xrx

this needs to be fixed at API level to process VR messages properly, not with glue ntapes

its your/ED product and I'm not the one to offer data, why you asking me questions, I asked for ref tables with ignored answers manual doc doesn't have even basic maneuverability section undocumented implementation product - buy or fly, all I can say, thx

(expected bit more from you, but ok) I tried to bring issue upfront, now you know exactly whats it about, and the choice is yours, everyone will agree if things are right - Thanks again for good work

as you can see flat spin smoke to nose angle 60-80deg, and thats due to elevator authority to get it there, which get AOA way past 35deg

"drag [due] to lift" - additional drag force induced the way the shape creates a lift force and turbulences that come with it affecting initial drag itself - two of them affect each other, known - Thanks

understood, will take it as-is as I said without you guys giving ref tables (and sources) what you modeling flight dynamics into DCS, hard to tell and make sense - aerodynamics I assume not the edge aspect of the sim, hence its called combat sim (schematic some might say), not flight dynamics sim in true aerodynamics form, alot of advanced aerobatics maneuvers bit iffy (due to local lift/drag extrapolated from orthogonal refs which are within aoa low -10..+30deg - thats where tests done most/not full spherical), but again, dont have to agree Thank you, its been well done to what it is right now

there is no blanket statements and dont drag this sideways to reiterate this topic is not about CFTs, engines power, or what we know about each topic is about AOA limit, that clean same total weight F15C & F15E, should have same sustained AOA limit, at least in subsonic range how much those CFTs proportional to entire frontal cross section add drag coefficient at 200-400kn? - marginal, drop it. It only adds drag quadratically due to speed at supersonic speeds (another thread on speed limit, which is another prob, dont try explain as nine grader know hows there is ways to test max altitude speed from max speed at sea level). what is frontal drag coefficient on entire airplane? With and without CFTs. Not even concerned, since it doesn't contribute a lot on AOA limit itself. AOA limits is driven by elevators spec - area and angle. stop sticking nonsense statements troll n sh, everyone did their homework, we just need to agree upon if numbers are right

drag force is measured inside wind tunnel static bolt on and has no matter how much frame weights, it can be hollow box or heavy metal filled box, drag force on object is the same drag coefficient (could be percentage) is measured as part(or in relation) to frontal cross section, or also as part of wing area, if that is coefficient is under or above 2.0 in relation to flat plate depends on object convexity, by definition of the drag formula

I want the same, would like to take a look first what ED has as a ref tables modeling into DCS

drag has no units its a coefficient - get metrics straight and drag has nothing todo with weight either

"Once down to a half fuel load though, it would start to fly like a C" so still holds water, you put same total weight 43k lb on both (read if need again), on nearly same frame (this is not entirely new aircraft/frame, just very minor mods), same wing foil spec, same elevator angle authority and area - result is AOA will be same any speed, and will fly nearly same (limits and moments). excluding the roll moment due to those CFTs, but thats least of focus for now. obviously you put extra 10k lb fuel it will be heavy, so is f15c with extra tanks.

didnt say elevator angle relates to aoa, just saying elevator up range angle is not any lower than f15c, so aoa max limit should be nearly same also I see you got 30deg aoa(40* points) at 200kn turn (but this is max instantaneous, not sustained AOA) why then i cant get same aoa - simply during flat sink, flat spin, or tight loop? nose doesnt go up much, it locks into 25deg (35*) aoa, induced pitch yank doesnt help either

AOA limit depends on elevator up range is same 30deg - assuming same aerocenter and CG for both F15 aircrafts in that case we missing additional 10 deg on AOA limit at least not looking into digital AOA limiter, would like to see what FBW does direct input without nanny cushioning (not sure if f18 ever implemented it) again whats your source tables on AOA limits at various IAS? can you provide specific public pdf documentation?

find it hard to believe side CFTs cause pph fuel rate nearly double at M1.5 compared to F15c (original ED modeling) it adds frontal cross section very minor relatively to the rest of the frame since you dont provide any public ref tables/nor your own, it could be any point in the air

can you make a option switch for IAS/EAS vs CAS this is nothing todo with TAS/GS