Shepski

Funny why we get different results... what was the engine RPM when you were at idle? I tried it and even accelerated time while sitting at 40% and it didn't move. Breakaway thrust is required to get it rolling and idle will maintain the roll but when you are at idle and don't apply enough thrust to get it rolling it won't move. In the Boeing I fly the jet will not start rolling at idle and requires a good amount of thrust to get it rolling... once rolling it will keep rolling at idle but slowly. I'll make some tracks.

I think you better re-check that because at an idle RPM of 33% for the -25 and -25T with a full load the jet will not move. at 40% it will not move. At 45% it will slowly start to creep forward. Guys... I know you want to help make things better but please be thorough in your testing before reporting what you think is an error or bug. It only creates more work and headaches for the team.

I used the same weight in my tests but the empty weight of the A-10, with 20% fuel for each, is less then the empty weight of the Su-25T... in Lock On 10,360(A-10) and 12,250(Su-25T) If they are acquiring and maintaining small targets visually then they would have to be quite low and not very fast. They would also probablly hardly spend time in a dive at those low altitudes... my assumptions. :) I think they would not be initiating the dive from a very fast speed to begin with at such low altitudes. Also, if the real speedbrakes create as much turbulence as modeled in Lock On then I doubt they would even keep them extended while lining up the pipper. I hardly ever use the speed brakes in Flaming Cliffs when running in but I will use them to slow down prior to begining the dive if needed. I also use the first flap setting when low and slow attacking targets.

The A-10's engines will also produce some thrust at idle too... I'm sure it's modeled in the SFM. Just the ram air will increase the speed of the turbo fans to produce some residual thrust.

I would bet on a translation error more then anything. Look at the pic below... look at the difference between the form drag of the A-10(engine cowls, fan baldes, landing gear housing/tires/dual tail fins and speedbrakes. Compare it to the form of the Su-25T with the speedbrakes extended. Do you notice the huge difference? In Lock On, the speedbrakes will hold the A-10's airspeed in a 30 degree dive using the SFM. How do you figure with the AFM, the tiny speedbrakes, and sleek airframe of the Su-25T that it will not accelerate in the 30 degree dive wich is quite steep? You just have to look at it to realize that there is no way those small brakes will stop any acceleration in a dive. Throw the gear and full flaps out and then you will see the difference of what the extra form drag will do.

You have to understand that there is no way the Su-25 will not accelerate in a 30 degree dive with that small of a of speed brake. A 10 degree dive is just under a 10,000 foot/minute descent. What do you think a 30 degree dive descent rate is? It's over 23,000 ft/min. The 700 km/h number is a limitation that the pilot should not exceed 700 km/h in a dive and the speed brakes are used to help decrease the rate of acceleration because the jet will accelerate. Didn't you read my earlier posts about this with reference to my Su-25 book?

Ok.. I just did a quick test in the -25T... With a weight of 12,000 kilos and clean in a constant 10 degree dive from 2800m to 800m. I started at 3000m, thrust to idle, and speedbrake out then began the dive. Brake retracted... @2800m the speed is 711 km/h @800m the speed is 820 km/h. net gain of 109 km/h. Brake extended... @2800m the speed is 682 km/h @800 the speed is 687 km/h. net gain of 5 km/h. Does the brake still seem overly ineffective to you? Now... I always use the external outside speed because the indicated airspeed on the HUD will increase as altitude decreases so you will get a false acceleration reading using indicated airspeed.

Oops... by "AFM" I meant Aircraft Flight Manual... :doh: I'm assuming you thought I meant Advanced Flight Model?

More like a little too small... look at the size of the brakes on the A-10... The Su-25 just doesn't have big enough speed brakes to be super effective like many think they should be. Have you been testing the effectiveness of the A-10 brakes for a comparision? The speedbrakes on the B-737 are not very effective and they have a lot of surface area. On my next flight I will test their effectiveness and report what type of descent rate they will slow the jet up at a particular weight when under 10,000 feet. The Learjet 35 has very effective spoilers but it also has a small wing and is is fairly light at a GTOW of 18,300 lbs.

I'm sure it's in a P-38 AFM that would be easy to get a hold of... if it isn't then it comes down to artistic license. :)

Don't start bashing the testers because that will lead you down an unfortunate path. GG said enough already and I echo his statements... read each and every point of every patch readme and then you will see what we have tested. Now add much more behind the scenes testing and evaluations that aren't mentioned and you will have an idea. How much new content has Eagle added that wasn't initially planned in the patches? How much credit do they get for it? As for bugs being fixed and features added to the Lock On series that aren't in the scope of Black Shark... I would love to see more work on the Flanker personally... some want more on the Eagle and Hog, some want more on the missiles, some want more on the naval aspect. Eagle cannot do it all when the new project is a helicopter simulation... you will have to just understand that and support them if you wish.

Hi, I understand your point but thinking SK was being insulted does not give him the right to insult Yo-Yo in the manner he did. He should know better and now he does. If he wants to come back after his vacation he's more then welcome and I'm sure he won't make the same error in judgement again if he does return. His rant thread was stopped and deleted in a hurry at Ubi so that should send a further message that this isn't acceptable.

It isn't to me... and I don't think that I'm that abnormal an English speaking person. :) Guys... this is what he posted and this is what he posted with malice... "Fighter Ops is looking more and more attractive every day. Unless of course Yo-Yo has a hand in their development." That will not be tolerated here period... I don't care if he knows what "ignorant" means or not... the above is probably the worst and most direct insult made to a member of the development team I have seen here. SK... why is his opinion so important to you? FWIW... he's the first member I have banned on the .ru forum so my "moderation" shouldn't be in question here.

Agreed Dmut... In fact... in the english speaking world, most people think "ignorant" is only an insult and they are really ignorant of it's true meaning... all it takes is a dictionary. :)

Now you've insulted a member of the development team and that's not acceptable... maybe Fighterops is where you should go because you are now taking a hoilday from here.

Relax already! "ignorant" is the same thing as "unaware", "not knowing", "not having knowledge."... it isn't an insult. Tone it down please.

Attention to detail seems to be the problem with your findings Capttrob... I just flew your two track files and with a fully dirty -25T and a 20 m/sec descent(4000 ft/min) it did not accelerate. In the -15 with just the speedbrake and a 6000 feet/min descent the jet accelerated slightly... you seem to be misreading something. Anyway... time to leave this waste of a thread.

If you're not willing to look at my tracks after all this discussion then this is pointless.

Did you even look at my tracks? In both cases, I dirtied up the jets, brake/gear/flaps/half flaps for the -25T and dove to try to get to an altitude that would allow me a good stabilized approach. In the -25T, at a descent rate indicating 9800 ft/min I accelerated 40 km/h with only half flaps and when full flaps were set as I started to level off, the jet immediately started decellerating and I retracted the brakes. In the -15, at a descent rate of 6000-7000 feet/min I accelerated only about 1 or 2 knots and retracted the brake as I leveled off. Both these allowed me for a stabilized approach on the glideslope using the proper amount of thrust to maintain it. It all looks normal to me. You're giving the speedbrakes alone on the -25T way too much credit for slowing the machine down I'm afraid. They aren't nearly as effective as you think.

Ok, looked at your -15 track Captrob... You flew the approach differently in each... in the -25T you held altitude and after a few seconds extended the brake and then started the descent. In the -15 you popped the brake and dove for the ground. I have attached 2 tracks where I tried to do the same approach profile for each and the results, considering the different types of aircraft seemed reasonable to me. A few notes... The -25 is at 15.3K kilos and -15 is at 18.8K kilos, thus the -15 will require, based on weight alone, more thrust to maintain an approach speed. The speedbrake surface area of the -15 is much larger then the -25 and, as we already know, the speedbrake of the -25T is used primarily for keeping the rate of acceleration to an acceptable level while the jet is in a dive to depoly it's weapons. The speedbrake in the -15 is purely a highly effective brake whereas the -25T brake is not. The -25T has a straight fat wing with leading edge devices which will allow it to produce more lift for a given speed whereas the -15 wing is a thin super critical wing with no leading edge devices and is much less efficient at producing lift then the -25T... especially in the approach speed range. IMO, I don't think there is as big a problem as you think. :) The above -25T brake discussion was an interesting one. :) Shep-xwind.zip

Hi Capt. I just checked out your track and the main issue of your problem with slowing down is your initial set up of the mission. You are 6.5nm from the runway threshold at 270 knots and 3700 feet above ground... does this sound like the makings of a stabilized approach? ;) You were at times descending at 20m/sec which is just under 4000 ft/min. I think you might be mixed up in using metric... :) Try this set up in the editor... 25 km from the runway at 375 km/hour and 450 meters altitude.

The Mi-28N Havoc would be a good fit in Black Shark wouldn't it? ;)

In v1.1x crusie missiles can be launched from the Tico to attack ground based targets, both built in map objects and ones you place yourself.

LOL! Gotta keep ya interested! :)

Cool mission Chris! I tried it in Black Shark beta and added a helipad/FARP in the valley to the east by the big lake and did the mission in the Ka-50. I was able to knock out the Strela on the west hill and then the EWR with Vikhrs and then move in on the AAA and artillery. What you will find in Black Shark compared to Flaming Cliffs is the Msta's will engage you with their top mounted machine guns so you can't get too close. After killing everything I headed out to sea and landed on the Neustrashimy and shut down. Lots to look forward to in Black Shark guys!