Rhen

8,000Lbs works only for refueling heavy aircraft. For fighter aircraft, it's a 4,000Lb transfer rate because the number of air refueling pumps used for fighters is lower. Then there's the plumbing in the fighter which can restrict this rate further. If you refuel a fighter like a heavy, you'll blow the fighter off the boom. The drogue, because it's a hose & not a pipe, refuels slower than the boom system. The important things to look at are airspeeds for refueling - they're different for different aircraft, procedures, etc. Unless we're going somewhere, fighters like to refuel in an anchor, where the fighter does the rendezvous. That way, we don't have to go to the IP constantly and can show up anywhere in the anchor area. The next best is a point-parallel in the anchor, but we've got to fly to the IP for that. Then there's the "Quick Flow" procedure to rapidly get fighters cycled onto the boom. That speeds things up considerably and is a little more fun. But, as you can see, there's lots of stuff wrong with LOMAC refueling - at least when it comes to Western procedures.:doh:

Ok, at M2.25, things start to change regarding the inlet pressures and the FTIT. This causes a new portion of the aircraft/engine envelope to develop. This happens at 34K at M2.25. The slope of this line increases with increasing FTIT - as in an engine operating with less margin (102%). Sorry, not a sloppy graph, just one scanned poorly. I've got a hard copy of the F-15-1 and it's easier to read, but that pesky line's still there! That's pretty theoretical - as a pilot... (here we go again :smilewink:) I'm only interested in how fast I can go and how quickly I can do it without bending the jet. While you can eliminate some of the temperature perturbations in the data, compressibility is still a factor once you start crossing mach numbers above a certain value. Then you start to get into a backflow problem with the pressures from the afterburner section interfering with the N1 fan. Time/temperature/airframe/structural limits are ALL ops limits. These are what we call - "PASS THIS LINE, THERE BE DRAGONS." If you value your aircraft or your hide, you trespass these lines at your peril. The risk/benefit ratio has to be worth it. You can also take the "hashed lines" as being inside a secondary envelope, that's time limited. Past the point of safety, or beyond the limits of the envelope, you've just changed hats from fighter pilot to test pilot. Just one question for you... Is this still a MADDOG thread? :smilewink:

The difference you're referring to is STILL the time limit on the engine. Everything in the hash-lined region is the time limit. This time limit is MORE RESTRICTIVE for the 102% engine since the temps that the engine's running at are higher, thus the slope of the ops limited area is greater for the 102% engine vs the 95% engine. Just because you're using graphed data doesn't make it extrapolated!:D The reason for use of the vanilla STD Day data is that the entire curve is, more or less, within the confines of the envelope. There, we can see that at 45,000ft, the F-15 trimmed at 102% can stay pretty darn close to M2.3 all day long without any limitations while the F-15 trimmed to 95% can only hope to make M2.07, proving the aircraft generating more thrust is the one trimmed to a higher percentage of FTIT, right? I mean, after all, as a pilot, all I want to know is how quick can I get to a speed at a given altitude and when do I run into the ops limit/structural/whatever - brick wall. Actually where you have the mark is STD -7C day. The actual mark at 36K would have to be EXTRAPOLATED! :smilewink::P Quite true. Here's where you're wrong - The time-limited portion of the 102% graph is responsible for the slope of the curve changing at 34K. It's slope is greater for the 102% trimmed engine; thus the time-limit (ops limit) comes into play and restricts - to a greater extent than the 95% trimmed engine - the mach number that can be achieved. While the 102% trimmed engine can accelerate the Eagle faster and to a higher mach number, near the edge of the envelope it will also hit the "brick wall" faster than it would normally because it's operating at a higher FTIT. You're right, and Frost1e's pointed out why: ...which is due to the time-limited nature of operating a hotter engine. Clear as mud?:smilewink::smartass:

You're wanting to exit the confines of the envelope and extrapolate performance. While an interesting exercise, it nevertheless will yield theory, rather than practice. Look at the confines of the envelope. The 102% trimmed engine will outperform the lower trimmed engines. However, as you've surmised, the advantages are at the edges of the envelope. So, I'll have to concede that you're right when you see a difference in the ops limit there. What you're looking at is a time-limited "brick wall" that the 102% trimmed engine hits before the lower trimmed engines. Better performance is achieved by increasing the FTIT, which is time-limited at high mach and operating temperatures - obviously. BUT!!! When you look at STD day and operate within the confines of the envelope, there's really no UNEXPECTED differences here. Does that kinda answer your question, Goya? :D

Depends on our loadout and how many bags, but M1 is a VERY conservative guesstimate. Kick it up a bit more.

Yes, GOYA :P. The ops limit really is not different. If there was such a curve as std day -20, the 102% trimmed aircraft would reach M2.5 at around 32K - extrapolating that data. But Frostie's correct, above 37k, temps are pretty stagnant. SwingKid's mistake WAS in the extrapolating. But, let's stick with the data we have, & just compare standard day at a given altitude: For 95% Trim @ 36K STD day we get - oh, about M2.16 For 102% Trim@ 36K STD day we get - oh, about M2.3 Seems like the higher trimmed aircraft gives more thrust, right?

You're making a similar error SwingKid made in reading the chart. The 95% Trim side shows the Eagle NEVER making M2.5 (it makes just shy of M2.4). The 102% Trimmed engine makes it to M2.5 (actually faster, but it hits the "brick wall" of the ops limit right at M2.5) I believe this chart denotes an Eagle that's 35,000Lbs, so it's pretty damn light & has a -100 engine rather than the 220.

Well then, you need to "buff" up your knowledge. The "REAL" RED FLAG was made exactly for a guy like you. RED FLAGs purpose is to get a pilot the combat experience he/she needs to survive in real combat engagement(s). It's a learning experience first and foremost where you practice all you've learned in an environment as close as you can get to a real war. This assumes that you're a combat capable pilot already - that is, a pilot who already knows the basics of flying and fighting with the aircraft. If you don't know the basics, you need to learn first and be capable of performing the mission of your wing/group/squadron. The LOMAC/online version isn't nearly as geared towards the learning experience that the "REAL" RED FLAG is. However, I'd commend it's effort and participants for providing this opportunity to participate in an organized online war.

Hi Goya, Range increases to 50% for M1.5 and continues to increase (not gonna tell you when it begins to plateau off :noexpression:) through the supercruise ranges for the Raptor. Going into the hypersonic realm is beyond my area of expertise as I don't have a need to really care at this point. :lol:

The real question for a pilot is the effective range of the weapon in question. Range is effectively increased by 40% (or more) when accelerating from M0.9 to M1.3 before release of the Slammer. This allows the missile enough energy at terminal maneuver to make a successful kill. We train to be high (where the Eagle likes it), and fast at release. That and the optimum autopilot flight path in the Slammer guidance system allows ranges to increase significantly without changing weight, motor, or missile design characteristics. Only software (autopilot flight path) and release point are necessary to increase it's range. That's why the -120D looks the same but has a significantly increased range.

Then you'd be wrong. http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=22546 Yo-Yo's already said that he promises to fix this.

Heh, same place i found them as well. The music's the same, just a little slower in cadence.

North & South Korea both use the same music, it's the lyrics that have been altered. If you've got a genuine copy of the DPRK song, it starts out with "Ach'imŭn pinnara i kangsan" or Let morning shine. You can find the national anthem here South Korea's national anthem ALSO is the same music, which you can listen to here, the words of which start out with "Donghae mulgwa Baekdusani mareugo daltorok" which mean "Until the East Sea's waters..." So, yes, the same music, but different lyrics.

I use ECM for what it was designed to do IRL: 1) Deny Lock 2) Break Lock 3) Trash a missile solution :smilewink:

Do some research before you believe all that's being said around here. If by version, you mean 32 v 64, it depends on your hardware and more specifically how much memory you expect to have now or in the future. If you have more than 2Gig memory or expect to buy more than that in the future, then to be able to address the memory, you've got to have a 64 bit OS. The people that say that you can't run LO and Vista64 are full of crap. :smilewink: I currently run Vista 64 without any problems with LO. I do have an occasional problem with TS and RW since the drivers for SoundBlaster cards are still beta so there's an occasional crash from that. I did have problems with loud engine noises at one point using Vista 64/32, but that's been fixed with Alchemy. Video drivers (64 bit) seem to be firming up as the 8xxx NVidia stuff appears pretty stable right now, at least for me. The only LO problem I have is when using anisotropic filtering and cloud densities of 9 or greater, causes LO to crash. If I turn aniso off, there's no problem. But since I run at 1920x1050, I don't notice any problems with that. BTW, all my settings in LO are maxed and antialiasing is set at 16x, and quality. As for those that have a Cougar, well I've got one of those too, and what I've been doing is using a dual boot of Vista 32 & 64. Vista 32 to calibrate and download profiles, and everything else using Vista 64. Vista compatible beta drivers are now out for the Cougar, and despite the fact that they're for Vista 32, they'll still work for 64. Vista 64 specific drivers are soon to follow - supposedly:music_whistling: So, bottom line, best version of Vista to get is Ultimate (upgrade - to save some money). With that you can dual boot EITHER Vista version (32/64) without Microsoft moaning about keys, as long as it's on the same computer. Between the two, you can load 32 for now and then 64 later, if you want. Still, IMO, 64 bit is the future. Oh, one other thing. Just because you have FSX + SP1, and Vista, doesn't mean that you're using DX10. You're not. FSX, FSX + SP1, are both DX9 products. A DX10 patch is supposed to be released some time in the fall. Until then, you're using a DX9 product.

Hmm... I fly with everything max'd out in LOMAC. High everything. With respect to the video card itself, the only thing I don't have is Anisotropic filtering. It causes the game to crash when cloud density is greater than 8 & I like to fly with some weather no matter what.

Sorry, can't let this thread go. SwingKid: The reason why ground effect is relatively undetectable by "us pilots" is because the aircraft doesn't behave appropriately. When a swept-wing aircraft enters ground effect, the deflection in air flow, decrease in induced drag, all combine to cause a nose-down pitching moment. At this point, any excess thrust or airspeed is converted to lift as the pilot flares the aircraft. The aircraft will balloon, possibly exiting ground effect (which occurs approx 0.3-0.5xwingspan in altitude). The aircraft may stall (or a wing might stall, causing a "sabre dance") or cause the aircraft to have a hard landing. You must read that NASA study for content. All the approach angles were made at less than normal. We try to fly a 3 degree glidepath to the approach end of the runway, roughly. The study was made to examine dynamic ground effect and its relationship to a control surface malfunction - in preparation for a future study on using throttle to control the aircraft in pitch, roll, yaw. The study above requires shallow glidepaths, where minimal flare would be required to safely touchdown. Bottom line: It's hard for a pilot to detect ground effect in this sim because the aircraft doesn't behave appropriately in the flare. A little experiment to confirm the presence of ground effect, for those who are interested is to fly the aircraft to the point of flare, power on, in a shallow 1-2 degree glidepath (shallow angle). Pull power above the threshold and hold the aircraft off the runway as long as possible. You will notice the LOMAC F-15 will begin to pitch up on its own and you might have to push the stick over to control this pitch up tendency. You should touch down slower than in-flight stall speed in the landing configuration (which confirms the presence of ground effect). Next experiment. Do the above, but don't pull power when you flare the aircraft. When you flare, try to fly just above the runway without touching. You should accelerate if there's ground effect.

Regardless of who wants what, it's the US Congress that makes policy here. Arms Export Control Act hasn't been repealed and it prevents the sale of the F-22 in particular and its associated (stealth) technology, to any foreign nation until 2015. This was to prevent access to technology by foreign nations via spying (the more nations having a piece of technology, the more chance of espionage being successful). The other reason was to prevent former friends (like Venezuela) from selling it off. Finally, the production of an export version of the F-22 would cost over US$1Billion, and add to the cost. There was some noise in July 2006 in the House about repealing the exception to F-22 export, but it was killed in conference committee with the Senate. The military doesn't make this policy, it's the Congress of the United States, which controls the purse strings and writes the laws.

It's an apparent bug in the SFM - high AOA behavior, where the aircraft continues to pitch UP despite decreasing airspeed and increasing AOA. It happens with all SFM aircraft. It would appear that you're landing the aircraft right at this point. Carrying an extra 3knots or so at touchdown will prevent this. Is this realistic? Nope. Nevertheless, you can continue doing what you're doing, just be aware of the tendency and push the stick forward to prevent scraping the burner cans in pointy jets (Eagle, Flanker, Fulcrum).

You can try the vista versions here. Just remember, they're still Beta, although I'm using 158.24 for Vista-64 without problems, and maxed out.

Yo-Yo, Are the HUD airspeed indications not in KCAS or the Mach readout in error? The Dash-1 numbers are based on instrument readings within the cockpit - specifically KCAS and Mach. The performance is based upon what's these instruments show. If the HUD airspeed indications are valid - showing appropriate KCAS and Mach, then these should be used for all airspeed benchmarks. Using a computed TAS can cause the flight profile between the points to be in error - slightly slow or fast airspeed indications, which affect the slope. Here's another chart of Time downrange vs Distance. This chart shows the slope of the climb. The slopes, as you've said do indeed match up fairly well, however, as you can see the slope isn't the whole picture. If the LOMAC F-15 were performing similarly to the Dash-1, the altitudes that they arrive at should match HORIZONTALLY. That is, each aircraft should arrive at the same altitude with the same delta in time and distance. This would show a line similar to the Dash-1 slope, but skewed to the left/right a specific percentage. It does not show this, as you can see from the chart. The altitudes don't match closely on the horizontal axis after 10,000ft. You can make the argument that low altitude performance of the LOMAC F-15 closely APPROXIMATES the real F-15, but above 10,000ft, you can see it diverges significantly (appears more than a 15% divergence in performance).

It's because there's other charts that do 38k, 39k, 42k, but no 40k, like the acceleration charts. But regardless, the LOMAC F-15 should be tested over multiple gross weights to determine any performance discrepancies.

For some reason, I'm having problems attaching the attachment to the post. 2nd try. F-15 4040 1.zip

Yes, these numbers are from LOFC. Everytime I fly a 40,000Lb aircraft I get within 4 sec of a minute when doing a MIL power takeoff. AGAIN!!!:P I must emphasize that you must PERFORM THE DASH-1 CLIMB PROCEDURE FOR THE APPROPRIATE THROTTLE SETTING!!!:smilewink: The reason why you're getting 37 sec, is because you're holding the aircraft on the deck and not establishing a 10degree nose up rotation attitude and maintaining until 350KCAS. What we're trying to do here is act like test pilots. We're comparing our flight test data against a true benchmark - the Dash-1 data - which is based itself on flight test data. The only way to validate any data obtained in our experiment is to compare equivalent aircraft with equivalent performance (that's what we're trying to establish, right? Whether the LOMAC F-15 is equivalent to the real thing.) by measuring data using equivalent technique. There's one other thing that hasn't been established yet - the validation of the measuring equipment. To obtain correct data, we must all agree on the measuring instrument. I've been using the HUD airspeed and Mach # indications. IRL, the info on the HUD comes from the ADC, so they're KCAS. What I don't understand is what Yo-Yo's using to determine the intersection of 350KCAS and M0.9. From what I observed, he seems to be TLAR'ing to hit a precomputed KCAS at 5000ft altitude increments, since it looks a little fast. I've attached a track for your convenience. All timing is made by hitting "Ctrl+Backspace" and recording brake release time and time to each altitude, then subtracting brake release time from that. http://forum.lockon.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=10771&d=1178246839

I don't really notice that there is ground effect in LOMAC... :huh: Came as a surprise to me as well. The aircraft should balloon during the flare if there's any excess airspeed crossing the threshold. Ground effect shifts the top of the curve up and to the left, thus increasing the lift coefficient and decreasing the angle of attack - which decreases induced drag.... IIRC my aero.:smilewink: