Jump to content

Degraded Su-27 aerodynamic lift


Maverick Su-35S

Recommended Posts

Think this is simple enough:

jackmckay and maverick, where is your evidence for such claims? When I say evidence, I mean concrete data that show the faults that you highlighted, such as the ones you list in your paragraphs. You claim a lot of things are wrong, so would like to see evidence. A refusal or no possession of concrete data (evidence) should warrant an end to any discussion on this thread and it should be closed. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 2/13/2018 at 3:01 AM, Guppy said:

Not to derail this conversation... but F-15>Flanker.

 

But it doesn't matter, once the Hornet comes out we'll be toasting you with that. :joystick: haha

Toasting me with what? Your arrogance seems a little out of luck as the F-18 is even worse at the FM related to what we were trying to discuss here. Welcome to the party not coming with a beer, but with a hand on your but!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 7:07 PM, Vitormouraa said:

They should have closed this thread a long time ago when Maverick was proved to be wrong.

 

This thread is pointless, a waste of time.

 

See how much time ED devs spend looking here. Except they don't because the ones saying there is something wrong can't prove their point and they try to use videos, "thinks" and "guesses" instead of proper documentation like other people on this forum do.

Proved to be wrong? At what? Where did you get that from? Is it right that if someone is out of the discussion for a while someone like you can freely say whatever they like?

The FM of the Su-27 (and this one has a lot less problems than the F-18's FM about which I've also talked a lot seemingly for nothing and people try to ridicule me in their blindness) has strange CG shifting aft and forward (affecting the plane's attainable constant AoA with full elevator pitch up deflection and thus lift to drag and turning ability) at some exact amounts of fuel. I don't remember if I discussed it in this thread or another, but only ONE GUY was able to understand what I was talking there and took the decision to confirm what I was saying, while 99% of all others were trying to say that I was wrong. It's not uncommon that the majority is actually wrong...! Sorry, this is the reality!

I have only come here with some at least minimal information (some being proven and unaffected true videos, some being engineering researches with fair calculations, not nonsense like you believe). If common sense isn't enough to tell that we have a loose goose in the flight model, then we'll try to work it out starting step by step from what we already know.

If you have a problem taking the time to assess and consider if something is wrong, but NOT BIASED like you are or sick of life or whatever, let others try and look into the problem, be it even tiny and nicely discuss it with proven facts and important data while trying to abstain from insults. Is it right for you that way or not?

On 7/16/2018 at 12:51 AM, Wizard_03 said:

 

 

We need rep back :lol:

That guy truly deserves respect, unlike you for your kiddish mockery!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2018 at 3:11 AM, Vitormouraa said:

If you don't have an engineer degree, you're out of discussion. Ok.

 

That's why nobody gives you any attention.

Sorry to ask and answer to your off-topic statement, but what do you have anyway? I have finished the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering in 2013 and two years later I also had my Master's degree specialized in flight dynamics. In the near future (if time will allow) I'll continue through Phd regarding the implications of high energy vortices (such as those generated from LERXs). This is the truth about myself. Do you want the proof of what I've said? No problem, I'll share the phone number and whatever info you and anyone else might want in order to confirm where I worked in 2015 and what specialization. I don't like going off-topic for something like this, but you're the one asking for it! I only want to discuss about unsolved problems which I only hope that one day someone will take care of and solve them and want to do it like anyone else would correctly want to do it, which is... in a professional manner as much as possible.

On 7/18/2018 at 3:41 AM, WarrenSkip said:

Think this is simple enough:

jackmckay and maverick, where is your evidence for such claims? When I say evidence, I mean concrete data that show the faults that you highlighted, such as the ones you list in your paragraphs. You claim a lot of things are wrong, so would like to see evidence. A refusal or no possession of concrete data (evidence) should warrant an end to any discussion on this thread and it should be closed. Thank you.

I totally agree with you bro..., looks like we think the same way though for whatever reason we seem to be on opposite sides. How much is there needed for what we've already discussed? I mean..., is it that a zero proof? You want to say that all the effort that I've put along with "jackmckay" is zero? If you say that, then the problem is totally different from trying to solve things, but a proof that you actually don't want to recognize the problem, which is far off from what I can do!


Edited by Maverick Su-35S

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

WOW necroing a 4 year old thread, 

Please if you think something is wrong provide some evidence, otherwise it is just arguing for the sake of arguing. 

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/14/2018 at 5:13 PM, David OC said:

Another good read is the Heatblur Simulations AIM-54 Phoenix CFD Whitepaper. Heatblur hired guy's to do CFD Simulation on the missile to gain enough info on the flight characteristics and performance for the sim, read the document, it's crazy modeling and data mining for a missile for a sim.

Well..., and if they only want to believe in CFD alone and are very convinced that what they get from it is accurate, why not use the "same hired guy" to work on other defective FMs or actual fixed wing aircraft? Look..., I know I'm being highly targeted for daring to say "defective FMs", but this is the truth. It's not a crime to have it that way. Nothing is 100% accurate in simulations, but for a sim bragging about itself, it should be at least some 90% and sadly only some FMs are well above that, while some, without any exaggeration are well below 60%. If we want to be good we can be, otherwise it's very easy for anyone to turn bad!

1 hour ago, BIGNEWY said:

WOW necroing a 4 year old thread, 

Please if you think something is wrong provide some evidence, otherwise it is just arguing for the sake of arguing. 

A bit upset, aren't you...?! Just look behind bro..., the "PROOF" that you want doesn't come from those who you copy the same words from, but from what I've provided in the beginning! What is so hard to just go at the initial pages where most of the discussion wasn't off topic?


Edited by Maverick Su-35S
  • Like 3

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 8:49 PM, FSKRipper said:

 

Amen!

 

From promising flight sim enthusiast to tinfoil hat wearer in one month, what a career...

 

I enjoyed the early Tests but now it's nothing more than pointless "who has the biggest... Russia vs US" Like all these stupid clickbait YouTube Videos.

 

You can believe what you like, yet be very wrong! Now, getting back to the main subject, doing more correct research of data is the first key to successfully correct what is to be corrected in the FMs and it's doable. Only the negative attitude persons don't want that!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 8:27 PM, GGTharos said:

 

No one cares what you feel.

 

 

 

Nope. And now you're on the verge of being ignored thanks to making up baseless conspiracy theories.

 

You then continue to fail by putting up airshow routines - guess what, airshow routines are quite strict regarding what you can and cannot do, and they don't demonstrate anywhere near all of the aircraft's capabilities.

No one cares about your personal determination of the eagle's CL given that real numbers are available from NASA, gathered by flying the aircraft. And now your credibility goes further down the drain by claiming that those numbers are somehow false. Even if you were to finally find an actual flaw in the FM, you now look like you're just on a witch hunt. 🙂

 

That 1.6 CL max of the Eagle is not aerodynamically generated by the airframe alone. Perhaps you weren't (and hopefully not still be) aware that the value of 1.6 is due to the engines thrust at the test AoA. Substract the lift generated by the engines and you'll get roughly 1.2 as a maximum lift coefficient on the Eagle at the real stall AoA of around 20..21 degrees.

Is there anyone who can ask an actual F-15 pilot to try and give us just a simple data, such as a picture of the HUD when turning at critical AoA (he must ride it and know it for sure) to see the actual IAS or CAS (we can do the corrections easy), actual fuel status (to correctly determine the weight) and G-load. This is all we need to get the maximum lift coefficient (the weight, an indicated speed reference and actual G-load). THAT'S IT..., that simple, but no one was ever able to do that yet?

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2018 at 11:57 PM, Vitormouraa said:

And here we are back to Youtube videos, feelings, and "thinks".

 

It has to be better than that I believe, if you really want to change something in the sim.

Why are you trying to say things that I didn't say? I've only shared a youtube video (what else better proof can you get other than a video which provides quite very accurate data for our discussion) and because you can't deny that what I say is true, you try to put words into my mouth! Is this the way you deal with others as well? When you can't answer, you try to unfairly put words in their mouth? When did I say "feelings"?

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/12/2018 at 4:48 PM, draconus said:

Isn't it vector thrusted Su-35 at the moment showed?

Can't you read the title? And also can't you see the edges of the airframe? The Su-35 has a modified airframe also. This is a Su-27 with no thrust vectoring man and this is angle of attack it can reach, well above 100 degrees AoA even if the pitch attitude goes some 20 more degrees over vertical due to inertia and the plane slowly finds a climb and overall the AoA reaches easily more than 100 degrees if not 110. Due to the whole and long discussion which sadly appears to be useless, not because I couldn't provide enough starting evidence, but because people just don't want to accept the fact that something is indeed in need of fixing and correcting. I trust that Yo-Yo, a man that I've had lots of overall constructive technical conversations will find the time to actually look into this manner. If not him then someone else who eventually accepts that things can be changed for the better of this airplane's simulation and any other around which has solvable (it only depends on wanting to solve them) FM problems.

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/16/2018 at 6:49 PM, Ironhand said:

Somehow I figured you wouldn't actually leave. You're having too much fun.

He probably has fun telling the truth! Did you actually read what that man said?


Edited by Maverick Su-35S
  • Like 1

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/11/2018 at 1:02 AM, Mars Exulte said:

There are exactly two sources that are acceptable:

 

#1 Official documentation and performance charts

#2 Verifiable experience with the aircraft in question

 

 

 

Non-comprehensive list of unacceptable sourcea

 

#1 Feelings

#2 Napkin math

#3 Wikipedia or other random websites

#4 TV / YouTube documentaries

#5 Your friend

#6 Your buddy

#7 Your uncle

#8 Your friend's cousin's uncle

#9 ''Everybody knows''

#10 Other games

#11 The online degree you have in ''engineering''

#11 Etc

Why had my last message replying with some good data and personal proof (degree in aerospace engineering) to what you've nicely provided in this list got deleted...? There was the exact graph that someone else has also posted regarding the F-15's turning performance and guess what, it's like "in your face..." proof that the DCS F-15 is overperforming at turn rates in DCS! And I've also got a warning about "classified info" but someone else also posted it and didn't get the same "punishment". What is it that is tried to be accomplished in this manner?

Here are the links to those data again...! It's irrefutable on the internet, I couldn't make up those charts!

f15str.png

F15C-clean-rate-and-g.jpg

Now I kindly ask "BIGNEWY" to take away that penalty on me as this data is "VERIFIABLE" in it's all sense. This is becoming ridiculous folks!

My regards!


Edited by Maverick Su-35S
  • Like 1

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

Credit for tenacity in resuming a four year old argument. +1 internetz to you.

Thank you for your unbuyable sarcasm! I don't posses some special abilities, you guys that I contradict with on the other hand prove lower than expected abilities it seems!

 

4 hours ago, Guppy said:

I love how I was quoted in this with my comment made in pure jest. It's good to know that after 4 years passing he's still basically the same person.

Bad luck to you or who else thinks that I'll corrupt my character as a trade for letting myself be heard! Yes, I'm quick to counter someone missing or understanding something and you can also be sure that I won't let mockery related to me or anyone else who proves to have a decent/mature discussion get away easily. I respect you exactly the way you respect me. You can see my actions as a reflection of yours. I don't give up fighting back. This is me..., sorry!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I only want to get back to our general but duplicated subject (F-15, then back to the Su-27 regarding lift perforamnces), cause I'm not hear for low minded polemics but to discuss stuff at a higher level and won't stop until I can convince you that the unmodified F-15C/A's maximum airframe's lift (not lift generated by engines thrust) coefficient is around 1.2 at low Mach and nowhere near as high as 1.6. I wish it could be that high, but the known physics can't allow it. The same issue I've raised about the M-2000 as well and some progress was done in the right direction but only half-way.

The Su-27 has abnormal center of mass shifts aft and forward at various fuel %. For this reason only SOMETIMES the DCS Su-27 has close to areal Su-27 turning and attainable AoA performances, but most times it has them far lower. The negative Cm (pitching moment coefficient) range of the Su-27 in DCS anywhere between around -20 and -60 AoA is too high. Again, someone will say: NOOOOOOO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, NEVER COMPARE ONE PLANE WITH ANOTHER, NOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOO and stuff like that! Well guess what? I'm going to do exactly that without the "feeling" and "thinking" of some that it is unprofessional or not coming from an AE's point of view. The comparison to KNOWN things is A RELIABLE REFERENCE AND BENCHMARK for anyone with good logic and common sense when they need to see how far off or close to something normal one thing would be, and even for an engineer who just won't take things for granted, it's still a good practice to try to compare one thing with something similar or close to it in order to see how things are going! That is of course not the regular way to do it, but when you lack data for subject A while subject B should be similar, you can take it as an alternative to see the big picture, NOT to use it as an identical reference, but something which should be close! I don't take things for granted as well (despite some who have their own beliefs about me), so no, when I make a comparison I don't throw it without thinking enough of it first!

The F-16 which has at least as great aerodynamic and static instability in pitch which compared to the Su-27, happened with some occasions in real life to depart in pitch either towards high positive or negative AoA above stall limits (YouTube is again a very reliable and good asset of information, whatever some narrow minded won't accept) and always came back below the airflow reattachment AoA (must mention that physically the AoA required to reattach the airflow over the low pressure area, the AoA must go well below the stall AoA, so getting to just 0.5 degrees lower than the stall AoA won't be enough to get rid of the stall) without much pitch dance effort. The same goes for the F-18. The same goes for the MIG-29, both in reality as well as they are currently modeled in DCS for this aspect alone. These are all fine and don't inexplicably remain stuck at some negative AoA when the elevators are deflected fully negative (that means full pitch up deflection).

What in the world is going on with the DCS Su-27 that besides the abnormal forward CG shifts at various fuel percentages which makes it abnormally stable in pitch at positive AoAs, even with that abnormal forward CG if you ever go beyond -20 AoA the plane starts pitching down like crazy as if the whole horizontal empennage disappears (I exaggerate) or it's lift becomes close to zero all the way up to some -50 or -60 AoA where things kind of get back to normal. When the CG is where it should and the Su-27 can reach some higher positive AoA (yet still not as high as the real thing), it becomes virtually impossible to bring it back from -50 AoA without dozens of pitch up/down dances. Also ED's DCS F-18C has a bad habit to go and stay an in inverted deep stall like a big coil spring is pulling and keeping it at some high negative AoA whenever you have the flaps out and also happen to push the stick beyond a low negative AoA. The Cm in the aerodynamic center gets too much negative on the F-18 with flaps out. For this reason when taking off with it, even at full aft stick, you will barely lift the nose wheel off the ground cause the whole plane already lifts off at quite an abnormally high speed. You can't lift the nose wheel up as soon as for any regular jet fighter by far! Mover (a guy invited to try the DCS F-18) should be a good source of telling this, not me, I only "feel" and "I think" and I'm the most unreliable source of info or opinion when it comes to noticing something abnormal, but at least you should ask him! Simply you can't reach the real AoA in the DCS F-18 with flaps out. Simply the flaps on the DCS F-18 create an exaggerated pitch down moment. Yeah, I know I started taking a corner to talk about other important jet fighters FM issues which otherwise must be related separately, but I just wanted to remind them.

  • Like 1

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2022 at 8:45 PM, Maverick Su-35S said:

There was the exact graph that someone else has also posted regarding the F-15's turning performance and guess what, it's like "in your face..." proof that the DCS F-15 is overperforming at turn rates in DCS!

DCS F-15C has -220s, not -100s, mind you.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/1/2018 at 8:15 PM, jackmckay said:

For F-15 it is known that it gets heyvy buffeting at peak turn rate high AoA and pilots must ease out becouse of heavy vibrations also becouse it has no LE stats to keep laminar airflow on wing. That was MD's trade for speed to reach Foxbat, rember mach 2.5? So eagle shouldnt perform STR better than LE slatted planes.

Exactly man! Although you didn't get into details as I will right now in order to convince the following quoted negativist that you are not wrong when comparing the F-15 without LE devices with other modern jet fighter which have that and the answer is pretty simple although I must detail it for the sake of correct understanding!

On 3/1/2018 at 8:17 PM, Vitormouraa said:

What's your source for this? Are you just guessing? Otherwise, that's not a valid argument; Saying the X shouldn't perform STR better than Y isn't helping. See, someone pulled up some charts from the manual and we checked it, they match each other.

 

Let's do that with the Eagle too. I'm aware that we don't have ITR charts though.

 

When extended, the effects of leading edge devices (slats, krueger and droops) are as follows:

1. Increase the critical AoA by having the airflow gain a greater kinetic energy (take it as inertia) over the low pressure area of the wing (normally the upper side for conventional LE devices) and get prone to deceleration and subsequent flow reversal/separation at a higher AoA. This can be seen as a prolonged lift slope before the stall AoA is reached, but the lift slope also finds an amount of increase (CL to AoA derivative slightly increases).

2. The CD vs AoA curve will have greater drag coefficients throughout the AoA range but the most pronounced increase takes place as the AoA gets closer to zero and negative as premature stalls will start to develop on the lower side of the leading edge device before the airflow meets the lower side on the leading edge of the wing. An undesired recirculation area develops between the leading edge device and leading edge of the wing either at the slot (for slats) or at the hinge (for droops) at low AoAs and high leading edge devices deflections. For this reason the leading edge devices control system is designed to follow a deflection versus AoA law in order to achieve the best lift to drag ratio at every given AoA. Although both the lift slope and drag curve increase with AoA (the drag increase being more pronounced at lower AoA as I repeat), the lift increase percentage becomes higher than the drag increase percentage at AoAs anywhere usually higher than 40% the critical AoA and all the way up to critical. So from 0.4 to 1.0 times the stall AoA, the L/D ratio actually has an relative increase compared to a wing without leading edge devices present or extended. Now, yes, the slats will give the highest increase in both lift slope, critical AoA increase and lift to drag increase and, while the simple droops will give a smaller increase, but it's there.

Due to the increase in L/D ratio, the airplane equipped with such devices will always have a better constant turn rate compared to the same aircraft without them or having them retracted as even 1,2..3 degrees per second of constant turn rate difference can be achieved depending on devices. The increase in critical AoA will otherwise greatly impact the difference in ITR even by almost double.

Speaking of top speed though, there is available documentation regarding the F-86 Sabre with leading edge devices versions and without them. The LE devices versions were more capable in turning performances as well as taking off and landing behavior and also performances, but the versions without LE devices proved to have slightly better acceleration and top speed. The same goes for the F-4 Phantom where the non slatted versions exhibited lower critical AoAs as well as a feared and almost unannounced (little to no symptoms) wing stall and subsequent "nose slice" phenomena which was basically a violent uncommanded and unable to counter yaw generated mostly by the nose of the F-4 as the vertical tail had less effectiveness (along with the rudder) which rapidly reduced the directional static stability (up to becoming directionally unstable), hence the subsequent yawing moment. The non-slatted version, like the F-86, benefited from a higher top speed and a somewhat better longitudinal acceleration.

As Jackmckay said, the F-15 was purposely made without LE devices (learned from the F-4) in order to have a much cleaner and smoother leading edge, thus benefiting from a given amount of drag coef reduction especially at low AoA. The leading edge devices, no matter how well the technology has evolved, will always generate an uneven contour where the device meets the wing in the retracted position. That small bump that the air finds in it's path is still enough to create some unwanted pressure waves which create a drag coef increase at all flight regimes.

What the man obviously wanted to compare to the conventional F-15 was not an F-86 without LE devices as you might want to say..., cause yes, the F-86F-30 which doesn't have them actually might get a better constant turn rate against a LE devices equipped M-2000 or F-18E or MIG-29 due to the combination of very low wing loading combined with a good lift to drag ratio and good enough thrust to drag ratio in the same equation, but a normal F-15C without LE devices as he strictly referred to will indeed never prove the performances of a modern jet fighter (not F-86F-30) in terms of turning capability (rates and turning radius). The M-2000 has a maximum lift coefficient increase of about 70% over Mirage III (which had about 0.75 as a maximum lift coef after all).

Regards!

2 hours ago, Guppy said:

**Wall of text crits you for 9000**

**Dead**

I can see you're happy playing LoL type games that may only fit your character...! Why bother trolling on a flight sim forum them?

  • Like 1

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, draconus said:

DCS F-15C has -220s, not -100s, mind you.

Yes, but the difference is very low and yet for the worse in terms of maximum AB thrust! Verify it yourself! The early yet afterburner problematic -100 produced some 200+lbf compared to the later overhauled 220.

o7


Edited by Maverick Su-35S

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Maverick Su-35S said:

Yes, but the difference is very low and yet for the worse in terms of maximum AB thrust! Verify it yourself! The early yet afterburner problematic -100 produced some 200+lbf compared to the later overhauled 220.

o7

 

At sea level, once you get around mach .8 the 220 is more powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vEagle Gang stopping by, check the pfp yeah we lift bro. Do you?

Y'all know what the difference between engineering grad students and lowly bachelors-holders is? The latter know when to drop the sort and switch targets, because we actually play the sim. To the point: Source the claims about the Flanker's perceived issues, or stuff like F-15/18 where appropriate, and people will take you seriously. Its really that simple, man! Dissertations on basic aero don't provide substantive argumentation for why the sim is wrong or not - it attempts to beef up personal credibility at the expense of the discussion. Or something like that IMO, anyway, nothing that ain't been pointed out already I guess. I'd also be careful to note certain features (tm) about certain aircraft (tm) that may affect certain flight regimes (tm). Funny though that the Eagle has pretty unremarkable wings...eh? 🤔

Lord of Salt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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