To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) From: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Reply-To: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Sender: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Errors-To: postmaster@onion.rain.com Return-Path: devnull@onion.rain.com (Falcon3 Mailing list) Precedence: bulk Bcc: falcon3-outgoing Subject: Falcon3 Digest V5 : I1 Falcon3 Digest Volume 5 : Issue 1 Mon Nov 8 17:30:22 PST 1993 Compilation copyright (C) 1993 Jeff Beadles Send submissions to "falcon3@onion.rain.com" Send add/drop requests to "majordomo@onion.rain.com" Archives are available via ftp from onion.rain.com [147.28.0.161] and mirrored on cactus.org in /pub/falcon3 Today's Topics: Review of _Falcon Domain F-16_ VCR manfred@mjmnode.equinox.gen.nz (Man HiFi-Mode spengler@math.uni-frankfurt.de Mig101.exe and comms??? MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Re: "The 29th" mcoyne@acs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) Re: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? att!ihlpf!opus@uunet.uu.net Strange black-out bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) RE:Mig Radar MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Various items Ric Testagrossa [ Why does the author of this message keep calling the Mig-29 the > the "Mig-29th"? I don't believe there's a "th" in there --Jeff ] Somewhere in the first few pages of the MiG-29 manual, it says the Russians have over time begun calling the plane "Fulcrum" just like the NATO folks, but some simply refer to it as "the 29th." >I have been wondering why it is only possible to load six AAM's on the >29th. According to the original Falcon3 manual (SH), the 29th can carry >six to eight AAM's. In flying head to head, this presents a distinct >disadvantage against the F-16 (which carries up to eight). I'm happy with >six if that the true maximum the 29th can carry. Anyone have any info? SH may be wrong, but I find it difficult to believe that they'd screw up something this basic. My guess is that the former Soviets just aren't big on MERs (multiple ejector racks?). >The 29th, according to the F3.0 manual, also has type 1 or "multiple >tracking, look-down shoot-down radar". > >The F-16 has type 2 or "single target tracking radar". I see no differences >(except for SEA mode) between the FSX and F-16 radar either in the OFT >manual or in actual simulation play (using HFR config), which would lead >one to assume that either the FSX actually "will have" radar type 2 or that >such a mode was not included for simplicity. > >In actual play, I do not see any increased capacity in the 29th to perform >multiple tracking. Why? Shouldn't I be able to get info on multiple >targets at the same time? The MiG-29 has a SWT (scan while track) mode that allows you to keep tabs on one target while noting the location of other targets. I don't believe any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. I share your confusion over this, though. When I was writing my review of MiG-29, I was going to list this as one of the MiG's advantages over the F-16 when I realized that in F3 I can do the same thing! It's called SAM (situational awareness mode, under HFR), and it allows you to scan one target while tracking the rest. I don't know if this is a realistic capability or not. As an aside, F-15 Strike Eagle III implements all this stuff much more realistically. When you're in TWS (track while scan) mode, the updates for the targets you aren't scanning is very slow as it should be--your radar is spending most of its time and energy on the scanned target to get the detailed information it presents. >Also, why can't I leave my radar on in the scan >mode and still get infrared locks through the helmet mounted aiming system? >Has anyone been able to do this? I think the IR and radar systems are supposed to be integrated to work together. Rob opus@ihlpf.att.com ------------------------------- From: bonnet@cr2a.fr (Christophe Bonnet) Subject: Strange black-out I did have a strange experience concerning black-out with Mig29 1.01. I was in an Israel campaign mission when I receive a RWR warning for a AIM120 launch at me. Using Padlock view, I spot the incoming threat and quickly (too quickly) pull the stick back with full throttle to begin a vertical climb (I was trying to do a reverse on the missile, a tactic fairly successful). My maneuver blacks me out instantly (10+ G !!!). I effectively dodge the AIM120. But... I NEVER recover from the black-out: my 29 just keeps doing a beautiful vertical loop with full A/B. I think the program lock the stick in the back position when I lose conciousness... (thus keeping high G's) .I have been waiting for more than 10 full loops (min. altitude 4.000 feet and max. alt. 22.000 feet) before aborting the mission (I was thinking about waiting for 0 fuel before ending the mission, but even with full A/B, it seems it take a while...). I think the stick lock in a non neutral position is not a realistic thing (a pilot blacking out must release his grip on the stick ?) Anyone with similar experience ??? Christophe Bonnet (bonnet@cr2a.fr) ------------------------------- From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU Subject: RE:Mig Radar Hi all, Regarding discussion of Mig 29 and its weapons and radar. [stuff deleted] >>The F-16 has type 2 or "single target tracking radar". I see no differences >>(except for SEA mode) between the FSX and F-16 radar either in the OFT >>manual or in actual simulation play (using HFR config), which would lead >>one to assume that either the FSX actually "will have" radar type 2 or that >>such a mode was not included for simplicity. > >>In actual play, I do not see any increased capacity in the 29th to perform >>multiple tracking. Why? Shouldn't I be able to get info on multiple >>targets at the same time? *The MiG-29 has a SWT (scan while track) mode that allows you to keep tabs *on one target while noting the location of other targets. I don't believe *any fighter radar can actually give full velocity vector and position *information on multiple planes simultaneously, but I'm not authority. *I share your confusion over this, though. When I was writing my review *of MiG-29, I was going to list this as one of the MiG's advantages over *the F-16 when I realized that in F3 I can do the same thing! It's *called SAM (situational awareness mode, under HFR), and it allows you to *scan one target while tracking the rest. I don't know if this is *a realistic capability or not. I am not an authority either. But I'll stick my neck out for giggles and grins. I thought I heard somewhere (Wings??) that the F14 could track some odd number of targets and fire on all simulataneously! Of course the Pheonix is not your everyday missile, but the radar of the Tomcat was designed to handle big time air engagements. The Falcon being more of a multi role plane of course has a much more crippled radar due to size/weight limitations. I don't know wuch about the Eagle. As for the Mig, I would agree with the first poster that as an Air to air plane, and the radar description, it would likely be able to multiple track different targets simultaneously. Of course since the Old Soviet Union is not exactly turning over the records of their defense systems to SH, we may never really know just what it is capable of. It really seems that the radars of F3 and Mig are the same thing to me. [stuff deleted] My two dramha's worth :-) Scott in WV Morgan@wvugeo.wvnet.edu ------------------------------- From: Ric Testagrossa Subject: Various items I have some comments/questions about several facets of Falcon/MiG: * I've been monitoring the message traffic both here and on Compuserve; Has anyone else noticed the comments from the people who either love or hate MiG-29? Some writers absolutely love the manuverability of the plane, while others hate it. Some find it easy to control, while others flail all over the sky. Even allowing for differences in skill level, personal flying styles, and computer system speeds, I've decided that we're not all flying the same plane MOSTLY DUE TO OUR DIFFERENT BRANDS OF COMPUTERS. Using myself and my system as an example, I truly believe those people who say that they'd much rather fly the MiG-29 than the F- 16, since they can always outmanuver the 16. However, I've given up on flying the Mig, since it handles ON MY NAMEBRAND 66MHz SYSTEM like a dead horse. And before you suggest that I change my joystick and/or controller card to get better response, let me mention that I've tried 2 different Thrustmaster FCS, 2 different Thrustmaster ACM cards, a CH flightstick, a Kraft card, the joystick port on a SoundBlaster card, and a CH Gamecard 3, all with about the same results. Remember the problems/bugs some people encountered in the previous versions of F3 that were only seen on certain specific computers, while other people (with different computers) never encountered those problems? I think we're seeing the same kind of thing here with the flight characteristics of the Mig-29, and I predict that this situation will only get worse with every revision to the program. Please understand that this is not intended to put down the F3/MiG29 sim; I try to fly it every day because I enjoy it so much, but I only fly the F-16 plane since the Mig doesn't respond on my system as it does on other people's systems. I'm not sure there's any way to deal with this, other than to be aware of this when you start looking for version 4.0 of F3. * Does anyone else get the same sense of SUPER satisfaction when you successfully complete a mission after taking significant damage? I was on my way back to base alone, my wingman had been hit by a SAM and the other flights were on different routes, when I was jumped by a Mig-29. The ground attack portion of the mission had been brutal, and I had damage warnings about the HUD, the flaps, the brakes, the burner, the radar, the weapon arming mechanism, and the NWS, so basically all I had left was my cannon and my manueverability. I won't go into detail here (I'm writing a series of short stories based on some of my more "interesting" missions, and I'll be uploading them sometime soon), but I managed to defeat the bandit, AND get the plane safely landed back at the base. Now, even though I've built myself a partial cockpit to fly the missions from, I KNOW that this is "just" a simulation. But as I sat there on the runway, I realized that my breathing was ragged, my muscles were sore, and I felt GREAT. Am I just weird, or do other people get into it as much? * I've noticed something in Red Flag. If I'm going round with a bandit, he usually does his best to stay out of cannon range an won't fly straight and level for more than a second or so, UNTIL I run out of cannon rounds and only have missiles left. Then that little #*%$@^! will fly straight and level in front of me at about .4 miles range, almost like he's taunting me. And my experience has been that if I shoot a Sidewinder at a range of less than a mile, the probability of a hit goes WAY down. Does anyone know if the enemy pilots know when you're out of cannon ammo? Seems to me that another pilot could see when you're out of missiles and act accordingly, but how do they know you're out of bullets? * In a related question, what's the RMIN for the enemy's Magic missiles? It must be a very short range; I've been hit by them when they were fired from a distance of about .3 miles. And what about the seeker head angle; they seem to be able to hit me when they're fired at impossible angles. How about we buy some of these missiles from France to put onto the F-16? :-) * How does the enemy pilot evade/spoof my heat-seekers while they're still a good distance away? I try flares and manuvering at extreme angles, and they usually miss but they only miss by what seems like a few feet. Enemy planes seem to be able to evade by hundreds/thousands of feet, which gives them more time to reposition. Can we do that, or is this something which is an ability programmed into the enemy planes? Ric T. (Pigpen) ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: Mig ramblings/questions > From: MORGAN@WVUGEO.WVNET.EDU > Subject: Mig ramblings/questions > * I have gotten into some interesting loss of control of the aircraft. One > such loss is flying knife edge at about 450 knts with seeming no control > of the craft. Is this due to compressability? What type of a stall (for > lack of better definition) is this? If you are turning, I assume that's what you mean by "flying knife edge", you proabaly pulled past the AOA for max lift, so you have therefore stalled. If you stall an aircraft at more than 1 g flight, it's called an "accelerated stall". Aircraft with hydraulically actuated controls do not suffer from the classical "compressibility" problems of WWII fighters. > * Any hints on how to judge G's? I turned on effects, but I prompty > got into a bad stall and crashed. I am hoping by blacking out I will > get an idea when g's are getting high enough to damage the plane. Yes? No? If the effects were modeled properly, yes you would be able to use greyout/blackout as an indication of high load factors. However, SH dropped the ball here. You don't actually get greyout/blackout. You go from awake to passed out, nothing inbetween. Now while this can happen for very abrupt stick inputs, for a sustained high G turn you will gradually lose your vision. I don't see this in F3/MiG-29. I thought their original G effects model was junk, but it was better than the one they have now. ------ Stuart slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@scc.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (aka slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil) Please send all messages to both addresses, thanks. ------------------------------- From: slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (stuart butts/taai/75033) Subject: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? > From: mcoyne@cs.bu.edu (Michael Coyne) > Subject: MiG 29 Weapons and Radar ?? > [ Why does the author of this message keep calling the Mig-29 the > the "Mig-29th"? I don't believe there's a "th" in there --Jeff ] I have been wondering this for quite some time now. This must be some kind of computer phenom, 'cuase we don't refer to it as the 29th in the USAF. :) > I have been wondering why it is only possible to load six AAM's on the > 29th. According to the original Falcon3 manual (SH), the 29th can carry > six to eight AAM's. In flying head to head, this presents a distinct > disadvantage against the F-16 (which carries up to eight). I'm happy with > six if that the true maximum the 29th can carry. Anyone have any info? Six AAMs is correct. > The 29th, according to the F3.0 manual, also has type 1 or "multiple > tracking, look-down shoot-down radar". ... > In actual play, I do not see any increased capacity in the 29th to perform > multiple tracking. Why? SH must have learned some new info between the release of F3 and MiG-29. :) ------ Stuart slb512%server3@fastc-issu.wpafb.af.mil slb512@scc.fastc.wpafb.af.mil (aka slb512@trainserv.fastc.wpafb.af.mil) Please send all messages to both addresses, thanks. ------------------------------- From: jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca Subject: Why it gets called the "29th" In response to: [ Why does the author of this message keep calling the Mig-29 the the "Mig-29th"? I don't believe there's a "th" in there --Jeff ] your friendly local Russianist comes to the explanation.... Slang for the MiG-29, as with many other numbered vehicles, uses the numeric designation: in Russian, this is technically an adjective. There's two schools of translation: straight literal and idiomatic. Straight literal translation provides you with "29th".... Idiomatic translation (attempting to translate such that things "sound right" - which depending on your point of view may or may not better preserve the meaning) would call it the "29". I, unlike SHolobyte, tend to lean towards idiomatic translation, especially as the slang term in this case is used as a noun ("29").... Clear as mud now? 8) James Sterrett jjsterre@acs.ucalgary.ca ------------------------------- From: "WADLEIGH, DAVID" Subject: Re: Safe F16... Thomas Weichert writes: >"Turns out there are some people out there, that don't quite agree with: The >F16 is safest single engine in the world! >Ah well, sad stats they are indeed, as at October 1992, more than 140 >Falcons have actually crashed with 90 pilots killed so far, almost as bad as >the old F104 in Germany I believe the statement that "the F16 is the safest single engine fighter in the world" relates to engine performance/durability/reliability, and not overall "safety" of the aircraft. I am sure that the majority of those F16 crashes were due to LOC (loss of consciousness) due to high G maneuvers. The F16 is really the first fighter in the US arsenal which can easily maintain more sustained G's than a pilot can withstand. It has taken many lessons (these crashes) for the Air Force to realize both the potential, and the dangers, inherent in the F16 and to train its pilots accordingly... Dave "Phoenix" Wadleigh "There are two types of people in the world...those with guns, and those who dig..." ------------------------------- From: Andrew J. Schmitt Subject: Chad Theatre is now availible at onion.rain.com Hey Guys: I have downloaded the Chad scenarios from SH's BBS and posted them on onion.rain.com. Enjoy! [ It's in /pub/falcon3/misc/f3chad.zip -Jeff] Andrew J. Schmitt University of California Santa Barbara schmitt@mcl.ucsb.edu ------------------------------- [[ End of digest Volume 5 : Issue 1 ]]