SgtPappy

No no, I very much understand the altitude slice is a cone. I'm not studying radar types, antennas, scan zones, main and side lobe clutter and the rest at school for no reason :) What I'm saying is that say the bandit is at 15000'. Im zoomed in at 40 nm on my display, scanning between altitudes 0 - 25000'. I cannot see him on the scope anymore, he disappeared. I zoom out on the display to 80 nm with the alt. scan zone between 0 - 40000' for example. He reappears and is still around 15000'. At all times, I believe he is smack dab in the middle of display (i.e. I'm never at gimbal limits). Is this possible? Because it seems like that's what is happening. If it's not, then maybe the heat of the combat is just making me lose concentration.

Right. As I mentioned, although not explicitly, I was changing my PRF modes from Interleaved to High and eventually back. Perhaps he was far too much in the clutter as I couldn't pick him up even in HI PRF. Could my scan zones have somthing to do with it as well? I notice that as I zoom out on the display from 40nm to 80nm the altitude scan zone will increase from say 0 to 22000' to say, 0 to 40000' and sometimes they will show up. And correct me if I'm wrong, but sometimes they will show up at an altitude like angels 15 where I should have been able to see them before.

I've been experiencing some issues using the APG-70 radar of the F-15C in FC3. I was playing on the excellent 1980's weapons -=WAR=- Steel Beasts server flying in the North West part of the map where there are no mountains or hills at all. I finally find a target only to lose it completely even though he has locked on to me. So now I'm flying at around maybe 18000' to avoid Strelas and he's firing at me, from 12 o'clock. Of course he's either much higher than me or much lower but I still get nothing on the radar if I face up or point down. Yet he's still painting me. I'm left my radar in interleaved and my scan zone at max. I then tried TWS or a combination of different PRF modes, TWS and scan zone sizes. Still nothing. Next thing I know, a Strela shoots me in the face after I had lost enough altitude. Am I doing something wrong?

Just wondering out of curiosity, how does this affect your decision to purchase/not purchase FC3? At any rate, many MANY things have changed since FC1. In FC2 I managed to get an F-15 (fitted with all pylons but no weapons) to Mach 2.484 at 35,500' which corresponds to about 1642 mph at that altitude. I would imagine FC3 is similar. Comparing to the official manual for the F-15A/C, this is pretty darn close to the real thing. Some people have gotten it slightly faster.

Awesome! I found the book. Hopefully I can grab the info I need. Thanks for the suggestion.

I'm doing a research project for my navigation course at school and I need to find some good references for radar research that will relate to my course material. The navigation course relates mostly to the mathematical problems involved in finding the position, velocity, altitude and attitude of an aircraft in space and relating these parameters to different frames of reference. There is a lot of linear algebra and a bit of vector calculus involved. The books I have on radar mostly look at radar range, PRF's, power output and the like, but I need to compare radar sets (i.e. cassegrain antenna vs. planar array) in context to my course material. Perhaps comparing the errors of the two antennas when tracking a 25m^2 RCS target at 20 nm out). Anyone have some good books for that kind of comparison or have any good ideas for me to research that relates to linear algebraic theories in navigation? Thanks!

Interesting... well that at least means it can be fixed by going backwards.

I am having this problem as well. I wish I knew what was going on!

Ahh that's too bad. But thanks for the info! I will, as pepin said, try flying on my own with just missile labels off then turn them all off and get used to it. Though the AI does suck at flying, they are good enough to find you much faster than most humans can. And they are more aggressive than in FC2.

Sorry, do you mean in the Controls menu? I have control over my own labels but if I start a server or build a mission, I can only enforce whether the labels are all shown or not. I want the labels for the aircraft, ships and vehicles to remain visible, but I want the missile labels to be off for every client in the server. Is this possible to set in the mission editor or the server?

Is it possible to turn off only the missile labels when creating a mission or launching a server? My friends and I like to play against AI a lot since we can face many different kinds of enemies in different scenarios. I want to start removing just the missile labels (and soon all the labels) for all clients but it seems the mission can only enforce turning off all labels or none. Thanks!

I too, am still on FC2. Been trying to find someone to play WVR with (heaters only or gunzo). I'm in need of some practise defeating Su-27's against my F-15.

Wait what? I'm just evaluating the maximum sustained turn rates of the two planes. And that happens to be at sea level.

Ahhh I see. I though as much. That makes so much sense! In real life, the pilot has to notify the ground crew if the plane is flown over the rated sustained limit right? In which case we'd have a lot of pissed off ground crew in the game...

Perhaps I am mistaken but I was looking at threads which were posted when the FC2 patch came out to correct the F-15 turn rate below Ma = 0.6 and it seems that there is a discrepancy with the F-15's corner speed versus the published number. I'm not sure what the graphs are like in FC3 now, but in FC2, looking only at sustained turn rate corner velocity, the clean F-15 reaches max STR at 1050 km/h. That is the graph that Yo-Yo had posted for F-15C performance http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=52006&page=11: Looking at the -1, the STR values are a little lower, but the corner speed is different at about Ma = 0.72 which equates to about 882 km/h at standard sea level conditions. Take a look here: I am more than likely screwing up something myself here, so can anyone clarify to me what I'm looking at that may be incorrect? Thanks!

More and more I'm learning the lesson of fighting at CV. I too come from a Strike Fighters 2 background so I'm used to fighting in that kind of style. Corner velocity is important there too, but I bet it's even more important here. I've seen videos of some amazing F-15 pilots keeping there speed right up until the end when they pull hard to get a shot out. But until I get some cash and the missing cockpit glitch in FC3 sorted out, I'm going to get myself a copy of the beta. After that point, Hellfire, I'd be glad to train heaters/gunzo with you. I still have FC2 installed though, and it's probably a good idea to practise there first.

Ok, so I found another engine. The JTF-17A Turbofan which produces some 38,500 lbf dry thrust! Not quite sure if it's supercruising or not but it was a candidate for the B2707: www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/804527.pdf The Mk. 621 version of the Olympus 593 seems promising too but all these engines were never produced.

Exorcet, no the wings are not full span. The plane istelf has an almost flying wing look to it.. sorta like the one shown here: http://www.boeing.com/Features/2010/06/corp_envision_06_14_10.html In terms of our wings, look at the Boeing SST in the link above and the swivelling portion is where the sweep abruptly decreases. The group has decided to use 6x EJ200's and are considering the last-ditch possibility of extrapolating performance curves from the Olympus 593 into a fictional "modern Olympus".

I was referring to the possibility of using Olympus engines. marcos, unfortunately, the profs wanted something that was faster than the Concorde. It's nuts but that's what they want. Perhaps we can cruise at Mach 1.6, but maximum speed must be greater than the Concorde's ~2.05. Also, our plane has variable sweep and has a 30 foot quiet spike. With the wings swept back, we've got around 70 degrees of sweep and an aircraft length of about 317 ft.

Looks like we'll be using 6x EJ200's if we can find a little more info on dry thrust at higher altitudes. The F119 would have been ideal but there's next to nothing out there in terms of info, probably because the US was never interested in selling them to other countries.

Marcos, I will keep trying! I've got 2 more months of sleepless nights :P Sierra, Technically, the engine we choose doesn't have to be production (i.e. our project requirements never say so) but we will be evaluated by people from Goodrich (UTC), Bombardier, Pratt & Whitney etc. and if we do not use an existent engine, they will grill us for sure. Some information on the F135-100 out there state that the engine is capable of supercruise but it wasn't actually designed to do so. It's a very tempting choice because it's got 28,000 lb dry! It seems that we may have to use 6x EJ200's though. At any rate, first thing's first, I'll get the propulsion guy in our group to find performance graphs concerning TSFC/SFC and thrust vs. altitude.

Lol, of course we read links :P I read your pdf and it's fantastic. I found the specs you posted but what I meant was that we needed curves. As you know, no parameter of an engine is constant at all altitudes and speeds (except maybe size, but even that is a little more obscure for high heat engines, right?) so I was thinking along the lines of graphs. I apologize for forgetting to mention graphs. Thanks for your posts and all this data! We're now looking towards the EJ230 you mentioned, and a buddy of mine is looking for the NK-32, though data for that seems equally hard to come by. Lastly, we're looking into the CTOL F-35A's F135-PW-100 engines. That thing seems like a beast.

Technically it's not a requirement to supercruise at mach 2, although if possible, that'd be fantastic. I think we're aiming to supercruise at around 1.6-1.8. I'll present the case of up to 6 EJ200's, but my group has discounted using turbojets due to the lack of fuel efficiency at low supersonic speed. THanks for the data and presentation, Marcos. Did you manage to find thrust and specific fuel consumption for this F100-PW-232?

Oh man tell me about it! Thanks for the quick input. I thought about the EF-2000's engines but they're a tad too weak for the size of plane we're doing. I'll definitely look into it. Though as I see it now, we'd need 5 or 6 Eurofighter engines. What engine did you use when you designed your plane? It will be about 300 ft long with variable geometry wings. With the wings swept forward and at subsonic speed, canards are needed for stability and a larger moment arm.

Hello, I'm working on a group project for one of my final year courses, in which the requirements are to design a 150-passenger, 12,500 km range, Mach 2.1+ supercruising airliner (doesn't have to supercruise at Mach 2.1). Does anyone have ideas as to what engine I could use that produces over 30,000 lbf of static, wet, sea level, uninstalled thrust? I can't find thrust curves for the newer engines like the F110-GE-132. Info on my ideas I'm trying to find information on low frontal area, low-bypass turbofan engines that can produce 30,000 lbf of static, wet, sea level, uninstalled thrust. The closest I got was the F110-GE-129 and the F100-PW-229. I have thrust and specific fuel consumption for both when installed in an F-16C. Preferably, I would like to utilize the F110-GE-132 as it has massive thrust, but I cannot find performance curves anywhere. I like these smaller engines because they are not much larger in diameter than the Concorde's engine, yet they produce almost as much thrust. Unfortunately, I cannot upload the design here as my group captain has not allowed me, but from preliminary calculations, we assume we need almost as much thrust as the Concorde. We have yet to aerodynamically simulate the aircraft in Fluent. Thanks for your help!