Kula66 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Just finished readng a book on the F-4C and the pilot describes numerous alert take-offs (with AAMs and 2 x drop tanks) where from brakes off he climbs at 60 degs while accelerating up to 30k' ... If I try this in LO F-15 (I assume from the power to weight ratios and the more advanced design - a slicker airframe) to be a 'faster', better accelerating plane ... even with no drop tanks. I am struggling at 30k' and by 40k' am usually at 300kts. This is even if I try and maintain a lower climb angle and keep lower than 1G for improved acceleration. I assume the Russian birds are similarly modelled. Are the figthers under-modelled?
Shaman Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 F-4/MiG-21 were built during diffrent era. It was all about speed and minimum drag (so the planes looked like pencils). Modern planes are not as fast, though their airframes allow to be more manuverable. You want to fly super-fighters, try fastmovers in Flight Simulator 2004, you'll be disgusted. 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Pilotasso Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 F-4/MiG-21 were built during diffrent era. It was all about speed and minimum drag (so the planes looked like pencils). Modern planes are not as fast, though their airframes allow to be more manuverable. A bit of a mixed up view you got there. It still is about minimum drag. Speed took second importance because the design philosofy has changed and so did the engines. Todays fighters are more aerodynamic than ever, but instead of pure turbojets you now have Turbofans. They allow orders of magnitude more power than before but they have more difficulty going past mach 2.5 Todays planes climb better, accelerate faster, and are more manueverable and more aerdynamic than before. Simply their first sage compressors and fan will desintegrate if you try go mach 3. If you analyse the designs better you will actualy verify that average speed for mission has axctualy increased. 4rth gen fighters although limited at mach 1.8+ will still be faster in the overal mission because they can sustain that speed for much less fuel. Try to Outrun a Raptor in an F-4 or in a mig25 and your in for a few surprises. The F-22 will outclimb and out run any of these planes (or any other for that matter). By the time the F-4 reaches mach 2 the F-22 will be so far ahead that before it can catch it the phantom will ring its bingo fuel alarm. The Mig-21 will crash to lack of fuel. The Eurofighter is so aerodynamic that several pilots went supersonic without noticing it and had to put the engines on idle to slow down. The F-35 has about 30% more wieght than the F-16 but more than twice its thrust. .
Shaman Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Well the rate of climb has always been the most important for a fighter. Try to Outrun a Raptor in an F-4 or in a mig25 and your in for a few surprises. I don't think I'll ever get a chance. But I guess you've already done it ;) 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Pilotasso Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 No, but sufice to say that the raptor has been reported to sustain mach 1.5 for an hour and any 2nd gen fighter will run out of fuel in 5 minutes at that speed. They spend 10 times more fuel on afterburner than in full military power, same as 3rg gen fighters but then the first have way higher specific comsumption. So I dont have to fly them for proof. Well the rate of climb has always been the most important for a fighter. Well, the F-22 has been known to out climb its chase aircraft, such as F-16's and F-15's, previous holders of world records. In take off they have to engage afterburner to keep up with the raptor in dry thrust. So rate of climb although still classified is surely not a problem. .
Kula66 Posted May 2, 2006 Author Posted May 2, 2006 F-4/MiG-21 were built during diffrent era. It was all about speed and minimum drag (so the planes looked like pencils). I think the F-15 was designed as the last of the 'bigger', 'faster', 'higher' US fighters ... I would guess it could out everything an F-4. It just seems to be a slug in comparison to the F-4 described by this pilot. Having said that, I've seen F-15s from Lakenheath do things that I can't do in LO ... :( I was wondering why the figthers were modelled to be slower than RL ...
Shaman Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 I'm sorry, I was thinking about quarter of a mile racing style ;) Yes, supercruise in F-22 is fantastic achievment. But hell, that's Lockheed. 51PVO Founding member (DEC2007-) 100KIAP Founding member (DEC2018-) :: Shaman aka [100☭] Shamansky tail# 44 or 444 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 100KIAP Regiment Early Warning & Control officer
Pilotasso Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 "The most impressive feature of the first flight was the F- 22's rate of climb. Even though the Raptor climbed with its landing gear down, the F-16 chase aircraft had a tough time keeping up with the F -22, as the F119 engines produced a tremendous amount of thrust. The airplane climbed out fast at around a twenty-five-degree pitch angle in military power. The steep climb angle is a function of wanting to maintain a constant velocity under a fixed power setting." http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-testfly.htm And that was a fast google. I had other sources. .
capttrob Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 F-15C in real life - Millions of Dollars F-15C in LockOn - 30 bucks... "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.... :thumbup:
Kula66 Posted May 2, 2006 Author Posted May 2, 2006 F-15C in real life - Millions of Dollars F-15C in LockOn - 30 bucks... "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.... :thumbup: So we should settle for something that is not accurate? Or try and find out more information and do something about it? You may be happy ... me I want to get things fixed :)
capttrob Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Great... i hope you do. I'd love to have an accurate F-15 flight model, radar, missles and Nav for 30 bucks.. for now, i just adapt and point out some observations (also known as bitching).... :thumbup: ......................... :pilotfly: ..............................
Dudikoff Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Yes, supercruise in F-22 is fantastic achievment. But hell, that's Lockheed. "But hell, that's P&W" would be much more appropriate. i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg. DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?). Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!
NEODARK Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Great... i hope you do. I'd love to have an accurate F-15 flight model, radar, missles and Nav for 30 bucks.. for now, i just adapt and point out some observations (also known as bitching).... :thumbup: ......................... :pilotfly: .............................. I thought we were supposed to have "physics independent rotor blades, and they cast shadows" so why not have a more accurate Eagle/Flanker? ;) I'd pay for it even.
phantom_fly85 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 O.K., here I go to start this debate... If the F-15C is not modeled correctly then why can't we have a F/A-18A-C? No manuals? How did you get the F-15's? And is it right? Ducks head after throwing grenade.
Cobra360 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 "But hell, that's P&W" would be much more appropriate. The F-15 also uses PW engines. The F-15C can supercruise if it was fitted with the -229s that power the F-15E. Put a pair of -119s or -135s in and the F-15 would supercruise better than the Typhoon. But then Lockheed have changed the deffinition of what supercruise is. It was origonally faster than M1 then that went to M1.2 and now Lockheed say that M1.5 without AB is supercruise. The F-111F when clean of external pylons could go faster than M1 in dry power, as could the F-14D and the F-15D that was used to test the 229s for the F-15E because it had no CFTs. This was only something like M1.02-1.05 but still supersonic in dry power.
Pilotasso Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 I think the F-16 can go supersonic on dry thrust as well to this day but barely and with no external stores. .
britgliderpilot Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 O.K., here I go to start this debate... If the F-15C is not modeled correctly then why can't we have a F/A-18A-C? No manuals? How did you get the F-15's? And is it right? Ducks head after throwing grenade. The F-15A manual was available - it's a USAF aircraft rather than a USN aircraft, and they're a bit free-er with their manuals. Olgerd says that ED have now obtained some information on the F/A-18A, and are hopeful of obtaining some more. . . . . . I'd be a little suspicious about some blanket comments about F15s and Typhoons if they had different engines . . . . it's probably right that with the amount of thrust that the Raptor and JSF engines throw out almost anything could supercruise! Apparently the English Electric lightning could supercruise back in the day, too . . . . shrug. Mach 1.5 is still faster than supersonic - it's not so much that Lockheed have changed the definition of the word as they've maximised on what the basic definition. One day we might get a more accurate Eagle . . . . but that day won't be soon, it's not in the plan yet. As long as a Russian publisher is handing over the bulk of the development money and wants Russian aircraft . . . . . . grin. The F15 thrust problem is a long-running story, and to be honest I'm still not sure what the real answer is. Could be undermodelled, could be something that we don't know, could just be that we're trying to do something that doesn't fit to the exact flight profile used IRL. Because to be honest . . . . we see an aeroplane taking off, how do we know exactly what it's fuel load is, how fast it's going, etcetera etcetera . . . . . shrug. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
GGTharos Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 O.K., here I go to start this debate... If the F-15C is not modeled correctly then why can't we have a F/A-18A-C? No manuals? How did you get the F-15's? And is it right? Ducks head after throwing grenade. Don't even bother. You know what the answer is. The F-15C will get its due attention eventually, as will the flanker and all the other planes, I'm sure. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
GGTharos Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 The F15 thrust problem is a long-running story, and to be honest I'm still not sure what the real answer is. Could be undermodelled, could be something that we don't know, could just be that we're trying to do something that doesn't fit to the exact flight profile used IRL. I think that the available thrust at a given altitude is not modelled correctly ... ie. it is controlled by a 'general' formula which the real engines probably out-perform, but don't quote me on that ... it's just a guess. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Red Star Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 If the F-15C is not modeled correctly then why can't we have a F/A-18A-C? Well if you want an F/A-18 that is not modelled correctly then just change Humancockpit "yes" in the meinit file. :D Seems your grenade was a dud. ;) :P
britgliderpilot Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 I think that the available thrust at a given altitude is not modelled correctly ... ie. it is controlled by a 'general' formula which the real engines probably out-perform, but don't quote me on that ... it's just a guess. Could be . . . . no real way of knowing. Historically, a lot of the complaints about performance of an aeroplane seem to have been made by people believing the performance of that aeroplane to be somewhat greater than it is - so there's a bit of scepticism in all this for me ;) Anyway, graphs (!!) supporting your hypothesis: Acceleration to a Mach No in Lomac vs IRL, at 10,000 feet. Lomac's a couple of seconds behind at low to transonic Mach Nos . . . . but is drag being modelled correctly? I'd be fairly astonished if it was all 100% perfect - real-time calculations of drag and thrust are what the AFM is all about, and we know we haven't got that for the F-15. Seems pretty accurate, though. Here the nice big Mach No diagram . . . . . saying that above 40k feet and Mach 1.4, the Lomac F-15 isn't as fast as the real thing. Supersonic drag calculations and supersonic thrust . . . . is all rather complicated, and as pointed out the F-15 doesn't have an AFM. And even the AFM is only an approximation. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg
SwingKid Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 Just finished readng a book on the F-4C and the pilot describes numerous alert take-offs (with AAMs and 2 x drop tanks) where from brakes off he climbs at 60 degs while accelerating up to 30k' ... If I try this in LO F-15... Descriptions like this have burned me one too many times. When I took out the time-to-height charts for the F-15C from its Dash-1 flight manual and compared them to Lock On, they were dead on. To the second. Draw own conclusions. ;) :rolleyes: -SK
Kula66 Posted May 2, 2006 Author Posted May 2, 2006 SK, Interesting ... is that available on the net?
GGTharos Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 What loadout, SK? Most people complain about the loaded aircraft, not clean config. Could be the stores are just extra draggy ;) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Cobra360 Posted May 2, 2006 Posted May 2, 2006 What loadout, SK? Most people complain about the loaded aircraft, not clean config. Could be the stores are just extra draggy ;) Thats like the problem Falcon 4 used to have. The stores were too draggy in the 1.08 patch. This was then fixed in the Superpacks and it flew like a dream then when fully armed. One thing that is for sure is that the A-10 is underpowered but I still think it handles really good in LO. The MiG, I know is a high T/W ratio fighter even when fully armed but I feel it's a little overpowered.
Recommended Posts