Jump to content

SgtPappy

Members
  • Posts

    768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree. To add to the high G's, it'd certainly be possible especially with newer airframes but the probability of something breaking badly gets pretty high past 9 G and life decreases by quite a bit. It's not a reasonable thing to try on combat, essentially but I'm betting you know that As for the margin of error in sustained load factors... my personal feeling is 0.1 to 0.2 G is within reasonable error.. 0.3 might raise an eyebrow but a delta of 0.4 or 0.5 G seems off, especially if its repeatable.
  2. Yea, honestly, I can see how darn close this flight model is after using the scripted STR mission - my flying is so sloppy so I need to try more data points with less climbing and diving - but this should give a rough idea of how close Heatblur got the F-14A! I believe comparing it to the F-15 was folly as we had originally assumed that the F-15 was exactly matching its graphs.
  3. Ok some quick tests with the F-15C at SL, 5 kft and 10 kft using the scripted STR mission. I tried my best to get data points 25 kn or so apart... I basically flew from Mach 0.95 on the HUD and using the TAS in the data bar, I decreased speed by 25 kn or so, kept it until 2 points were recorded then I decreased speed again - recorded.. etc. until I was as slow as I could get without losing altitude. I did this for each of the three altitudes mentioned. Using Excel I sorted and plotted the points and this was my result. A bit messy, but the Eagle seems to consistently be higher in STR at lower speeds and way too high above Mach 0.85 or so. Also as stated, I could reach Mach 2.605 with 4xAIM-7s and 4xAIM-9s at ~37,000 ft after about 7.5 minutes from 430 KTAS. Something seems off. EDIT: forgot to label the axes. X-axis is true Mach and Y-axis is sustained deg/s. Weights are also ~41000 lb with 4xAIM-7s and 4xAIM-9s to match the TO 1F-15A-1 manual.
  4. I'll try this too - what a badass ship! Heatblur did another amazing job. The 80's is where it's at
  5. Not on a standard day, only on a cold one. Check out the F-15 performance data here (F100-PW-220): https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/645693/ Just for fun, here's an earlier F-15 with the F100-PW-100 - it's way worse in level flight envelopes: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/645686/
  6. Yes I have routinely been able to reach Mach 2.6 during tests at 37000 and 40000 ft with full AIM-7s and AIM-9s.
  7. Thanks @fat creason! I hope in no way do our discussions or tests mean to be a slight on all your hard work. Our obsession to us isn't trivial although your point on accuracy obviously stands, and expectations could be adjusted to take this point into account. I think I speak for all of us when we say we love the Tomcat, this rendition of it and of course just want to see her kick ass - especially for those who play on MP. I think we've concluded to the best of our abilities that indeed, the Tomcat is closer than it ever was before and I for one would not have been able to know that unless I really tried my best to look at these numbers. Awesome work as always!
  8. If it's the same mission I'm thinking of, I'll try it tonight. I'm trash at flying perfectly stable though, so if you want to have a go at in the F-14A, let me know what you get @Hummingbird and @captain_dalan. My quick and dirty flights just now got me 4.8 G at TAS = 344 kn, 5 kft and 4.8 G at TAS = 399 kn, 10 kft. I took these approximate speed figures from using the true Mach given in the F14-AAA-1.1 turn rate diagrams which say I should get 5 G at both those tested points but the 0.2 G could easily just be my own error.
  9. This may explain why the Viper is having so much trouble at those low-ish speeds vs the F-15
  10. Did they complete the TF30 tuning? I was under the impression that it was in progress after reading the language used in the patch notes. I plan to do some quick and dirty testing today for the F-14A at the real world data plot points I have, but from last night's flight tests with Hummingbird, it is eaten alive at all speeds between SL and 5,000 ft by the F-15 even at speeds where it should have clear superiority (i.e. 340 KIAS). From the plots, if both planes are around that same speed, the F-14A should out-rate the F-15 which was evidently not the case in-game. According to the plots, the F-15 at max. STR out-rates the F-14A by about 0.5 dps up to around 20 kft (I think) but it must do so at a higher speed which may negate the rate advantage. However, preliminarily, the F-15 had no trouble (even in zone 4 A/B) catching up to and then lapping the F-14A when we tested a series of level turns from 5 kft down to SL at the same speeds (STD day, same weights and loadouts per the real world charts). This result may also be caused by the F-15 which appeats to be overperforming by some 0.4 G at low speeds at ~Mach 0.5 at 5 kft - and that's quite a bit.
  11. That's fine you don't have to care about hard data. Sometimes people prefer the flight model to "feel" right even if it's subjective. Fortunately, people who do care about the data are also allowed to not care about solely if something "feels" right to an SME. And that has nothing to do with the quality of work that the SME's provide. I like blue and you like green - both are allowed and are valid so let's all stop the tribalism revolving around what the other party should care about more, yea?
  12. This had me wondering the same thing! I can't really recall if I've had an AIM-54 home in on a target after the track became an "X" unless it was already active when the track became an "X".
  13. Apologies if I misunderstand you but static and and installed are not mutually exclusive terms. They way I sometimes think of it is how a car can be mate black but just because it's matte doesn't mean its black.. it could be matte red or shiny and black. Silly example but I hope you get the point. Shiny and colour are two different dimensions that don't rely on each other as are installed and static thrust. Static just means the engine isn't moving. It may or may not be installed in the aircraft. Quid's excellent post above should remove any remaining ambuguity.
  14. The way I understand it is that "static" and "installed" indeed orthogonal terms. I'm not sure I've ever heard "static" implying "installed" in the industry. Static conditions are, as you say, on a stand with zero freestream velocity at the inlet. This is obviously a practical condition to test on the ground. I would think installed should be explicitly stated.
  15. I guess I'm a little late on this but if you press the jettison weapons command instead of the jettison tanks command (LCtrl + W by default I think), then the wing tanks come off first. If you press it again, the CL tank comes off, followed by I think 2x wing pylon missiles, then the other two then the fuselage stations etc.
×
×
  • Create New...