combatace

Here is something from a book that I have F100 series: Twin spool engine fan rotor assembly 3 stages driven by 2 stage turbine Low by-pass ratio of 0.7:1 at 9600RPM Rear compressor turning at 14,650RPM and is 10 stage driven by 2 stage turbine Total airflow is 228lb/s (103.4Kg/s) Overall pressure ratio 23:1 to 25:1 air cooling for rear-compressor-drive turbine variable vanes at inlet, rear compressor-inlet and 4th and 5th stages of rear compressor annular combustor with 16 nozzles engine's thrust to weight ratio is 8:1 Specific fuel consumption in non-after-burning mode id 0.68lb/lbt/h (69.3g/N/h) and 2.5lb/lbt/h (239.9g/N/h) for after-burning Engine weight is 3036 to 3100 lb and produces 14,375lbt (63,940N) dry and 23,810lbt (105,907N) augmented. For F100-PW-229 Max thrust 29,000lbt (129KN) with TSFC of 2.05lb/lbt/h (209Kg/Kn/h) Dry thrust is 17800lbt (79.8KN) with TSFC of 0.74lb/lbt/h (75.5Kg/KN/h) By-pass ratio is 0.4:1 overall pressure ratio is 32:1 inlet diameter is 34.8in, length is 191in ans weight is 3650 lb or 1655Kg. P.S. I know most of you will be knowing this yet voted myself for posting it.

May be that is what is absorbed and displayed as desired, just a guess.

Its was the most critical area during the Cold war. Its the was the border for the USSR and NATO.

@Pilotasso: I was not talking about the engine intakes for B2 I was talking about the plane as whole. Flat surface parallel to radar beams meaning less reflection. About intakes now I get it you are talking they are straight, flat actually means in plane so got confused. and well T-50 isn't exposing the whole first stage there it has main gear space there so come part is compensated.

Or the bird strikes the tip nose of F-15 or any twin engine jet splits into two and each half enters one engine. Hmmmm now thats a possibility to think.

Well Stalker I'll see what are the exact problem is and how can I solve them.

Ok, I accept that but as this model is made it will come but as I earlier said its easy to convert the same model to MKI/ canard version. Now, I have got an idea but I will keep it to myself so when the model is released it will be a surprise, though I can't very effectively promise that surprise but I will try to make it.

None of these. As I said it will be Su-30MK, without canards, as they don't work with Su-30 ingame but again as I said it will have 12 pylons.

Thanks beczl, you work real fast man.

I have no idea about that.

You are getting desperate to prove yourself right mate. The person said it *looks* complicated and believe me what you said can't be determined with naked eyes.

What I think is except designing it nothing is complicated because its construction is also simple. But what I think is we should let go this discussion over her because I think this is a wrong thread for it.

3d model almost finished but still WIP. Here are some screen shots. The model is not Su-30MKI but Su-30MK that is with 12 pylons. Pilot is not present ATM as it is WIP with Pougatchev.

Yes, but if you need to change it then don't. Just make the copy of the whole FC2 folder and place it in the same drive as the original just name it different like Flaming Cliffs offline. when you need to play any of the one just name that folder as the original and other some appropriate like I said and you will not need to make a change every-time.

In missiledata.lua Folder: LockOn Flaming Cliffs 2\Config\Weapons

Its the feed backs and nozzle that makes it look more complicated other wise its simpler than a four-stroke engine.

You yourself said Radio waves will reflect same as light so why are engine nacelles so big a problem, because the are flat, isn't it better, because I through a wave at it and it will be reflected in opposite direction with same angle as the angle of incidence. Hasn't B-2 designed on same principle? Also, how will engine blades be reflective all the time and contribute to large RCS, they are small and at particular angle only a few blades will be reflective. Also, blades are twisted and their flat surface is not axial to the jet's plane.

I thought they were some sort of cruise missiles than realized the distinct engine mounting of A-10s.

Ofcourse, some thing distinctive. I like that.

Lets wait and see then, I will resurrect the same thread if that does not happen. @ GG- You are soo mis-informed about the realism. You say in a FPS game you give a bad gun and nice scope and browbeat that its realism, I'm so not buying that. By the that this is my last post on this thread because as I said earlier, I'm gonna wait and see.

No No No, you are getting me wrong here. See the present condition of missiles in DCS-A10C is SFM, as you said, same as FC2. Thats means there is no difference, the thing is A-10c is out since long and I know ED's programmers are working on it but its the direction of it is what I'm talking about. You see A-10c is all about A-10C and graphics, yes there are a lots of tweaks here and there that makes a difference that not good but great. What I'm talking is about dynamics of missiles not being addressed in a *Combat SIM*. What I deduce from your post is that DCS- fighter will come with AFM for missiles too, great. But won't that mean that patching again the back links. what I wanted to say by 'looks and not cooks' is that there was a loads and loads of work done for looks but the dynamics (except A-10C) are still at SFM level.

No, I'm not lacking patience at all there. I say so because the weapons configuration in DCS-A10C is same as FC2. @arron886: You should mind you language there because I too can use the kind of language you used but I'm not ready to put down myself that much. And yes looks does matter to certain extent or else I might not be wasting time building models for the same SIM.

You think when you order a dish in hotel you know the amount of every ingredient added to it. You only know the taste of it and whether it tastes bad or good. By the way what the difference in missiles FC2 and DCS-A-10C? Realistic dynamics of weapons in a combat sim is called cooking, clickable cockpit is for looks, you can make all those functions work without a clickable cockpit.

Not much but I'll tell you the engines of some missiles but as I said I'm not into making sims I'm into using them so research in those things should be Ed business. AIM-120- (Hercules/Aerojet) hydroxyl terminated, polybutadiene propellant AIM-9A/B Thiokol MK 17 solid-fuel rocket motor (17.8 kN (4000 lb) thrust for 2.2 s) AIM-9D Hercules/Bermite MK 36 mod8-11 AIM-7 A/B/C Aerojet 1.8KS7800 solid rocket AIM-7 E Rocketdyne MK 38/MK 52 solid rocket AIM-7 F/M/P Hercules MK 58 dual-thrust solid rocket AGM-65 A/B Thiokol SR109-TC-1 solid-fuel rocket(Thiokol-633) AGM-65 D/E/F/G Thiokol SR114-TC-1(Thiokol-481)/Aerojet SR115-AJ-1 MIM-104 Thiokol TX-486-1 P.S. ofcourse internet stuff and ofcourse you will reject it.

Why did you take AGM-65 for consideration where obviously that doesn't matter at all, why didn't you consider taking any of the medium range air to air missiles where the fuel mass actually makes a difference. Ok, depleting fuel is complicated to model atleast depleted can and should be modeled because it makes a lot of difference in missiles performance and another thing that comes to play is change in center of gravity which changes the effectiveness of control surfaces. If these things were to be taken from internet then where will the fidelity come from, I'm not making sims, I'm using them. P.S. depleting fuel and the effect of it that is change is CG is a very big factor short range IR missiles, especially considering missiles with thrust vectoring.