Eurofighter relative flight performance, feat. Gero Finke

Or an inexperience adversary who pissed all his energy away on the first turn and was left with no options.

I always wondered how it was possible to use the AIM-120s with only gunsight (maybe it was an operation mainly managed by WSO?).

Hi Phant!

You are absolutely right. There is no difference that you really could make out. Obviously the RDR was very different since it was the APG-65 then. The HUD indication was in comparison to modern HUD pretty useless. All the RDR work was done as you guessed correctly by the WSO. Weapon employment though was done by the pilot.

The F-4F ICE was still a very "manual / raw data" aircraft. All necessary calculations had to be performed in your head. Conequently crew coordination was a big thing.

Cheers!

Hey guys - let me says some words to my person:

I am -TITS- and flew the Typhoon for a about 10 years in real-life together with Gero in the famous Jagdgeschwader Richthofen. I am now Lead Testpilot for TrueGrit and I will compare the Questions against a clean F-16

1.) Higher

2.) Higher

3.) Way higher

4.) Way better

5.) Less, due to the FCS limiting the AOA.

6.) Clean F-16 vs. Eurofighter with 2 Tanks (I won)

7.) You can go a bit over 9.0Gz if you are clean, around 0.3Gz.

One other experience: The Typhoon does not decelerate as well as other aircraft because it is built so slick...and the engines have so much thrust - even in idle...

Thanks Gero and TITS for your answers. :thumbup:

It must feel great to advertise such a dream for most of DCS users. You at TG do a great job already. I can't wait to have the DCS Typhoon.

@Gero: I'm out of service from the Luftwaffe (no pilot) more than 2 decades. I'm very impressed (and a bit positively jealous) that you had the opportunity to fly a Typhoon in an engagement with the age of 47. Is this a usual age for Luftwaffe pilots these days?

@Gero: I'm out of service from the Luftwaffe (no pilot) more than 2 decades. I'm very impressed (and a bit positively jealous) that you had the opportunity to fly a Typhoon in an engagement with the age of 47. Is this a usual age for Luftwaffe pilots these days?

There are currently active Eurofighter pilots in the Luftwaffe up to the age of 54 at least. Some even just obtain their Eurofighter qualification at this age. :D

5.) Less, due to the FCS limiting the AOA.

Knowing that F-16 doesn't have a good nose authority, i'm a bit surprised the Typhoon has even less. Compared to Rafale or Hornet it's not surprising, but compared to F-16 i was not expecting it

One other experience: The Typhoon does not decelerate as well as other aircraft because it is built so slick...and the engines have so much thrust - even in idle...

I guess you're talking about 1.0G acceleration right ? I guess that in BFM you can bleed energy quickly (and decelerate) if required due the delta wing ?

I'm really curious and excited by this project, as TG is full of knowledgeable people on the Tyhoon. Can't wait to see the result !

....as you mentioned above it is for me obviously not possible to give you detailed numbers as an answer. But important to know for everyone in the community is of course that we at TrueGrit are putting in all efforts to make the Typhoon for DCS a worthy module that comes as close to reality as legaly possible.

Wait a sec, let me understand. The data are classified and that is why it clearly cannot be distributed to the public, but in the end it will be legally possible to create the exact FM of the Eurofighter in the sim or will it be modified to protect classified data?

If this is the case, this module should no longer be considered as a study level sim, and consequently, in addition to reporting the fact, a lower price should be applied.

If this is the case, this module should no longer be considered as a study level sim, and consequently, in addition to reporting the fact, a lower price should be applied.

In that case none of the (modern) jets in DCS is a study level sim. It's the same issue with the Hornet and Viper...

Welcome to DCS!

That's the difference between a commercial sim (like DCS) and a professional training simulator.

Wait a sec, let me understand. The data are classified and that is why it clearly cannot be distributed to the public, but in the end it will be legally possible to create the exact FM of the Eurofighter in the sim or will it be modified to protect classified data?

If this is the case, this module should no longer be considered as a study level sim, and consequently, in addition to reporting the fact, a lower price should be applied.

I think you're expecting a bit much from a desktop sim here. None of the models in DCS are completely perfect in every regard, neither in any other sim. Iirc the hornets AoA capabilities have some limitations too.

It's the closest thing to flying the real thing we can get to as civilians, but its not the real thing, always keep that in mind.

Study sim also means operating the systems in a large regard.

In that case none of the (modern) jets in DCS is a study level sim. It's the same issue with the Hornet and Viper...

Welcome to DCS!

That's the difference between a commercial sim (like DCS) and a professional training simulator.

Do you have written evidence from ED of what you claim?

I think you're expecting a bit much from a desktop sim here. None of the models in DCS are completely perfect in every regard, neither in any other sim. Iirc the hornets AoA capabilities have some limitations too.

It's the closest thing to flying the real thing we can get to as civilians, but its not the real thing, always keep that in mind.

Study sim also means operating the systems in a large regard.

Nope. I just expect them to tell me officially. It's one thing is to have the cards not classified as many modules in DCS (I know this, then if you have proofs to the contrary, please tell us), is one thing to use the CFD simulation in the absence of documentation, another thing is to invent random data to avoid declassifying the actual performance purposely creating an inaccurate flight model.

And from what has been said here i believe this is the last one i said.

So I expect a legitimate response from TrueGrit because i don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

Do you have written evidence from ED of what you claim?

 

Nope. I just expect them to tell me officially. It is one thing to have the cards not classified as many modules in DCS (I know this, then if you have proofs to the contrary, please tell us), it is one thing to use the CFD simulation in the absence of documentation, another thing is to invent random data to avoid declassifying the actual performance, purposely creating an inaccurate flight model.

And from what has been said here I believe this is the last one I said.

So I expect a legitimate response from TrueGrit because I don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

Because of the proof your asking for: thats just common sense

Come on. Don't pretend like you would know the difference. It's much more important to have a module, that actually feels like the real thing, because the stuff written on paper is nothing, you could recreate in DCS. So I would rather have a EF that has the exact same feel as the real steel one, because you and I would not be able to tell the difference anyway. And the DEV-Team does have more than enough hours on there sleeve to do exactly that.

If you would have followed the development so far, it was clearly stated from the beginning that they would bring the EF to DCS, as close and as realistic as possible. As possible.

Coming here and yelling for a cheaper price (pricing & buying seems to be your favorite topic here, by the way) because its not study sim level is ...

There are currently active Eurofighter pilots in the Luftwaffe up to the age of 54 at least. Some even just obtain their Eurofighter qualification at this age. :D

That's cool. Thanks. Maybe 9.3g is good for osteoporosis prophylaxis?! ;)

Because of the proof your asking for: thats just common

No, it isn't (at least for older aircraft, f16/18 for example).

it is common sense to think instead that it is useless to create an "inaccurate" FM to avoid revealing the real performances because the latter do not interest the common citizen but the adversary countries, countries that have the means to do reverse engineering and know the performances , in addition to the fact that there is espionage. So no your speech does not make sense.

...the stuff written on paper is nothing...

and should i even answer you?

No, it isn't (at least for older aircraft, f16/18 for example).

it is common sense to think instead that it is useless to create an "inaccurate" FM to avoid revealing the real performances because the latter do not interest the common citizen but the adversary countries, countries that have the means to do reverse engineering and know the performances , in addition to the fact that there is espionage. So no your speech does not make sense.

 

and should i even answer you?

Well, I think the Developers will know better what they are doing then you can see in your crystal ball.

And no, please do not answer. But stop quoting only parts of what I wrote, that creates a false picture.

Nope. I just expect them to tell me officially. It's one thing is to have the cards not classified as many modules in DCS (I know this, then if you have proofs to the contrary, please tell us), is one thing to use the CFD simulation in the absence of documentation, another thing is to invent random data to avoid declassifying the actual performance purposely creating an inaccurate flight model.

And from what has been said here i believe this is the last one i said.

So I expect a legitimate response from TrueGrit because i don't think it's a foregone conclusion.

Like True Grit have said, they'll do their best to get it as accurate as possible, engineering it from the data they can get and airshow performance/public sims and so on, and then use their large experience with the real thing to get it to feel right.

Just wait and see, its a while out anyways, once you gotta put some money down, I'm sure we'll know much more about the flight model.

about the F18

 

Like True Grit have said, they'll do their best to get it as accurate as possible, engineering it from the data they can get and airshow performance/public sims and so on, and then use their large experience with the real thing to get it to feel right.

Just wait and see, its a while out anyways, once you gotta put some money down, I'm sure we'll know much more about the flight model.

Thanks for sharing that video with the interview with Wags. Sounds very similar to what we can expect with TrueGrit's approach on Typhoon's FM, imho.

Do you have written evidence from ED of what you claim?...

I don't know if it is also written down in this forum but Wags(ED) himself told so in one of the (Fighter Pilot Podcast?) interviews he did. So yeah, it is officially admitted that parts of FM/systems/wepaons are altered from RL performance/capabilitys.

Edit: hah, Etirion has it even with a timestamp :thumbup:

If this is the case, this module should no longer be considered as a study level sim, and consequently, in addition to reporting the fact, a lower price should be applied.

Welcome in the real world... all the weapons envelopes, ranges and data, radar function and data, ECM stuff, flight models, target pods and so on are not the real ones. They are an interpretation from the developer how it could be as close as possible or allowed. Some do a very optimistic interpretation, others more conservative.

But nothing on all that stuff ist 1:1 the real thing. Maybe on old aircraft ike the P-51 or MiG-15.. but when you came into the ares from 1990 and newer mostly all the stuff is classified.

If you talk to RL pilots to data like this and they are honest, you will not get an answer. Or they will tell sou somethign you want to hear. But you will never get the real informatiosn of HARMs, AIM-120C-7 ranges and modes and so on..

It will be a computer sim, as close as legally possible. Sometimes better than the real world, sometimes less. Just because fore example, TrueGrit know how something works or which ranges it has does not mean that they will have it exact the real way in the finished module.

But who cares, you never can check it or say if this is right or not ;) That is always to be kept in mind...

Knowing that F-16 doesn't have a good nose authority, i'm a bit surprised the Typhoon has even less. Compared to Rafale or Hornet it's not surprising, but compared to F-16 i was not expecting it

 

 

 

I guess you're talking about 1.0G acceleration right ? I guess that in BFM you can bleed energy quickly (and decelerate) if required due the delta wing ?

 

 

1. No, the Typhoon is more limited than the F16

2. Well, if you put enough Gz on it you can, but not very well. And yes, you can go up to +9.5G if you fly without tanks...

Do you have written evidence from ED of what you claim?

Yes:

Sorry to shatter your dreams. I too wish DCS would be 100% accurate (maybe except the dying part). It's not possible unfortunately.

Hey guys - let me says some words to my person:

 

I am -TITS- and flew the Typhoon for a about 10 years in real-life together with Gero in the famous Jagdgeschwader Richthofen. I am now Lead Testpilot for TrueGrit and I will compare the Questions against a clean F-16

 

1.) Higher

2.) Higher

3.) Way higher

4.) Way better

5.) Less, due to the FCS limiting the AOA.

6.) Clean F-16 vs. Eurofighter with 2 Tanks (I won)

7.) You can go a bit over 9.0Gz if you are clean, around 0.3Gz.

 

One other experience: The Typhoon does not decelerate as well as other aircraft because it is built so slick...and the engines have so much thrust - even in idle...

Hi -TITS-,

Thank you very much for that quick run down!

Regarding question #5, the F-16 is limited to around 25 deg AoA, so not much:

I've read the Eurofighter is limited to 24 deg AoA, so less but only by a little bit. Is that right?

2. Well, if you put enough Gz on it you can, but not very well. And yes, you can go up to +9.5G if you fly without tanks...

Only instantaneous or also sustained?

 

Hi Phant!

 

You are absolutely right. There is no difference that you really could make out. Obviously the RDR was very different since it was the APG-65 then. The HUD indication was in comparison to modern HUD pretty useless. All the RDR work was done as you guessed correctly by the WSO. Weapon employment though was done by the pilot.

The F-4F ICE was still a very "manual / raw data" aircraft. All necessary calculations had to be performed in your head. Conequently crew coordination was a big thing.

 

Cheers!

Thanks for your feedback Gero!!

Bye

Phant

1. No, the Typhoon is more limited than the F16

 

2. Well, if you put enough Gz on it you can, but not very well. And yes, you can go up to +9.5G if you fly without tanks...

Well so the limited AOA should not be a big issue if the Typhoon pilot manages to avoid slow flight?Then having a good speed sustainment seems an advantage to me in this aspect as if both planes are at very slow speed (for example vs an Hornet) in a guns-only situation (no iris-t and no aim-9x) the Typhoon could have serious troubles...did i get the picture?

Ps thanks Tits for your time...

The Typhoon is my dream plane from when i was a child...so it is very nice to have the possibility to interact with real pilots.

Well so the limited AOA should not be a big issue if the Typhoon pilot manages to avoid slow flight?Then having a good speed sustainment seems an advantage to me in this aspect as if both planes are at very slow speed (for example vs an Hornet) in a guns-only situation (no iris-t and no aim-9x) the Typhoon could have serious troubles...did i get the picture?

 

 

Ps thanks Tits for your time...

The Typhoon is my dream plane from when i was a child...so it is very nice to have the possibility to interact with real pilots.

Typhoon pilot mentioned in the fighter pilot podcast, that if he get too slow, he could just put the AB and go vertical to dive back behind the enemy, something the hornet can't do, so he mentioned it's not really an issue.