It is not impossible that immediate off-the-rail thrust may be innaccurate in game but overall the equation must be equation to the irl value.
1 Like
I absolutely agree & has been my argument since the beginning.
Mach 3.5+ off the rail in under 5 seconds at low altitude. Its easily seen in tacview replays.
Actually ive heard reports that its is still lacking a bit of range as some aerodynamic performance formulas that gaijin uses are lacking.
But thats another story and applies to all missiles
1 Like
The MiG-29 has never been part of the air defense system
I know.
Air defense fighter is a class of aircraft.
Often synonymous with air superiority.
I think the GDR used the fulcrum as an air defense fighter.
Im not sure abt the russians though.
Yup, I believe it’s also related to the way the missile was brought in the game.
GJ knows their own game obviously.
Matches are fought and determined on close quarters. They know this and are the ones who places spawn close to each other.
The ER would have no place if its performance was comparable to the R27R at closer ranges where its aerodynamics come from. It definitely would not made any difference in increasing the game efficiency of the Mig29, the reason the missile was brought to the game originally.
Therefore, knowing it has the same 35G overload, they still needed it to stand out over the R27R because the Mig29 already had it, they ended up taking the higher recorded top speed (from the long burning motor) as justification to increase acceleration at short-range at all altitudes.
People defending that are defending the model are unaware that for the missile to perform and turn just as good as the R under the immense acceleration would require a maximum overload well in excess of 35Gs.
What is left to fall to the wayside is its actual R27ER range performances.
Mig 29 i get to a degree, but the su27 FM works fine for me. Are you sure the issue is the flightmodel?
You have almost zero sim battles, so my guess is you always use the instructor.
It seems your Problem isn’t the flightmodel itself but how the instructor uses said flightmodel.
It was not an air defense class, it was a front-line fighter.To gain dominance directly over the battlefield
regardless of the semantics, this isnt rlly an issue right bro?
Im not exact about how the maximum possible G load of a missile is calculated… or rather, what gives the limitation of max G load.(control surfaces or housed electronics) But im sure that lateral acceleration does not go into the equation of two-planar acceleration (missile forward motion vs turning motion).
EDIT: scratch that lemme think again lol.
brain ded moment.
The issue more or less that comes to light as a result of this conversation, specifically about the ER, is that it accelerates a lot.
Which may or may not be realistic.
As i recall the boost motor on the 27ER is definitely larger in diameter than on the 27R. Which would entail a larger amount of off-the-rail-thrust but I’m speculating here so i can be wrong.
1 Like
You both actually agree & both correct. You misunderstood each other.
You are referring PVO service and are correct.
He is referring to “short range tactical” air defense. Which he is right as well.
The Mig29 served as a point defense fighter in addition to all other frontline duties.
It was the fighter that would be scrambled to defend forward operating bases and army installations on an active front. It was the premier rapid response unit.
1 Like
The Su-27’s FM is just terrible
Uhhh
To begin with, there were two different types of Armed Forces in the USSR.This is Air Force , where the MiG-29 and PVO, where the MiG-31 and Su-27 were included
Well, you are not wrong, and the Soviets as well as the Americans know this.
In design, to extend the range capabilities using an older existing missile design is a quick, cost-effective alternative to designing a whole new missile altogether.
However, it will restrict the amount of thrust you can add to the missile to do it.
Because that previous design you decided to use is already made aerodynamically optimal to operate at a set speed & acceleration etc. All aerodynamic designs have limitations that are deadlocked.
Slapping more powerful motor will definitely extend the range to desired effect.
But the trip to cover the distance will push the missile beyond its optimal speeds it had previously & if the thrust is large enough can render the missile combat ineffective at all shorter ranges.
The Americans utilized sustainer motors & Soviets utilized a longer burning motor, which is the only confirmation the motor received.
Which explains the noticeable increase size and weight. Which by default does increase top speed but keeps accelerations to a minimum so that the missile will not fly beyond its previous performance and exceed 35g maximum overload to maneuver.
That explains the increased top speed & why there was no aerodynamic upgrade whatsoever found in the ER.
To give the missile a massive thrust to accelerate on top of an increase in time it provides active thrust is laughable. It was just a medium ranged missile.
i had no issues with it, it worked as i expected it to. high AoA at low and mediums speeds that bleeds a ton of energy.
How do you even know without having used it?
I spoke of two Soviet branches; I already know this.
However, you are incorrect, not a single Mig-29 ever served with the PVO.
The Mig29 was and is purely a Frontal Aviation asset of the VVS.
The PVO operated Mig-19, Mig-21, Su-15s, Mig-23s, Mig-25, Su27 & Mig31s.
The Mig29 is the only aircraft that remained with the VVS and there was never a need for PVO service because the Su27 was specifically designed for it.
Another reason it was not given the ER. It’s a missile designed optimally for extended ranges, not close range. The R27R was better.
Shortfall in pitch and roll moment.High inductive resistance, etc.
What did I write?
Without instructor? Because the instructor is klimited in terms of inputs and deflection of control surfaces. Dampening also hampers the su27 quite a bit.
What evidence do you have?