Help according Thrust

If someone knows, i need to know the thrust values under full AB for

F-15

Su-27

Su-33

Mig-29 (all variants)

in numbers. (missing in tacref)

Reason why is, a test setup (BFM) / thrust-weight-ratio equality + burning-time of fuel (< that i find out myself)

(for all doggers out there....the 40%-52% rules dont apply anymore, even though i wasnt a big fan of it anyways)

Su-33 - 12,800 кгс (kg force), ~28,219.170 lbf (pound force)

Su-27 - 12,500 кгс, ~27,557.783 lbf

F-15C - 12,500 кгс, ~27,557.783 lbf

This is based on numbers mentioned in the FC2.0 Q&A thread by devs, verification needed.

Actually F-15C static thrust should be around 23500lbf/engine.

Not sure why you need those numbers though when we have speed-g-altitude sustain charts...

In any case any attempt to set up a 'fair' DACT is a bad idea - just IMHO.

GG, are the charts available in an organized fashion, or are you referring to the ones referenced in various threads randomly?

ED has aircraft manuals - I have the complete F-15C charts from an old -1 (applicable if you keep in mind that performance of the -220 is going to be slightly better in subsonic range and much better in the supersonic) and a couple charts with the -220's.

I have excerpts from MiG-29G as well, and ED has more complete sets.

Not sure why you need those numbers though when we have speed-g-altitude sustain charts...

 

In any case any attempt to set up a 'fair' DACT is a bad idea - just IMHO.

Im doing certains tests here (Accellaration, EM charts, High AoA characteristics, Thrust-weight ratios ...etc etc) ...thats why i asked for those.

Interesting enough that F15 and Su-27 have same values O.o ..

(Su-27 thrust seems right, whereas the F-15 seems way overpowered, 8000lbs+ total (consider weights too) and easily noticealbe by the "oh, lets just put same values for both jets" act.

Regards "fair" ... well you dont wanna go up with 10% vs 100% Fuel in a 1v1 - no matter what jet - will you? And "fuel free" ended always up in a "take as less as possible" in matches (< which is why we invented takeoff and landings with reasonable ranges between bases in 1v1 TCL missions, where pilots are still free to decide what payload they take, but also have to use that decission strategically smart)

GG, 10-15% fuel difference (lets say same jet) is HUUUGE difference !! huuuge. You can literally "see" 10% fuel difference in the turns (SACT).

Further analytics in progress......

Su-33 - 12,800 кгс (kg force), ~28,219.170 lbf (pound force)

Su-27 - 12,500 кгс, ~27,557.783 lbf

F-15C - 12,500 кгс, ~27,557.783 lbf

 

This is based on numbers mentioned in the FC2.0 Q&A thread by devs, verification needed.

thx man :thumbup:

btw..according to those numbers posted in DCS Q&A post* (if correct as stated of course)

the following is the case:

Su27 Thrust: 55115,5lbs* Weight 100% internal fuel, clean no guns 55997lbs Thrust Weigth Ration = 0,984

F-15 Thrust: 55115,5lbs* Weight 100% internal fuel, clean no guns 41651lbs Thrust Weight Ratio = 1,322

ups and btw, that equals the PW-229 engines (1.322 ratio)

Looking the fact, that the Su-27 is meant to be a long range interceptor with the capabiltiy to carry huge loads of fuel and being able to fight with less load if nessary (dump),

it makes sense in "estimated" terms here. Little bit off, but not much.

But regards dogfighting in 2.0 with both 100% fuel the Su-27 is doomed. Only F-15 100% and Su-27 65% fuel would end up in an "equal" fight. (Burningtime not included).

What is suprising though, that the thrust used, is the SAME for both (lazy ?) and it matches the PW-229 and not the PW-220 engines.

Keep us informed!

Maybe you have failed to read what I wrote (again :) ) ... the F-15C engine model is the -220, with 23500lbs thrust. :)

There was nothing lazy, the thrust curves are not the same, and a very long time was taken to test these. Period.

You wrote:

Actually F-15C static thrust should be around 23500lbf/engine. (<< which would make sense, BUT IS IT?)

Actually numbers yet to be confrimed or corrected.

So, what are the correct number if Sov13ts´ post (FC2.0 Q&A) is not relyable or confirmed ? :smilewink:

you really confuse me GG: and here you say (HL chatlog)

"03.04.2010 15:58:45 44th_GrayGhost > do you have reference? what is your reference?"

"03.04.2010 15:59:11 A.S > what you mean reference...where i get my datas from?"

"03.04.2010 15:59:14 A.S > oh i see"

"03.04.2010 15:59:17 A.S > now that comes"

"03.04.2010 15:59:29 A.S > i know somene who knows someone who told me the real datas? :)"

"03.04.2010 15:59:31 A.S > dude....."

"03.04.2010 15:59:37 A.S > puuuhhleeease"

"03.04.2010 15:59:44 44th_GrayGhost > no, I have the real data"

"03.04.2010 15:59:45 44th_GrayGhost > right here :)"

"03.04.2010 15:59:54 A.S > which is?"

"03.04.2010 15:59:55 44th_GrayGhost > I thought you had it too you colelctor of all things of flight you :)"

"03.04.2010 15:59:58 44th_GrayGhost > the -1 :)"

"03.04.2010 16:00:00 A.S > GG: which is?"

"03.04.2010 16:00:07 A.S > tell me the real thrust"

"03.04.2010 16:00:12 A.S > and the one used in 2.0"

"03.04.2010 16:00:13 A.S > go"

"03.04.2010 16:00:14 A.S > shoot"

"03.04.2010 16:00:17 A.S > come on"

"03.04.2010 16:00:19 A.S > bring it"

"03.04.2010 16:00:20 A.S > ;)"

"03.04.2010 16:00:24 A.S > blooooooooooow"

"03.04.2010 16:00:44 A.S > just a number dude"

"03.04.2010 16:00:50 A.S > type the numbers here in chat"

"03.04.2010 16:00:51 A.S > :)"

"03.04.2010 16:01:32 44th_GrayGhost > 55000lbf"

"03.04.2010 16:01:34 44th_GrayGhost > both engines"

"03.04.2010 16:01:52 44th_GrayGhost > Hm, that is 27.5"

"03.04.2010 16:02:00 A.S > thx you.... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

^^^

Indeed. I quoted the value of thrust for those engines from the internet.

However, the FM requires 27500lbf of thrust in order to match the flight parameters of an aircraft equipped with -220's. I was surprised ;)

On the other hand, it does match those charts, so there's no reason to worry.

^^^

 

 

 

the FM requires 27500lbf of thrust in order to match the flight parameters of an aircraft equipped with -220's. I was surprised ;)

 

i see "how" you guys tried to squeeze the values around in order to come close to the performance curves found in -1 (which i do have also) with yoda matching-graphs.

Which i also can see here:

--------------------------------------------------------

SFM_engine_table = {}

SFM_engine_table[su_27] = {

typeng = 1,

dcx_eng = 0.0124,

hMaxEng = 19.5,

dpdh_f = 14500.,

dpdh_m = 7000.,

engtab1 = {

-- M Pmax Pfor

0.0, 135000., 205000.,

0.2, 124000., 175000.,

0.4, 114000., 171000.,

0.6, 110800., 180000.,

0.7, 109900., 192000.,

0.8, 109900., 210000.,

0.9, 109900., 228000.,

1.0, 110800., 240000.,

1.1, 113400., 256000.,

1.2, 119400., 265000.,

1.3, 134100., 279000.,

1.5, 155000., 300000.,

1.8, 165000., 331000.,

2.0, 165000., 356000.,

2.2, 165000., 375000.,

2.5, 165000., 386000.,

3.9, 165000., 270476.

}

}

--------------------------------------------------------

SFM_engine_table[f_15] = {

typeng = 1,

dcx_eng = 0.0124,

hMaxEng = 19.5,

dpdh_f = 14000.,

dpdh_m = 6000.,

engtab1 = {

-- M Pmax Pfor

0.0, 115000., 212000.,

0.2, 94000., 200000.,

0.4, 92000., 205000.,

0.6, 103000., 207000.,

0.7, 105000., 210000.,

0.8, 105000., 220000.,

0.9, 105000., 235000.,

1.0, 107000., 250000.,

1.1, 103000., 258000.,

1.2, 94000., 268000.,

1.3, 84000., 285000.,

1.4, 71000., 300000.,

1.6, 34000., 318000.,

1.8, 19000., 337000.,

2.2, 17000., 370000.,

2.5, 19000., 390000.,

3.9, 82000., 310000.

}

doesn´t change the fact my friend, that you ended up with 1.3 thrust to weight ratio in full AB (even though the regimes between had good intentions) :smilewink:

We didn't 'squeeze' anything. The FM Programmer implemented these on his own, using the charts and data he has available. We just tested that they match the graphs.

To say that Yoda or I adjusted the FM is incorrect. Someone with far more experience and access to data did that.

No offense anyways....no worries.

Intentionally we wondered about it just by sustaining 4,5Gs to 5.5Gs in a nose above horizont slighty climb under load....we had to thruttle back not to over-exceed our own speed (under that load not to forget)..there we wondered (besided the flaps thing), that this is very optimistic.

Cracking it down, we ended up with 1.322 thrust weight ratio in the 15 which explained our expierience, but not what we expected.

1.322 is typical for 229 engines ..and a huuge difference in terms of perfromance compared to 1.1.

Consider also:

1. Su-27S empty weight - 16380kg

2. F-15C empty weight - 12700kg

3. MiG-29A (9-12A) empty weight -10450kg (thrust - 2x8300kgf)

No offense anyways....no worries.

 

Intentionally we wondered about it just by sustaining 4,5Gs to 5.5Gs in a nose above horizont slighty climb under load....we had to thruttle back not to over-exceed our own speed (under that load not to forget)..there we wondered (besided the flaps thing), that this is very optimistic.

Please describe this better; the real F-15A pilot had a similar experience when testing ... but the parameters may not be the same.

I guess to be clear I would like you to tell me exactly how you performed the maneuver, the entry parameters, aircraft weight etc.

Cracking it down, we ended up with 1.322 thrust weight ratio in the 15 which explained our expierience, but not what we expected.

1.322 is typical for 229 engines ..and a huuge difference in terms of perfromance compared to 1.1.

All engine parameters should be slightly optimistic for all planes (this source of error comes because they were tuned in the same way and as far as I know this should make engines just a little more optimistic than actual values. But only a little.)

Consider also:

 

1. Su-27S empty weight - 16380kg

2. F-15C empty weight - 12700kg

3. MiG-29A (9-12A) empty weight -10450kg (thrust - 2x8300kgf)

surely done...even excluded guns (weight) + clean and full internal tanks.

In an embarrassing display of doing math publicly, I used the wrong conversion factor. The TO thrust for the F-15C is indeed 23800lbf/engine.

i wasnt digging, i was pointed to it :smilewink:

I m looking forward for those charts ..... and as i always said to all sim-makers...it would be nice to document the "what is done why" from beginning to avoid all that.

(pilots and engineers lovestory?) :D

Please describe this better; the real F-15A pilot had a similar experience when testing ... but the parameters may not be the same.

I guess to be clear I would like you to tell me exactly how you performed the maneuver, the entry parameters, aircraft weight etc.

 

 

 

All engine parameters should be slightly optimistic for all planes (this source of error comes because they were tuned in the same way and as far as I know this should make engines just a little more optimistic than actual values. But only a little.)

@GG: describing that "phenomon" - all clear now - reason found and selfexplanatory ....its the lockon artificial built in "ingame" G-limiters (AoA and Alt dependend) what threw me off in my "flight pants".

at least explanation figured ....:D

Aha ok :)

We "end-point users" definitely need more documentation , specially the FMs...

Acceleration, decelaration, turn performances..even sources and credits..who are the designers, testers...

Transparency will only make things better. At least if it is not for testing purposes, everyone can know how the aircraft behaves at different altitudes and configurations...

Sources are real air force pilot's manuals.

They are not free, and in some cases they are also not available to the general public.

I will ask Yo-Yo if he is willing to produce some performance charts from the game for public consumption.

For F-15 and Su-27 you can try to find Su-27SK manual on the net, and the TO 1F-15A-1 is a manual you have to buy. You may want to look for a late 80's one or an F-15E one to see -220 performance charts, but an earlier one will do fine with -100's, just as long as you remember that the -220's will out-perform the -100's, especially in supersonic regimes (in some cases by a LOT).