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, S types for export are designated SD when based on 9-12 and SE when based on 9-13 airframe. But I dunno how many are sold and who bought them.

 

Malaysian MiG-29N is effectively MiG-29SD but during the 1000 hour overhaul aircraft were given a 3000kg weapon load capability, Cossor IFF, English gauges with Imperial units, R-77 capability and an IFR Probe.

 

The other regiment apart from Kursk in fact the first that was equipped and flies 9-13S is Гвардейский Никопольский Краснознаменный ордена Суворова III степени им. Героя Советского Союза Глазьева Николая Елизаровича 31-и истребительный авиационный полк @ Aвиабаза Ролик\3ерноград.

 

PilotAsso:

Vekkinho can we know something more about you?

 

I curious because some of your statements you made.

 

Sure, what would You like to know?!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI? The F-teen series of US fighters can and have done tailslides. It is USAF policies and regulations that prohibit it being done. It IS preformed over Edwards AFB as a practice of advanced handling. The PW F100-P220 engine can handle the airflow issues associated with those manuvers, as can the P-229 found in the F-15E and F-16 Block 50-52's. The manuvers you see US aircraft do at airshows are what are deemed safe for audiences. One of the reasons you have seen how many SU-27/30 family aircraft/MiG-29's crash at airshows..and how many F-15's and F-16's?In reality, the F-15 and F-16 are capable of *very* complex and high G manuvers, just not at airshows for safety reasons. The Thunderbirds lost one F-16 recently (in 2002-2003 I think) due to mechanical problems. This isnt a bash on the Russian fighters, but to say that because the USAF plays it safe at airshows, means the F-15 and F-16 are clearly inferior isnt fair. NOR is it fair to say that because the MiG-29 and SU-27 have crashed at airshows makes them unsafe aircraft, what I am saying is that the two Air Forces policies are different.

topGraphic.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the F-15 was not designed to impress an airshow crowd.

 

Destroying MiGs might be closer to its design goal. Seems to be OK there.

 

I'm also pretty sure that there are modelling deficiencies for all planes in LOMAC. MiG-29 included. For example, its top speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Not like anyone flies it.

 

This holds true online, but offline I like to fly the Mig-29A. It could have some use also online, but then we need other scenario's where the Mig-29A would fly much closer to the Su-25's, or as airfield point defenders.

 

I hope in BS the SAHM missiles get a little less fooled by chaff and flares, this would revive the Mig-29A also a little bit.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is debatable....there is something to suggest that this isn't actually the case, but that the SUV-29S/N019M upgrade merely integrates the R-77 to the firecontrol system and allows it to be launched....i.e. doesn't actually involve dual engagement capability(from SNP mode).

 

Well, actually it does involve exactly the dual engagement capability. And accordingly Russian/Malaysian MiG-29S (9-13S) has it.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

К чему стадам дары свободы?

Их должно резать или стричь.

Наследство их из рода в роды

Ярмо с гремушками да бич.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as an FYI? The F-teen series of US fighters can and have done tailslides. It is USAF policies and regulations that prohibit it being done. It IS preformed over Edwards AFB as a practice of advanced handling. The PW F100-P220 engine can handle the airflow issues associated with those manuvers, as can the P-229 found in the F-15E and F-16 Block 50-52's. The manuvers you see US aircraft do at airshows are what are deemed safe for audiences. One of the reasons you have seen how many SU-27/30 family aircraft/MiG-29's crash at airshows..and how many F-15's and F-16's?In reality, the F-15 and F-16 are capable of *very* complex and high G manuvers, just not at airshows for safety reasons. The Thunderbirds lost one F-16 recently (in 2002-2003 I think) due to mechanical problems. This isnt a bash on the Russian fighters, but to say that because the USAF plays it safe at airshows, means the F-15 and F-16 are clearly inferior isnt fair. NOR is it fair to say that because the MiG-29 and SU-27 have crashed at airshows makes them unsafe aircraft, what I am saying is that the two Air Forces policies are different.

 

All of this because one Mig-29 ate a bird during a high alpha pass? Come on, grow up, it all depends on piloting skills, and their judgement. If someone tries doing too much in too little time, it will go wrong, engine stalls have not much to do with this, at least, not on the mig-29 and su-27 series. Just admit that the F-teen engines are more prone to engine stalls, don't keep on whining, making wrong comparisons and showing opinions on how you like US jets. Please compare the state of the average Russian/eastern airfield and that of a nato compliant one, then stop the whining about engines. They have very robust engines, but the quality of them isn't as high as that of US made ones, nonetheless, the engines are capable of handling disturbed airflows, mostly due to the intake vane geometry.

 

Sorry for going off-topic.

Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the reasons you have seen how many SU-27/30 family aircraft/MiG-29's crash at airshows..and how many F-15's and F-16's?

 

Two issues to take up with that, really. Firstly - the safety rules tend to be set by the people hosting the airshow. The display must be approved by them before being flown, there are strict rules, and the display can be stopped at any point by the ground controller if he feels it's becoming unsafe or is breaking the rules.

 

Most of the "Russian" crashes have occurred outside Russia. The Americans display at the same venues under the same rules.

 

If the Le Bourget/Fairford/Farnborough rules allow for the Russians to do it safely, they should also allow for the Americans to do it safely.

 

 

Secondly, I'm really not sure the Russian display routines have caused crashes.

 

There's been a minimum of two, probably three pilot error crashes for the Russians (Su27UB in Lviv, the two MiGs colliding at Fairford, the Su30MKI in Paris), a birdstrike (MiG29 at Le Bourget) . . . . don't know what caused the Su33 airshow crash and I can't remember any more at the moment.

 

 

The Thunderbird crash was pilot error - the pilot forget to reset his altimeter to field height.

 

The Nighthawk crash was structural failure.

 

The famous B52 crash was pilot error.

 

There's been at least one more F-16 airshow crash due to pilot error.

 

The USAF is not immune to these things either . . . .

 

 

All display routines are occasionally subject to bad luck or pilot error - the Russians have high publicity crashes, but I'd really question that they are caused by unsafe routines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually it does involve exactly the dual engagement capability. And accordingly Russian/Malaysian MiG-29S (9-13S) has it.

 

. . . . does this mean that you have information on how the dual-engagement capability should work?

 

Has been a bit of a bone of contention for a while, would be good to find out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . . does this mean that you have information on how the dual-engagement capability should work?

 

Yes we've got a bit.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

К чему стадам дары свободы?

Их должно резать или стричь.

Наследство их из рода в роды

Ярмо с гремушками да бич.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance at all we will find that in Black shark?

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any chance at all we will find that in Black shark?

 

Do not think so.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

К чему стадам дары свободы?

Их должно резать или стричь.

Наследство их из рода в роды

Ярмо с гремушками да бич.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, actually it does involve exactly the dual engagement capability. And accordingly Russian/Malaysian MiG-29S (9-13S) has it.

 

I know that the Malaysian "MiG-29N"s (9-12S) have it - I remember Swingkid once gave an account for how their dual engagement functionality works, but IIRC this capability(and R-77 support as such)was only provided as an upgrade some time(years) after Malaysia bought the aircraft - hence the specualtion whether the earlier made Russian MiG-29S had it....but I will take your word for it :) .

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A pertinent question: Dual engagement at what range? Pitbull? Or full BVR with data link?

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...