SwingKid

Still downloading... Please, someone, just tell me there's no attack on a littoral aircraft carrier battle-group, I'll be happy for one day I promise :) -SK

I have no plans for Black Shark at this time. -SK

Does Combat Tree count? -SK

ICAO codes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airports_in_Georgia_%28country%29 Gudauta: "UG23" (?) http://www.fallingrain.com/apts/2636.html Посмотреть/нажмать под "Navaids" для детали приводов: http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=GG56147 http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=GG00007 http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=GG00008 http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=GG00009 http://www.worldaerodata.com/wad.cgi?id=GG00003 З.Ы. Видели русский "VOR-DME?" http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=338659#post338659 -SK

No jumping the queue!! ;) -SK

Good question! ;) :thumbup: -SK

Exactly. Bwah hah hah! Victory is mine! :) -SK

Oh my God. After all that, NOT ONE comparison to miniZAP. You are too cruel. :D The pdf that keeps on giving. After you've had your fill of the Sidewinder, you realize the "variant" they're talking about has nothing to do with the Mike - rather, it's early AMRAAM research. My cup runneth over. :D -SK

http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/betaforum/aim9lperf.jpg No comment. ;) -SK

Well! You can say THAT again! Jackpot. Gold Mine. That pdf has EVERYTHING they never wanted me to know about the AIM-9L! Range vs. altitude, drag breakdown vs. Mach, impulse profile vs. time... I sure wish I had this a few years ago when I was writing miniZAP. Just goes to show... all this time, it wasn't classified! :) -SK

I love it when GG responds to noobs. So mercilessly quick, so pitilessly unhelpful. :) for aimmaverick: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=326200#post326200 -SK

Purchased and downloaded - will review. Thanks! -SK

For Lock On's SFM F-15C, the lift bonus is much smaller - only 5%, one-third wingspan (3 meters) above the ground. However, for the F-15, this seems to be accurate (see Fig. 8 ): http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88337main_H-1999.pdf If your sink rate to the runway is only about 100-200 feet per second, then you should notice it. I think most of us usually sink much faster though, and plough right through it. -SK

Regarding: a command to enable/disable afterburner I understand. It may not seem intuitive to model detent switches by a toggle key, but based on Falcon 3.0 experience, this method worked well and "felt" good. Much more precise and controllable than the clicking detent "bumps" on my HOTAS Cougar throttle, for example, or trying to find the afterburner setting on a regular throttle without reference. I put markings on my throttle for the afterburner position, but that's still not enough, because the position changes in Lock On, depending whether the throttle is being increased or decreased. Regarding: a command to disallow wingmen from using afterburner Actually, this is why I think it is useful. If I fly in a fuel-restricted MiG-29 to bomb a distant target, then I want my wingman to stay "roughly" in formation with me on the way to the target, but not so strictly that he's using afterburner to try and match my precise maneuvers. On its own, the AI seems to use afterburner for every 500-meter climb, regardless the distance between the waypoints of the climb. I would like the ability to restrict him from using the afterburner during the ingress/egress, and then allow him to use it in combat. Too often when we get to the combat zone, my wingmen are trying to land and refuel - at the same enemy airbase that we're supposed to attack. Regarding: ground effect After some more testing and research, I'm surprised - AMAZED - to discover that there IS a ground effect in Lock On, both for SFM and AFM - and, it even seems to have the correct value! I have to wonder, then, how none of us managed to notice it before - even when looking for it! It must be another of those, "you can only sense it with your butt" things. Congratulations.. -SK

Hi Rhen, I looked at your track, and agree with Yo-Yo - it seems that you have the throttle set a bit lower than we did. Nevertheless, it seems that we all finally have the same conclusion about mil-power high altitude performance. I think it would be a good idea to have an optional key control to simulate the detent switch for afterburners - a sort of "afterburner toggle" as we had in Falcon 3.0. That way the player could slam the throttle full forward for mil power and not have to worry about starting the burners if he didn't want to. I would also like a wingman command to disallow wingmen from using their own afterburners (to save fuel for long flights), but neither of these ideas received much of a response when I suggested them. What do you think? Also, I'm looking again at the performance in max power near sea level. If I read the Dash-1 correctly, it seems to say that a 40,000 lb F-15 should take about 10 seconds to get to 5,000' in a max-power, 40-degree climb. I'm getting about 14 seconds. On the other hand, ground roll should be 1000 feet, and I'm getting about 1160 in Lock On. It still seems a bit underpowered at sea level to me, but I can't tell if it's by a lot or a little, and above 5000' things seem to agree again. Could you take a look and see if I'm doing anything obviously wrong? http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/f15maxcl.zip Thanks in advance, -SK

I calculate about 42,000 lbf, assuming no "ram loss", no installation loss, no aerodynamic drag, no gravity in an 80-degree-climb, no transonic shock wave, no induced drag from a 5 G pull-up, no wheel friction or any other source of resistance. All of these need to be added into the total, to yield the Streak Eagle's total bench thrust of about 52,000 lbf. Therefore, ALL of these sources of resistance put together seem to average only about (52,000-42,000=) 10,000 lbf. So, if ALL of the resistance comes from installation loss alone, and all other friction during flight is zero, then yes - we can estimate from this data that the installation loss is around 20%. Right or wrong, I'm just putting that out there, as something to consider. -SK

Intersting stuff, thanks. Since Yo-Yo has apparently decided that it is no longer stupid to draw conclusions from "totally different aircraft" - like your MiG-23 and -25 data towards the Su-27 - I wonder if it wouldn't be anymore too off-topic if, after 33 pages of discussion, we finally consider the Streak Eagle: http://www.ecf.utoronto.ca/~pavacic/lomac/f15climb07.jpg I invite you (or anyone) to estimate, whatever way you like, what minimum force is required to accelerate a 28,000+ lb mass through the speed of sound in 23 seconds? -SK

Agreed. So, I think Rhen maybe should subtract about 20 seconds from all of his "Dash-1" times in post #273. In that case, the Lock On F-15C may no longer appear to be "overpowered" at low altitude. :punch: -SK

Rhen - where are these numbers coming from? Is this what you measured in Lock On? In Lock On, my 40,000 lb F-15C takes only 37 seconds to reach 350 kts under mil power. By my estimate, the real jet should take only 30 seconds. This seems to be giving us disagreement in our other numbers, when measuring from brake release. Yo-Yo, how much time did it take for you to reach 350 kts in your track, from brake release? -SK

Yes, I made another math error; good to check twice. In fact, our figures seem to agree well. Not enough sleep. :doh: Thanks for patience. -SK

"Где доказательство?" ;) It would have been good to say that so clearly, two years ago: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=7066&page=3&highlight=%FD%EA%F0%E0%ED%ED%FB%E9+%FD%F4%F4%E5%EA%F2 ...because then, we could discuss it. The Russian testers in that topic found no detectable evidence of a ground effect in Flaming Cliffs AFM, and neither did I when I made my own tests. I defer to Rhen's opinion on this one though - is the ground effect properly modeled for F-15 landings? These are two different things - can you clarify? Decreasing induced drag will increase L/D, that I understand - but I don't understand how decreasing D would increase CL. In my experience, both as pilot and observer, the fighter plane will often "bounce" from the ground effect as it tries to land, because it's so strong - and the pilot reduces the engines to idle power in order to land gently through it while decelerating. This is very different from what I'm accustomed to in Lock On. -SK

Rhen, How is your Dash-1 giving you 376.8 seconds (> 6 minutes) to 40,000 feet? Do we have contradicting Dash-1s? Unless I'm reading it wrong, my own says 296 s (less than 5 minutes): i.e. your Dash-1 says it takes 124 seconds to go from 30,000 to 40,000 - -mine says only 52 seconds, less than half? This may be important to resolve before Yo-Yo starts making changes. I notice that you also seem to have data for 2,500 feet and 7,500 feet also. Different version? :dunno: -SK

Can someone tell me what was Yo-yo's time to 30,000 feet in this track? I can't play it. :( -SK

Rhen - the times and distances you cite from the "Dash-1" don't match my own, since they were measured from brake release. Didn't you suggest the Dash-1 data is only valid from the moment of reaching 350 kcas, starting the climb? Would it be difficult for you to revise your table, subtracting out the take-off run data? I think that it will still show, what you want it to show - it will just save us another 200 GGTharos posts if we all do what he says. :rolleyes: ;) Seriously though, if you are just assuming 2 nm/60 seconds for acceleration to 350 KCAS according to the Dash-1 - I thought we had agreed this was inaccurate. I think that would explain why Lock On seems to "outperform" the Dash-1 at low alt. IMO, it's actually underperforming the real jet. IMHO, takeoff flaps can only help properly if ground effect is modeled. It isn't in Lock On - not even for AFM. Therefore, I was unsure whether to include them would be better. Also - can you explain again why the "Dash-1" fuel is different between your upper and lower charts? Is that a typo? Which are the correct figures to compare with the Lock On data? -SK

Someone recently contributed this, but I don't have time to study it. If it's accurate, then maybe it can help with determination of L/D. -SK