Jump to content

Full fidelity MiG 29A by ED?


CrazyGman

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

.

11 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Also, Soviets didn't give latest and greatest to the allies ether... since they had tendencies to invade them.... 

....yeah right.

 

Hungary 1956

Prague Spring 1968

Avganistan 1979

 

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Why didnt they keep the 29k for fc3?

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing... 

-------

 

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

 

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing... 
Yeah... Pretty much this.

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Definitely a fatty. 

 

Why didnt they keep the 29k for fc3? 

I suppose they didnt have much info about this aircraft to make it beliavable. From what I saw on videos, the cockpit was taken from old variants. Real aircraft was based on MiG-29M, so It should have much more advanced avionics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose they didnt have much info about this aircraft to make it beliavable. From what I saw on videos, the cockpit was taken from old variants. Real aircraft was based on MiG-29M, so It should have much more advanced avionics.
I think it is other way around. Mig-29m was based on Mig-29k aka MiG-33 frame.

Sent from my SM-N960F using Tapatalk

Rocket brigade who retired F-117

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

image.png

This discussion is pointless, since your bottom line keeps shifting.

Again, Hypothesis that 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T or R-27ER is wrong since I gave you clear info from the manual that both R-27T and R-27ER are listed both in the weapon load and on the HUD (and no, I am not posting it here since of the 1.16).

Like it was said lot of ppl have older manuals before the weapons existed or/and from air forces that didn't use or have access to the missiles, and they come to the wrong conclusion. 

 

If you follow the Russian missile thread you would have seen also that most of R-27ER range envelop graphs are from MiG-29 manuals.

My botom line has not shifted an inch FoxAlfa - you just interpret it that way. My initial posts in this thread was in response to the notion that a picture of a 9.12 with an -ER is evidence that the weapon is "generic" to that variant, because modified MiG-29s always come with a "hump"....which obviously isn't the case.

 

You will also note that I said "..wasn't compatible with.." - i.e. to begin with. I am not just basing this on the absense of T/ET or ER in early- or export manuals, but also on various other historical accounts for the MiG-29, Su-27 and development of the R-27 "family" in particular - the latter clearly indicates that the IR/long burning variants weren't meant for the MiG-29, but developed specifically for the Su-27 in order to support its wider mission requirements. But it also suggests that the R-27R fell short of expectations(to outperform contemporary AIM-7), so if more recent 9.12 manuals list other R-27 variants as part of compatible armament, I am actually not surprised nor would it be a big deal to backfit it, as the deployment routine for an -ER is the same as for the R-27R.  But I do not believe that it was there all along  as "backward compatible".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing... 

The exterior and weapon loadouts were quite accurate for the 9.31, but the cockpit was just that of a 9.12 with the addition of an AOA indexter on the HUD....which obviously had nothing to do with the real thing, nor did the onboard system's representation. But then we are talking ancient times, where none of the aircraft in the sim were particulary accurate or detailed anyway - the Su-33 certainly wasn't more accurate.

 

The MiG-29K was dropped in favour of the MiG-29S for Lock-on - i.e. long before DCS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Airhunter said:

 

We do have those.

 

And the late ones too. Fox is right simple as that. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

But it also suggests that the R-27R fell short of expectations(to outperform contemporary AIM-7), so if more recent 9.12 manuals list other R-27 variants as part of compatible armament, I am actually not surprised nor would it be a big deal to backfit it, as the deployment routine for an -ER is the same as for the R-27R.  But I do not believe that it was there all along  as "backward compatible".

Seriously, do you honestly believe they would not be able to do this? Besides, HUD documentation from manual is quite clear on the R-27T. The reasons for not giving them to the allies is not that they wanted to invade them. Nobody plans eagerly to invade an ally, this only makes you weaker. These things happen when the ally becomes unreliable in your view (Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan all had clear disagreement and considering of switching allegiance, not to mention Yugoslavia, which constantly shifted between 2 sides). Unreliable also means that they can also leak the missile that at that time gave Sowiets the edge in some scenarios compared to what NATO had in the bag. When you get hit next time by IR missile with no warning consider how large this advantage can be.

 

Although I initially believed that hump can be used to reliable distinguish between early versions (9.12 and 9.13), it seams that the hump is low cost "mod" to produce more space for ECM and tanks. The lines there indicate the place where the old hull was cut/modified, as they aimed at minimal changes compared to 9.12. If they aimed at full departure from 9.12 airframe, they would have much more streamlined solution.

 

In fact they had to convert large numbers of already-in-production 9.12 airframes and added tanks in hump had to be removable in order to access already existing systems. You can see the similar approach the above fat F-16 was "modified", without changing the original frame radically.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 минуты назад, okopanja сказал:

Although I initially believed that hump can be used to reliable distinguish between early versions (9.12 and 9.13), it seams that the hump is low cost "mod" to produce more space for ECM and tanks. The lines there indicate the place where the old hull was cut/modified, as they aimed at minimal changes compared to 9.12. If they aimed at full departure from 9.12 airframe, they would have much more streamlined solution.

 

In fact they had to convert large numbers of already-in-production 9.12 airframes and added tanks in hump had to be removable in order to access already existing systems. You can see the similar approach the above fat F-16 was "modified", without changing the original frame radically.

Also seen in MiG-21 that went from no hunch (early versions) to big hunch (SMT version) to a bit smaller hunch (Bis version that we have now).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Seriously, do you honestly believe they would not be able to do this?

They would be able to make provision for it, but for proper employment the WCS needs the missile parameters in order to compute a firing solution for it and these would only be available when the missile was ready.  Besides, as I mentioned before, accounts of the R-27 development indicate that only the R-27R was intended for the MiG-29, which in turn doesn't suggest  that they made provision for the other versions. But they could of course have changed their minds and backfitted them later.

 

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Besides, HUD documentation from manual is quite clear on the R-27T.

Apparently in the manual FoxAlfa referred to, but not in other MiG-29 manuals - only the R-27R.

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

The reasons for not giving them to the allies is not that they wanted to invade them. Nobody plans eagerly to invade an ally, this only makes you weaker.

Exactly - I was not the one claiming this.

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

These things happen when the ally becomes unreliable in your view (Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan all had clear disagreement and considering of switching allegiance, not to mention Yugoslavia, which constantly shifted between 2 sides).

Yet the Soviet Union exported(if you can call it that) a MiG-29 version practically identical to their own to their Warsaw Pact allies, but a different less capable version to other nations...such as Yugoslavia. Hungary was a Warsaw Pact member, but they only got their MiG-29s after the Warsaw Pact was dissolved(1991) and the version they got was the downgraded MiG-29B.

 

I have no idea why Afghanistan was brought into this discussion, since they weren't a Warsaw Pact member, didn't have any MiG-29s and the Soviet Union only reluctantly intervened militarily after several direct requests to do so by the beleaguered communist regime that ruled Afghanistan at the time, so techically not an "invasion" either.

 

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

Although I initially believed that hump can be used to reliable distinguish between early versions (9.12 and 9.13)...

You can reliably distinguish between a 9.12 and a 9.13 that way - 9.12 has no hump, while 9.13 does.

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

...it seams that the hump is low cost "mod" to produce more space for ECM and tanks. The lines there indicate the place where the old hull was cut/modified, as they aimed at minimal changes compared to 9.12.

Yes it was introduced because it was the only way of increasing the internal fuel capacity on the "baseline" MiG-29 design. It was further employed(bigger hump) for later upgrades like the SMT 9.17(prototype SMT), 9.19 and MiG-29UPG(9.20) for India.

 

But its not really that low cost as it still requires structural changes, which is why not all upgrades have them. Early on there was an export variant of the MiG-29S without the hump(9.12S) and as mentioned earlier, also a more recent SMT (9.18) based directly on the 9.12 airframe as well as countless more or less "indigenous"(with or without MIG involvement) upgrades of 9.12 airframes involving onboard systems and sometimes also expanded weapon's compatibility.

 

9 hours ago, okopanja said:

If they aimed at full departure from 9.12 airframe, they would have much more streamlined solution.

Yes the initial MiG-29M(9.15) and MiG-29K(9.31) multirole versions from late 80'ies didn't have a hump nor do their current derrivatives.  But these versions were a case of a complete redesign, so the solutions for increasing the internal fuel on those can obviously not be applied to old baseline airframes.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/16/2021 at 7:31 PM, Presing said:

I think it is other way around. Mig-29m was based on Mig-29k aka MiG-33 frame.
 

No the MiG-29K(9.31) was based on the MiG-29M(9.15) - "MiG-33" was an export designation that MIG applied to the MiG-29M for a short while in the nineties.

 

For the new versions it is the other way around - the MiG-29K/KUB came about in connection with the Indian order and then later became the basis for the new version of the MiG-29M -> MiG-35.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...