Su-27 for DCS World

[Witchking]

Maybe the new thing about the flanker for PFM is the contribution of fuselage aerodynamics to overall stability and aero of the aircraft. The F-15 is relatively traditional with it'd shape. The flanker is totally different, but I am sure the lessons learnt with the flanker can help for moðlling other aircraft like the Eurofighter.

[cichlidfan]

The flanker is totally different, but I am sure the lessons learnt with the flanker can help for moðlling other aircraft like the Eurofighter.

 

Assuming that all PFM development information is shared with the 3rd parties, that might be the case. But it seems, so far, that 3rd parties are on their own in that regard.

Edited July 4, 2014 by cichlidfan

[NineLine]

Assuming that all PFM development information is shared with the 3rd parties, that might be the case. But is seems, so far, that 3rd parties are on their own in that regard.

 

Yeah, I am not sure that it is... maybe to a certain degree... but 3rd Parties are responsible for their own FMs.

[kontiuka]

My bad... again.. I like Spitfires :)

I think Spitfires have thrust vectoring though.:lol:

[Raven68]

Maybe a dumb question and dont beat me up too bad, but are there "templates" for AFM shared and it's up to each 3rd party to develop coding to make them behave accordingly? :helpsmilie:

Edited July 4, 2014 by Raven68

[NineLine]

I think Spitfires have thrust vectoring though.:lol:

 

I need to thrust vector my way back to the WWII section in shame :)

[cichlidfan]

I need to thrust vector my way back to the WWII section in shame :)

 

Don't worry. Aside from the internet never forgetting, it's no big deal. ;)

[Raven68]

I need to thrust vector my way back to the WWII section in shame :)

 

:megalol: It's all good Sith!! No one expects you to be perfect...at least I dont. :D

[NineLine]

Don't worry. Aside from the internet never forgetting, it's no big deal. ;)

 

I plead ignorance for my defence :)

[NineLine]

:megalol: It's all good Sith!! No one expects you to be perfect...at least I dont. :D

 

Good, cuz dont ask me to demonstrate the Huey or Mi-8 either :)

[blackbelter]

I think it just shows their commitment to make the best PFM for the Su-27, their have stated it will manoeuvre like the real world Su-27... we have nothing like that in sim right now... I think this PFM could consist of even more ground breaking FM coding (and I am not talking my landings)

 

I sure hope that is the case. More waiting is worth it if the reward is a better PFM.

[uboats]

Maybe a dumb question and dont beat me up too bad, but are there "templates" for AFM shared and it's up to each 3rd party to develop coding to make them behave accordingly? :helpsmilie:

the reason that Wags define EFM i think is that 3rd parties may have different advanced model implementations which can be quite different in details level from ED's but both can lead to similar results. hope ed can release afm template

Edited July 4, 2014 by uboats

[GGTharos]

That's funny, because it really is not the case. The F-15 has huge aerodynamics contribution from the fuselage. Do you see an F-15 looking like an F-104 or F-106, or F-4? What's 'traditional' about it?

 

Maybe the new thing about the flanker for PFM is the contribution of fuselage aerodynamics to overall stability and aero of the aircraft. The F-15 is relatively traditional with it'd shape. The flanker is totally different, but I am sure the lessons learnt with the flanker can help for moðlling other aircraft like the Eurofighter.

[GGTharos]

Fair question. As far as I can tell, the answer is no.

 

Maybe a dumb question and dont beat me up too bad, but are there "templates" for AFM shared and it's up to each 3rd party to develop coding to make them behave accordingly? :helpsmilie:

[Witchking]

That's funny, because it really is not the case. The F-15 has huge aerodynamics contribution from the fuselage. Do you see an F-15 looking like an F-104 or F-106, or F-4? What's 'traditional' about it?

 

The blended fuselage of the flanker compared to the Mig25 or Mig31 layouts seen in the F-15. :unsure:

 

 

[mjmorrow]

After you release su-27 PFM, i want clickable cockpit. Make it happen.

 

I would rather a clickable cockpit Su-30SM, Su-30 MKI, or Su-30MKA. If I am paying $50 for a forth gen Su, I want to click on the most advanced equipment I can get my mouse on. :music_whistling:

Edited July 4, 2014 by mjmorrow

[GGTharos]

I think you're making up things that make little to no difference. :)

 

Differences in performance are accounted for by other aerodynamic devices such as leading edge slats and vortex generators.

 

The blended fuselage of the flanker compared to the Mig25 or Mig31 layouts seen in the F-15. :unsure:

Edited July 4, 2014 by GGTharos

[nwbasson]

Is any of this really a surprise? :noexpression:

 

EDIT: For those celebrating, have a wonderful 4th :beer: and now on to preparing my wonderful Jamaican Burgers!:beer:

 

What kinda burgers are jamaican? Sorry couldn't resist. Carry on.

[Witchking]

I think you're making up things that make little to no difference. :)

 

Differences in performance are accounted for by other aerodynamic devices such as leading edge slats and vortex generators.

 

Maybe...lol! I don't know the exact characteristics...but... the flanker does have the leading edge flaps as you mentioned, but try to imagine the "airflow" pattern and drag pattern for the eagle and flanker. For sure, there should be more turbulence/airflow disruption for the airintakes on the eagle than on the smoother flanker.

[GGTharos]

Errr ... really? The eagle's intakes actually provide lift :)

 

Seriously, stop digging that hole before you go too deep :D

 

Anyway, the Eagle is very slick and made for speed. Different aerodynamics for different requirements.

 

Don't worry, the flanker will wallow and stall out just like an F-15 when you hit the limits. ;)

 

Maybe...lol! I don't know the exact characteristics...but... the flanker does have the leading edge flaps as you mentioned, but try to imagine the "airflow" pattern and drag pattern for the eagle and flanker. For sure, there should be more turbulence/airflow disruption for the airintakes on the eagle than on the smoother flanker.

[Exorcet]

Maybe...lol! I don't know the exact characteristics...but... the flanker does have the leading edge flaps as you mentioned, but try to imagine the "airflow" pattern and drag pattern for the eagle and flanker. For sure, there should be more turbulence/airflow disruption for the airintakes on the eagle than on the smoother flanker.

The F-15's entire upper surface except the nose is wing like. There's probably lift everywhere. The inlets will act like a wing leading edge and the rounded inlet fairings probably contribute to vortex lift as with the Su-27.

 

The MiG-25/31 isn't poor at maneuvering because of its shape but because of weight and structure (less than 9 g max stress). The MiG's also have boxier fuselages and lack the thin flanks of the F-15 that probably aid lift.

[SFJackBauer]

And the MiG-25 and 31 have roughly 2x the wing loading of dogfighters like F-15 and Su-27, which means they bleed speed faster in a turn and cannot sustain high-G for a long time.

[Witchking]

The F-15's entire upper surface except the nose is wing like. There's probably lift everywhere. The inlets will act like a wing leading edge and the rounded inlet fairings probably contribute to vortex lift as with the Su-27.

 

The MiG-25/31 isn't poor at maneuvering because of its shape but because of weight and structure (less than 9 g max stress). The MiG's also have boxier fuselages and lack the thin flanks of the F-15 that probably aid lift.

 

And the MiG-25 and 31 have roughly 2x the wing loading of dogfighters like F-15 and Su-27, which means they bleed speed faster in a turn and cannot sustain high-G for a long time.

 

Errr ... really? The eagle's intakes actually provide lift :)

 

Seriously, stop digging that hole before you go too deep :D

 

Anyway, the Eagle is very slick and made for speed. Different aerodynamics for different requirements.

 

Don't worry, the flanker will wallow and stall out just like an F-15 when you hit the limits. ;)

 

Lol. Well...i did not know that. I only ever bothered watching the flanker documentaries, but never looked up the eagle. :music_whistling:

 

But that is interesting to know with regards to lift provided by the inlets. How two different solutions can be provided for the same problem in two opposite nations.

[BronzeBuddha]

Lol. Well...i did not know that. I only ever bothered watching the flanker documentaries, but never looked up the eagle. :music_whistling:

 

But that is interesting to know with regards to lift provided by the inlets. How two different solutions can be provided for the same problem in two opposite nations.

 

F-15 fuselage lift provides enough lift to stabilize the plane with only one wing.

 

[mytai01]

The blended fuselage of the flanker compared to the Mig25 or Mig31 layouts seen in the F-15. :unsure:

 

 

 

There are a lot of considerations that determine the design of a new fighter plane. It's intended mission, what range, speed and altitudes it needs to achieve. The weapons, radar, electronics, and how many crew members are on board. Also, they want to use off the self technology as much as possible because it's proven reliability makes it safer.

 

There are a lot of different companies that are involved as well, and they each add their piece of the puzzle. Generally, the airframe, engines, and radar/electronics are all from different companies. The actual design of the airframe is determined by what they have to stuff into it to do the mission it's supposed to be for.

 

The only really big difference in design between F-15 and Su-27 is the wide channel between the Su-27's engines, but this feature was used in the Navy's F-14 Tomcat first, which came before the F-15. So, what is traditional vs. non-traditional?

Edited July 5, 2014 by mytai01