USARStarkey

As far as I can tell it is exceeding 1.45 ata without any negative affects without the MW50 activated. When it is on, it goes faster, but aside from testing it in tacview to verify that the only in-cockpit indication of the increased performance is a minuscule increase in rpm. Without turning on the Mw50, ive flown around for an hour at "1.8 ata" but the plane is about 15-20mph slower like this. With the pumps on, the plane goes much faster etc, but not even the sound of the engine changes to indicate increased power. regardless of the MW being on or off, I the guage reads 1.8ata with the throttle full forward.

Yeah I think the gauge is just broken, because with it off, I cant fly around forever without the engine imploding and the performance is less. The aircraft seems to fly correctly though when you shift from one state to the other.

Ok so Ive narrrowed this down a bit. Pressing E moves the switch, and the pressure guage moves quite a bit. However, the ata's remain the same at 1.8. RPM however, moves ever so slightly and I do see a performance difference. I dont know if the gauge is bugged or what. I ran some speed tests and got pretty accurate results with and without Mw50 engaged so the power is certainly there. However, I can crank the ata all the way up to 1.8 without it engaged. I think the gauge is just bugged though because i dont go nearly as fast with the MW50 disengaged.

So I sense that I am doing something wrong, but ill ask anyway. So with everything set to auto, I press the E key to engage MW50. However, it seems to be already engaged no matter what I do. When I start my flight, I am already at 1.8ata simply by advancing the throttle. Press E, nothing, which makes sense seeing as I am already doing 1.8ata and 2850rpm. So I checked my fuel next, and sure enough, I have MW50 in the tank. Is this a bug or am I not doing something right, because my plane flys at MW50 power no matter what I push.

I think it is correct. It exhibits the same behavior in BOS, and ive seen people describe things like what your describing in ww2 tests.

The problem is two fold: 1. The eagle is constrained to its structural limits, the flanker is not. 2. Pointing out that there have been cases of airframe's exceeding their limits on occasion in RL is not a justification for wanton allowance of unrestricted flight. In real life, doing these things could kill the pilot or reduce the life of the air-frame so that it is unflyable in a very short period. The problem with just allowing these things is that they can be abused much more easily in a game than in real life. A real pilot would have to be very mindful of these parameter lest he ruin his plane or kill himself in the process. It's not all that different from WW2 planes having compress-ability limits. On a P-51 the limit is 505mph for a dive at low alt, but you can actually go faster before compressing. However, if you do this you run a very real risk in game of killing yourself. Not so with the flankers structural limits right now---you just exceed them with no regard to the consequences......until 2121mph which might not be possible from ground start. What is more some limits are most likely not something that could be modeled as a issue in game but would certainly be an issue IRL. For example, we know that both the Eagle and the flanker can exceed their structural/stability/thermal limits to some extent. If you take a plane beyond its designed speed limit, you would most likely cause permanent damage to the air-frame. The damage could result in immediate performance losses or being rendered un-airworthy in the future. Pilots here have no such concern. Im not implying that evey RL concern should be modeled in game, be in the case of air to air performance metrics, it absolutely should. 3. Afterthought: What would be really interesting would be to know if the CAS system on the Flanker and Eagle would even allow these limits to be exceeded by the pilot. It is clear that many elements of both PFM planes CAS/FCS are not working properly. The un-commanded roll on the EAgle is one example. Do we even know if the CAS would let a flanker pilot exceed the limits by default?

The specs you are quoting are for WW2 not modern times, and even then there is more to it than that. Bottom line, those requirements have nothing to do with today----and they did not make a very big difference back then either for a variety of reasons. The penetration tables of major ww2 nations are more or less directly comparable. The american testing during ww2 required that a "significant portion" of the projectile passed through the plate 50% of the time. So, you'd be doing plenty of damage on the other side. It is unlikely that a complete shelll would make it though a plate in one piece anyhow. What is more, this is just the definition of what the base requirement was when tabulating what was considered a pass or a fail. Its impossible to say exactly how much of the shell penetrated for a specific range test, just that it was a "signiificant portion" 50% of the time at a MINIMUM.

You know, your the second person I've seen in this thread make a comment like that. If your going to make an argument, refrain from personal assaults and patronizing people.

The point is that that should not be possible at all. Furthermore the same thing cannot be done with the F-15. Even starting at such heights and speeds I should not be able to do MACH 3.3. The Flanker is going too fast even if you start on the ground, as my previous posts have stated. If this is possible, then some characteristics of the FM are making it possible, and that means that they most likely effect the flanker in more realistic tests as well, HENCE, being able to do nearly mach 2.6 instead of the actual top speed of mach 2.35. What is more, you cannot do this in the F-15. Starting at mach 2 at 40k does not allow you to hit 3.3. If you watch the track, the aircraft accelerates to mach 1450knots and then just magically begins accelerating after sustaining that speed for about 30secs. Top Speed is Top Speed. Excluding stability issues causing speed losses, If I get to mach 2.5 can can accelerate further even though I have fuel, I have met my limit. I no longer have enough thrust to overcome my drag etc. In the track I posted the aircraft has already burned quite a bit of fuel when it decides the limits are not a thing and go from 1450knots to 1930. Under no conditions should I be able to do this. If this happens under these conditions it makes sense to imply that what ever is causing this might also be causing the far to high top speeds done in more realistic tests. 1460-1510knots. If there are heat and stability limits imposed on the plane in real life, then they should apply in the game. Why on earth would you want to ignore real limitations? If not then why has the F-15 be saddled with being restricted to its RL limts with regards to non-energy limits? Ive tried every imaginable start /load/ alt, and I cant hit the Mach 2.67 that was mentioned earlier. Not that it should matter, as it seems to me that if you operated your flanker beyond its thermal and stability limits on an operational basis (assuming the FCS would let you without modification) you wouldnt be operating very long since do such a thing would cause failure due to over stressing the air frame. Its like operating a engine beyond its design limits. You can do it, but you wont have that engine very long.

TRACK speedtest-su27.trk

So after many speed runs I still conclude that this thing is too fast, especially high up. Every figure and chart I can find out there shows the F-15C being considerably faster at high altitudes than the Su-27. It was also faster in the SFM, and the F-15 PFM is not much faster than the F-15SFM. If there are heat and stability restrictions on the plane IRL, then they should be reflected in game, as real pilots would not be going that fast. Also, it was stated earlier that the F-15C could go faster (1772mph) with its heat and stability restrictions ignored temporarily, and it cannot come even close to this in game (1696mph) (40K, can only hit 1647mph at 45k, which is odd, because the F-15C pfm page claims a higher speed at 45k vs 40k weird.....) What is more, I can get some insane speeds under certain conditions. In the track I have posted, I reached 1930 some knots, or 2221+mph(3.3 mach) before the plane stopped accelerating.....because it exploded. Clearly there is something wrong with this aircrafts FM with regards to high speed performance.

Ok thanks, he actually just hsowed p

who is talking about climbs? I was just saying that to get to altitude youd have to burn some fuel.

Did you use the autopilot to keep perfect level? Max speed decreases as fuel load goes down. Ive done the test like 10 times or so just to make sure. This effect can be seen at most altitudes.

The plane can get to mach 2.5. However it it fuel dependent. At 40k your practical top speed varies because as fuel load decreases the aircraft becomes very unstable and micro oscillations occur. Assuming you burned fuel getting to altitude, and did not spawn at 40k, and accounting for fuel needed to accelerate, your top speed is going to be less than 1460knots. The Flanker is very fuel hungry as well, so chances are it will be alot less than that.

Flankerator can I swap maddog for roofies? I havent heard from Maddog in like a week. I am now worried he might not show.

Update to speeds. SL: evenly matched. Flanker can outrun eagle if starting with full fuel, until it gets down to about 70% at which point it starts to fall behind. In tests the Eagle out paced the Flanker and the Flanker could not make up the difference before decreasing stability due to fuel loss caused a reduction in top speed. 10k: Eagle somewhat faster to much faster at all fuel loads. 20k: Flanker faster by about 100 knots regardless of fuel state. 26k: Flanker faster until fuel loss causes speed loss. 35k: Eagle faster by about 100knots. 40k: Eagle Generally faster. If max loaded at 40k, flanker can briefly hit 1506knots. Eagle always tops out at 1474knots. If not starting at max fuel, Flanker can accelerate to 1460knots, and then starts to lose speed once down to about 40-30% fuel.

That is the CAS system. It wont let you exceed max AoA unless you press S.

So having done more testing I have noticed the following: I can only achieve the aforementioned speed if I start at 40k with a full tank of gas. An impossibility in real life since I have somehow climbed to altitude without using any fuel. Once I accelerate, I can briefly achieve 1506 knots before the plane rapidly decelerates once it reaches a certain fuel point at about 75% fuel. I have found that starting at any fuel load of 75% or less results in top speeds of 1460 knots or whereabouts. Is this the instability you are referring to?

I cannot see how that was accomplished. Ive tested many times even before the flanker PFM and top speed is about 1474knots every time. The proof exists on the F-15C main page though, where the performance charts are posted.

I realize this is a open beta, but I did some quick testing and some things appear to be off, as expected in a beta. Things I have noted are: It is way too fast. Its about 200mph too fast at altitude, as I was able to easy outpace a F-15 as I skyrocketed to 1733mph. At sea level I exceeded the generally quoted mach 1.1 top speed and hit 966mph, once again strangely faster than a F-15 by about 20 knots. The Eagle maxed out at 1474 knots at altitude, or 1690ish mph- which is much closer to its true top speed. Conditions were DCS defaults. Note: Considerable increase in fuel consumption noted. F-15 PFM consumes fuel only slightly faster than SFM. With the flanker, at SL I hit 966mph and then started slowing down as the fuel load was consumed so rapidly that the CG or something must have changed and I was slowed down by a rapid oscillation. I air-braked and attempted to re accelerate but found that I could not break 805knots and the top speed continued to descend as fuel decreased. I have no idea if this is a error regarding the fuel consumption and effects, just noting observations. For high speed tests alt was 40k. I know its a beta, this is just stuff I've noted. Otherwise this is really cool so far. Speed thing needs fixed though. :)

I cant believe anyone actually voted no because of "desensitizing effect." Seriously? You could vote no to the whole game with that logic

Official Callsign: Shift8 Nationality: American Chosen Aircraft: 2xF-15C Maddog and I.

Will you cut it with this crap already? IT IS UTTER NONSENSE. It is as devoid of logic as it is of facts. -Blended Wing Design: Is not a magic -LERX: HOLY CRAP, the F-35 has them too. Small size: They are about the same. That is of the reasons these two planes get compared so much. -Better T/W: Really? At what fuel load in terms of time? The F-135 at AF consumes fuel at slightly higher rate as the -229 in the F-15 and some F-16s. Yet the F-35 can carry 18k of fuel, and the F-135 belches out 48,000lbs of thrust. At any comparable fuel weight I'd expect the F-35 to have a huge T/W advantage. Assuming a conservative 43,000lbs of thrust for the 135 we'd get the following T/W's with the F-16 loaded at max 7200lbs and the F-35 loaded at 9000lbs just to be conservative yet again: 1.11 for the F-16 and 1.13 for the F-35(1.29 if we assume a more likely 48k of thrust.) (weights and thrusts rounded to nearest 1000) Better Wing loading: K. But we dont know how much lift the F-35s body produces, or alot of other things. Alot can be said from the fact that the F-35 can hold a 50deg angle of attack and the F-16 cant even come close to that. Things not on your list that you conveniently ignored: Thust to Drag: No external weapons or fuel tanks on the F-35 The specific lift generating characteristics of the wings/bodies/vortex generators on both aircraft. You just keep spouting design concepts like some kind of aviation thesaurus without putting numbers to them. At the simplest level we dont even know what the CLmax is of either wing. Unknown or unmentioned factors: Alot of things affect turn performance. Even if we had the data to do the calculations we would still only get a estimate. Unless the difference were massive we'd need real life testing with the EM diagrams to know for sure. You cant just single out design features like that and reach definitive conclusions.

Hidden agenda? What? That was just a record of what you typed. You clearly change your story over the course of a few posts. Just like with the F-15's fuselage. And dont write that like I have hidden agendas all the time. I have no such tendency.