Jump to content

Degraded Su-27 aerodynamic lift


Maverick Su-35S

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Yes, I'm quick to counter 

I wouldn't exactly call four years quick, but I now believe you really are some sort of project lead or middle manager with this kind of time management.

11 hours ago, Guppy said:

**Wall of text crits you for 9000**

**Dead**

Looks like you struck a nerve with that one. I can already sense Nineline and Bignewy closing in.


Edited by Mars Exulte

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look... If you are expecting a game to be 100% to real life you are setting yourself up for failure. ED never has claimed these modules are 100% accurate; they've said they are the best recreations of these fighters using the data they have. That's not 100%. Further, like all software and development activities there is a point of diminishing returns... you can spend millions making something as close to perfect, as possible, or be happy with 90%. A recreation in a digital universe can never be 100% accurate in all aspects to real life; it's not possible, at least with tech today.

Additionally, posting youtube videos is not a definitive resource. How much fuel does the jet have? What were the weather/atmospheric conditions? How fast was the wind? Was there wind? Was the pilot flying into the wind to create lift in certain aspects? There are so many unknowns.

My observations over the years is that typically Maverick posts when he got shot down on some server by an F-15 driver and he comes on to these forums fuming because he did not win. I've seen it here, I've seen it on discord, it's absurd. So absurd that he necro posts to go on a soliloquy.

Until ED makes his '27 absolute perfection he's going to continue to go on these rants about how "under powered" the '27 is and how uber the 15 is.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wooow. The bad kinetics conversation is back. OMG. Maverick is resurrected! Thank you buddy for kudos. Kudos goes back.

Let me tell you a bit about my background. I studied three collogues, Air Traffic, Mech engineering and IT. Quit all before finals. Why? Cos I felt I'm on wrong places, many materials were outdated and I somehow too often managed to outperform my professors. No big deal. I got job in R&D departments nation wide. Top ones. CFD specific. More specific, fluid-structure interaction and power curve extraction on turbine systems besides some structural strength assessments. All conditions, spectrum of mediums and materials. The thing is, I somehow managed to snipe the simulations versus actual tests despite having opposition at business side of the deal. Nevertheless, Lloyd and DNVGL accepted my reports flawlessly as my designs do work in nature, from Tasmanian fish farms over Atlantic oilrigs up to fjords of Norway, and my reports go along the actual performance in 1-2% error margin. Got enough guts to back off whole shipyard's management pressure off my conclusions and signature. SO I learned to let the unconvinced side to their little evolution despite sometimes being ridiculed, in most cases by those that fear my knowledge or skills would degrade their hierarchy positions. So the same evolution happened to DCS crew.

I think like 7 years ago I stroked the importance of CFD analyses in developing the right flight model, or at least close to real. Cos its available even in opensource. Now, the number of module developers that are using CFD is at rise - which is a good thing. Wings of glass and instant GLOC was next remark that got me earned some quite amount of penalty points. Thank you ED for stripping that off my name for what ever reasons are behind. Regarding THIS topic, if Maverick or I would dare to say posted claims in public back in the middle ages we would be pronounced witches and burned to ashes in front of LOL crowd. Luckily, we were out of the reach of many raged DCS fans that are color blind to some light spectrum ranges.

Maverick is a passionate guy and speaks technical language that is probably not understandable to many here, but those are not to be blamed. What isn't really a good aspect of discussions of this kind is the attitude towards some knowledge that actually make those real planes fly so good and are admired by many probably gathered here for those same reasons. So Mav and I are probably here with the good reasons too - to make the best, publicly available, combat SIM by pointing fingers on something itchy and irritating to those that do have better night vision capabilities. DCS is best we have. Period. But it has some flaws that should be reconsidered and corrected. If we all want some real opponent matches, not biased for any reason.

What all models here do lack, by my perspective and 20+ years of experience in CFD, airplane performance and structural analyses, is misinterpreted kinetic model, energy conservation in specific. The basic input in all kinds of professionally performed calculations is a good watertight geometrical model, which DCS does have in their assets as many other properties of modules publicly available but not classified. That is a good starting point. Next are Pilots Manuals filled with charts. Those do give some insights how thing flies keeping the pilots safe but the amount of data in those is quite narrowed for CFD, maybe not enough to fill those critical performance margin to the right spot. And that margin is crucial to every air combat duel. Every Top Gun knows that very well as they all dance on the edge of the spear tip soaked in adrenaline.

So lets give that sweet spot juice to players and develop some strategy, free of charge, with some mutual respect to make this sim even more better.

-------------------------------------------------
First disregard everything done, then do some pure geometry tests in standard atmosphere model extracting CD and terminal velocity taking power available into account. That will set the max speed value. Airfoil data is publicly available for each module, geometry known. No big deal. Then do some CD vs AoA charts, clean and gradually loaded, to see how much energy does certain angle of attack takes off away from the airframe and which moments do induce shift to aerodynamical centers. That counters the acceleration. Its easier to stop the bike than a train as its harder to reach Mach number with a parachute than with a needle. Then do CG shift vs CL shift calculations based on mass loss regarding fuel loss, which is a huge fraction of mass of any airplane, besides missiles detached impact, taking moment matrix play on inertial tensor vs deflected control surfaces impact into account. It's all about seconds and AoA. Full work envelope of any module, at least in laminar stream at low Reynolds number. Buffeting and all other turbulent zero layer disturbances can be left for later if needed at all. Then place DCS modules aside, set incremental conditions and watch and compare. Then learn and correct. Irritate. Simple as that. Voila.

-------------------------------------------------

Now just found some lucky guy to do that and that will earn him some high quality PhD work, probably praised by all aeronautical rocket science engineers booth at NASA as at TsAGI, not to forget all other in field mentioned in DCS over their respected modules which are all, not to forget, masterpieces of human engineering regardless of their origin.

I would do it by myself but have no time nor will to do so after this long fight here on forum. Even found edm file parser in python, not to make the sim of my own but to get 3d models to place them in wind tunnel and play with them just to prove some standpoints, but maybe, just maybe some time later.

Wont give you out much but forgive me on my passion cos I enjoy it better now then analyzing DCS issues after confronting angry shouting crowd of forum members that denied some RL principles of free body performance despite the right tools being on the reach of a hand. Neverminded, you're forgiven. Just follow the Mav instructions, that man has balls to hit some hard to reach PhDs.

Regards, Birdstrike.

PS. Also coding some pretty neat tool for all DCS fans which might be surprisingly useful to many, besides DCS dynamic campaign. Goodspeed. 

image.png

EN1.PNG

MMT.PNG


Edited by jackmckay
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/2/2022 at 8:02 PM, jackmckay said:

Let me tell you a bit about my background. I studied three collogues, Air Traffic, Mech engineering and IT. Quit all before finals. Why? Cos I felt I'm on wrong places, many materials were outdated and I somehow too often managed to outperform my professors.

 

 

 

 Big Gecko45 vibes from this guy.


Edited by Mars Exulte

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me get this straight. DCS might have right reference charts, and performance numbers might also match those charts, except in one little important thing - time to chart spot aka acceleration and deceleration intervals. And that data sniping is a damn BIG deal. If set wrong, it will make quarter mile run 1000HP car inferior to 500HP car at near equal weight.
Core issue. Tnx.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jackmckay said:

Question everything boyz. I might be a big mouth liar though? Nothing on topic? No critics, comments, suggestions? Only raw helpless personal tagging. I'm sad, lonely and disappointed.

 

image.gif

 

What for, so they delete one's posts like in the F-16 forum ?

Just a waste of time.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

By the way, would anyone know the: total lifting area of the Su-27 ?

I've been searching through the web, but so far no avail.

Thank you.

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/9/2023 at 7:10 PM, Top Jockey said:

By the way, would anyone know the: total lifting area of the Su-27 ?

I've been searching through the web, but so far no avail.

Thank you.

Looks like the wing area is 62m2 - https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/ed7/Su-27 DCS Flaming Cliffs Flight Manual EN.pdf, [10]
No idea about the rest :(.

  • Like 1

i5-4690K CPU 3.50Ghz @ 4.10GHz; 32GB DDR3 1600MHz; GeForce GTX 1660 Super; LG IPS225@1920x1080; Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB; Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An extension is available for both Google and Brave browsers that allows the ChatGPT response to be displayed simultaneously with Google's reply, making it a useful tool to have for queries like this.

Me: Total lifting area of the Su-27

ChatGPT: I'm sorry, but I cannot provide the total lifting area of the Su-27 as it is not a well-defined term in aircraft design.

However, the Su-27 is a Russian fighter jet that was designed and built by Sukhoi. It has a wingspan of 14.7 meters (48.2 feet) and a wing area of 62 square meters (667 square feet). The specific lifting area of an aircraft can vary depending on the design and configuration of the wings, and is typically measured in square meters or square feet.

 

  • Like 1

LG C1 65", NZXT BLD, i9-12900K, 32G 4400MHz, RTX 3080, WinWing Orion2 w/ F-16EX Grip, TM Warthog Throttle, StreamDeck XL, Virpil Rudders, Tobii 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your time people!

I know that some specific data on jets isn't always easy to find.

My motive to try knowing this stuff is related to have a rough idea of some jets aerodynamic capabilities.

 

Yep, wing area is easily available at wikipedia, but overall / total lift area / surface / etc. might not be that easy.

But it is know for some jets, i.e. the MiG-29:

- total lift area: 60,9  (square meters)

- wing area: 38  (square meters)

 

Thank you eitherway!

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...