Jump to content

Incorrect maximum fuel weight and service ceiling value


JOKERACTS

Recommended Posts

after I checked the "scripts\database" folder, I noticed a lot of incorrect service ceiling value for various aircraft and some maximum fuel weight value.

 

I noticed some US planes had been adjusted to fly far more higher than the actual specification, while the Russian planes was adjusted to fly a lot lower height? after I checked the information on Wikipedia.org

 

the Mig-25RBT maximum flying height should be 24200 Meter and Mig-25PD maximum flying height should be 24200 Meter without any missile on board,

the F-15C should be 20KM, F-14A should be 15200 Meter, Su-33 should be 17KM, Su-27 should be 19KM, F/A-18C should be 15200 Meter, Mig-31 should be 21KM.

 

Su-33 should have maximum internal fuel weight of 8500KG,

F/A-18C should be 4930KG!


Edited by JOKERACTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

after I checked the "scripts\database" folder, I noticed a lot of incorrect service ceiling value for various aircraft and some maximum fuel weight value.

 

I noticed some US planes had been adjusted to fly far more higher than the actual specification, while the Russian planes was adjusted to fly a lot lower height? after I checked the information on Wikipedia.org

 

the Mig-25RBT maximum flying height should be 24200 Meter and Mig-25PD maximum flying height should be 24200 Meter without any missile on board,

the F-15C should be 20KM, F-14A should be 15200 Meter, Su-33 should be 17KM, Su-27 should be 19KM, F/A-18C should be 15200 Meter, Mig-31 should be 21KM.

 

Su-33 should have maximum internal fuel weight of 8500KG,

F/A-18C should be 4930KG!

Not saying that there can't be any errors, but you are aware that Wikipedia is not necessarily the most reliable source of information for various topics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For fuel i have not test but for altitute, the ceiling altitude indicated on the files is wrong anyway...

Trying to climb at 20Km with the F-15C is...painful, almost impossible and require afterburner, which i'm sure the real don't need to do...

 

Same for the Mig29 for example which is supposed to have a operational ceiling at 69000 ft/21Km

I'm sure in DCS we CAN'T do it without afterburner while the real one can goes to 75000 ft without that :

Informations can be wrong in websites, but a video don't lie...

In DCS the aircraft over FL 500 can't do anything, we can only flight level and avoid to turn or we loose speed and altitude for a low bank angle turn, and we need afterburner to sustain it even without any external payload and with almost empty fuel...

 

Stratospheric flight in DCS seam to be wrong...

Same for the fuel quantity of the F15E which have conformal fuel tanks (the 3D model show them and its rare to see a real F15E without those CFT) the fuel quantity is wrong...

Both without or with cft the fuel quantity is wrong...

 

DCS Need a lot of fix, including missiles AFM !

CPU : I7 6700k, MB : MSI Z170A GAMING M3, GC : EVGA GTX 1080ti SC2 GAMING iCX, RAM : DDR4 HyperX Fury 4 x 8 Go 2666 MHz CAS 15, STORAGE : Windows 10 on SSD, games on HDDs.

Hardware used for DCS : Pro, Saitek pro flight rudder, Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog, Oculus Rift.

Own : A-10C, Black Shark (BS1 to BS2), P-51D, FC3, UH-1H, Combined Arms, Mi-8MTV2, AV-8B, M-2000C, F/A-18C, Hawk T.1A

Want : F-14 Tomcat, Yak-52, AJS-37, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, F-5E, MiG-21Bis, F-86F, MAC, F-16C, F-15E.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i checked various source say the F-15C with service ceiling of 19812 Meters or 65000ft. In the DCS F-15C module said 20KM?, the F-15E with service ceiling of 18200 Meters.

 

i think the F-15C should be able to reach 19812 Meters with clean loadout and with fuel tanks near empty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone always just passes off Wikipedia as unreliable. Usually statement of facts like service ceiling is followed by a reference. Consider the reference not Wikipedia. In this case they state up front data was taken from a snapshot from the USAF website/factsheet, Jane's, and another. I consider the USAF a pretty good source for information about the F-15...

 

This is a skill you should have practiced in high school.


Edited by xaoslaad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

first of all before i say anything, i never fly any F-15C, F/A-18C or any aircraft in real world.

 

i do noticed some "fake" in the simulator that could be need to correct.

in my custom mission, i fly the Su-33 and aproch the AI F/A-18C with fully loaded with air to air missile on each hardpoint and one external fuel tank at middle at 15KM altitude, the AI Hornet can fly to that high as well, that is weird? since the F/A-18C had its maximum service ceiling 15KM, i dont know what wrong? for F/A-18C to fly that high, the AI would have to jettison all the load out! to climb to that altitude?

 

I read the F-15C Wikipedia, the article said the F-15C fly maximum at 11.6KM to launch the ASAT missile?, how come a ASAT missile and pair of fuel tanks fly that low?

 

from that information, I suspect the F-15C actual service ceiling was around 15KM-17KM-18KM?

 

I think that should be covered up about the weakness or advantage of military hardware?, they just don't want to let people know about their actual capability?

 

the thing you said should learn from school, that mean cheating!, but I never cheat in any school or college, all my capabilities was PURE!

 

if the MIG-25, it had stated in historic test at very high altitude and speed.


Edited by JOKERACTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone always just passes off Wikipedia as unreliable. Usually statement of facts like service ceiling is followed by a reference. Consider the reference not Wikipedia. In this case they state up front data was taken from a snapshot from the USAF website/factsheet, Jane's, and another. I consider the USAF a pretty good source for information about the F-15...

 

This is a skill you should have practiced in high school.

 

When that is the case, which it often is, you obviously cite the reference given, not wikipedia itself (which is what OP did).

Win10 x64 | SSDs | i5 2500K @ 4.4 GHz | 16 GB RAM | GTX 970 | TM Warthog HOTAS | Saitek pedals | TIR5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that simulator really need correction,

 

the Su-25 max ceiling height with clean load was 7KM, while both Su-25T and Su-25TM /Su-39 share the same air frame, with max ceiling of 12KM.

 

the Mig-31 maximum reachable height was 28KM, sevice ceiling of 21KM.

Mig-25 with maximum reachable height of 37.65KM, service ceiling of 24.4KM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh no, after I checked overall data value in "DCS World\Scripts\database", "PlaneConst" file. A lot of inaccurate to historical specification, the planes 's engine thrust value was incorrect!, it was a lot lower and in British/American lbf value. The height and weight was in KG and Meter, the thrust should be in Newton!?

 

maybe this error cause the planes to fly a lot shorter distant and a lot lowered altitude compare with the historical specification?


Edited by JOKERACTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

asm-135a-1.jpg

I read the F-15C Wikipedia, the article said the F-15C fly maximum at 11.6KM to launch the ASAT missile?, how come a ASAT missile and pair of fuel tanks fly that low?

 

(Wiki)

The ASM-135 was designed to be launched from an F-15A in a supersonic zoom climb. The F-15's mission computer and heads-up display were modified to provide steering directions for the pilot. (Directory of U.S. Military Rockets and Missiles. Vought ASM-135 ASAT[5] Accessed on 2 November 2007.)

(/Wiki)

 

Service ceiling and absolute ceiling are two different altitudes, I don't know, but it's possible the launch altitude is between service ceiling at 65,000feet, and altitude record, above 100,000feet, maybe around 80-90,000 feet.

 

The drag from 2 fuel tanks and a ASAT missile, could make horisontal fligh, practical neccessary at 11,6km, but it's not the launch altitude.


Edited by Buzpilot

i5 4670 - Sabertooth Z87- GTX Titan - Dell U3011 30" - 2x8GB RAM 1800 - Samsung 840 EVO 512GB SSD - Warthog HOTAS - CH Pro pedals - TrackIR5 - Win7 64bit

EVERYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just changed some data value in "DCS World\Scripts\database", "PlaneConst" file. At the Su-27 section, "thrust_sum_max" from XXXXX to 150440; "thrust_sum_ab" from XXXXX to 245100.

 

the 5 digit value is believe to be "lbf" unit value, the new 6 digit value was Newton unit value. The simulator believe to using "Newton" unit but the data was keyed in "lbf" value ?????

 

i tested the edited Su-27 fully loaded, full fueled start from ramp and fly around at high altitude, i got about 1500KM Combat patrol radius.

 

i think that should be the actual specification? that meet the various online Su-27 specification.

 

that is very worst, i noticed alot other planes also keyed in "lbf" value!

 

that was very disappointing, maybe this error cause the planes to fly a lot shorter distant and a lot lowered altitude compare with the historical accurate specification?


Edited by JOKERACTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

after I recheck the actual unit value for the thrust in the "DCS World\Scripts\database", "PlaneConst" file, it was not in "lbf" but in "KG" !,

 

(thrust in force Newton) = (Mass) KG

(Earth Gravity acceleration)

 

but, after I keyed in the Newton unit value, i tested the edited Su-27 fully loaded with Air to Air missile and ECM pods, full fuelled start from ramp and fly around at high altitude, I got nearly 1500KM Combat patrol radius?, actually I fly it with afterburner for full flight to 13-15KM altitude and ranged about 1200KM+ with out refuel. So I assumed if I fly it with normal cruising thrust and 8-11KM altitude, it can reach the 1500KM combat patrol radius without refuel?

 

WHAT Do you all think and fell that should be the actual specification? that meet the various online Su-27 specification. Who was the Real Su-27 pilot there can comment about it? the simulator could be using the Force in "Newton" unit for the thrust? and the data was keyed in with Mass "KG" unit? it was about 10x lower thrust !, maybe that cause the fuel being expend in 10x times faster and cause all the aircraft fly in very short range and lower altitude? rather than the actual specification FACT of those aircraft on the website?

 

how about the missile specification? the missile ranged was in the correct way?


Edited by JOKERACTS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, kG (capital G) is indeed the unit of force, not SI one and outdated now, but still used quite often in thrust descriptions (just like BHP is still quite popular power unit for piston engines, even though kW is more appropriate from SI system point of view).

 

1kG (kilogram-force) = 9,81 Newtons.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happens with the jauge of the SU-33 ? It seems blocked at 6 t. Why ?

 

that could be the Su-33 still in scripted ship take off model? because theoretically the Su-33 cannot take off with full fuel, the maximum ship take off for fuel weight was the 6000KG only? in real carrier take off condition, the ship can would sail at 30knots / 55KM/h, that was extra starting speed for the Su-33 and possible allow the Su-33 take off with full 8500KG of fuel and with full weapon loaded.

 

Just for the record, kG (capital G) is indeed the unit of force, not SI one and outdated now, but still used quite often in thrust descriptions (just like BHP is still quite popular power unit for piston engines, even though kW is more appropriate from SI system point of view).

 

1kG (kilogram-force) = 9,81 Newtons.

 

I think the simulator could be contain physics mistake, that cause the planes in it did not meet the original specification as the online website, such as the combat radius, altitude, ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...