Fuel efficiency & autopilot at high altitude.

[DarkFire]

tEST #4: 8,000M Altitude.

 

So, here we are with test number 4: 8,000m altitude.

 

Again the test conditions were identical to previous tests. This test produced the following performance graph:

 

 

Once again no surprises in store for us at 8,000m altitude. Maximum true air speed increased to ~1,070Km/h and once again increasing from 95% RPM to military power (99% indicated RPM) produced no increase in true air speed whatsoever. To continue the trend from the 9,000m test the aircraft was able to maintain altitude at steady AOA (a predictable 4 degrees) at 78% RPM but again failed to do so at 75% RPM. Doing the 78% RPM test is particularly problematic as this is of course almost exactly the RPM setting at which the exhaust nozzles close up, producing a significantly higher amount of thrust for little change in RPM setting. Of note, you can actually see this happen if you look closely at the TIT gauge when advancing the throttle from 76% - 79% RPM.

 

I was wondering if the most efficient cruise setting would change, but apparently not, it's still rock steady at between 83% - 85% RPM. I'm beginning to wonder if this will change at all, or at least if it will change until we get down below 5,000m altitude. As the zen master says, we'll see.

 

Tacview this time reported a 332Km flight with 2375Kg of fuel consumed. This equates to a fuel consumption figure of 7.15 Kg/Km and a consequent maximum range of 1315 Km. This range calculation is getting problematic for a couple of reasons. I'm getting more efficient at doing the tests, which has no effect on the accuracy of the measured speed or altitude, but it does mean that an ever-increasing portion of the total flight is spent in climb-out or approach and landing. It also produces quite hairy landings because with a full war load and over 7,000Kg of fuel remaining the landing weight end up being way above the recommended maximum. Obviously I can't dump fuel as that would ruin the consumption calculation. It did result in a burst tyre on landing on this occasion though. I'll have to be more patient and accept a longer landing roll as the landing weights increase. The flanker is easy to land on low fuel with no stores, but near its maximum takeoff weight things can get... Interesting!

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 8000m ACMI.zip

[IvanK]

when you say Optimum RPM is in the range 83-85% what variable are you using to determine this ?

[DrDetroit]

when you say Optimum RPM is in the range 83-85% what variable are you using to determine this ?

 

Variable = +/- Alt and +/- Speed

 

Speed (x - coord) and Alt (y-coord). Follow the blue line for equilibrium values.

[DarkFire]

when you say Optimum RPM is in the range 83-85% what variable are you using to determine this ?

 

I'm making an assessment of the point at which the rate of increase of airspeed v increased RPM % ceases to be a relatively linear relationship, i.e. the point at which increasing RPM starts to give diminishing returns in terms of increased air speed. This is unlikely to be the actual optimum throttle setting for maximum theoretical fuel efficiency but I think it offers the best balance between speed and fuel efficiency for use in a realistic DCS combat mission.

 

Hope that made sense :huh:

[DarkFire]

Test #5: 7,000m Altitude.

 

So, here we are at 7,000m altitude.

 

The test conditions were exactly as before. Here's the performance graph:

 

 

And things are starting to get interesting. As before, maximum speed at military thrust has increased to 1,086 Km/h. Again moving from 95% RPM to maximum dry thrust setting (100% indicated) produced no increase in true air speed, but here's where the similarities mostly end.

 

Interestingly the aircraft failed to maintain a steady altitude with steady AOA at 78% RPM, just as it did up beyond 10,000m altitude. It's likely that this is caused by the thickening (relatively) air down at 7,000m produces more drag than at altitudes above 10Km. Maintaining a steady AOA at a steady altitude at 75% RPM is now completely impossible and the air speed decayed very quickly indeed at this engine setting.

 

The actual TAS shown on the graph for 75% RPM is probably anomalous in that it ought to be much lower. I recorded the value pretty much as soon as it became apparent that it would never hold a steady altitude at steady AOA. For interest, by the point that TAS had decayed to 508Km/h I was already at 9 degrees AOA and increasing quickly. I expect the TAS value for 75% RPM to become more inaccurate as altitude lowers due to the increasing rate at which airspeed will be lost.

 

I also think that the TAS value for 80% RPM is suspiciously high, but be that as it may the best efficiency point on the curve is once again 83% - 85% RPM.

 

This time Tacview reported a 314Km flight with 2,375Kg of fuel used. This gives a fuel consumption of 7.56Kg/Km and an associated maximum range of 1,243Km. I'm very interested to see what differences we'll see at 6,000m...

 

 

IMPORTANT: A NOTE FOR MISSION DESIGNERS!

 

Pay attention to the true air speed values for these sorts of altitudes. This will have a very real effect on things like route leg desired speeds and time-on-target calculations. Assigning a route leg speed of say 500Km/h and an altitude of 10,000m will actually be impossible for the pilot (the player) to achieve. At that sort of altitude the desired route leg speeds will have to be above ~925Km/h to be actually flyable in the Su-27. Something to bear in mind...

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 7000m ACMI.zip

Edited October 19, 2015 by DarkFire

[Robin_Hood]

Fuel flow for FC3 aircraft can be extracted by LUA export, with an old Lock-on function (not sure how it works for DCS modules) :

LoGetEngineInfo().FuelConsumption.left (or .right)

I think it is given in kg/s or something like that, I am not sure.

 

For anyone interested in LO functions, they are described in export.lua

Edited October 19, 2015 by Robin_Hood

[DarkFire]

Fuel flow for FC3 aircraft can be extracted by LUA export, with an old Lock-on function (not sure how it works for DCS modules) :

I think it is given in kg/s or something like that, I am not sure.

 

For anyone interested in LO functions, they are described in export.lua

 

Aha! I had no idea about that, thanks! :thumbup:

[DarkFire]

Test #6: 6,000m Altitude.

 

We're down at 6,000m altitude this time.

 

Test conditions were identical, with the exception that the autopilot decided to work correctly this time... For the most part. More on that later. Here's the performance graph:

 

 

This produced a couple of noteworthy points:

 

1. For the first time there's a measurable difference between 95% RPM and military thrust setting (100% indicated). It's only 2 Km/h but it's measurable. I expect this measurable difference to grow, perhaps until we get down in to the really dense air below ~3,000m.

 

2. 83% RPM is starting to become less effective, moving down in to the linear increase part of the curve. The 'best efficiency' setting is still steady at 85% RPM. I'm really starting to wonder if this will ever change.

 

3. As for the last couple of tests, 78% RPM was incapable of maintaining a steady altitude at a steady AOA. As air density increases with decreasing altitude I expect this 'minimum effective' RPM setting to increase. I'm wondering if 80% RPM will be viable at lower altitudes. As before, 75% RPM failed miserably to maintain steady altitude at steady AOA. As my AOA increased past 9.5 degrees I was approaching flaps speed.

 

4. This time Tacview reported a 366 Km flight with 2,700 Kg of fuel used. This equates to a fuel consumption of 7.38 Kg/Km - lower than for 7,000m altitude. I think this was caused by the longer flight resulting in a higher proportion of the total mission time spent at altitude. The corresponding maximum range would be 1,274 Km.

 

5. The autopilot worked perfectly up to the point at which I reduced thrust to 80% RPM which corresponded with AOA increasing from 1.5 to 2.5 degrees. At that point the usual severe flutter started and I had to disengage the autopilot. This resulted in uncommanded roll which surprised me as I had been wings-level before at during the periods when the autopilot was engaged. I'm tempted to say that there's much too much cross-talk between the pitch and yaw channels, and a lack of dampening on the yaw channel.

 

6. I mentioned last time that the heavier landings were getting more difficult? Well this time things got really interesting, and not in a good way. You know sometimes in kid's TV programs the presenter will say "Don't try this at home kids!" Yeah, about that... This is what happens when you smack a severely over-weight flanker down on the runway at 4m/s sink rate:

 

 

I don't think the squadron commander or my crew chief will be very happy with this... :chair:

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 6000m ACMI.zip

Edited October 19, 2015 by DarkFire

[ShuRugal]

A note on landing at heavy loadings: I have been practicing low-angle takeoffs (maintain <10m to runway threshold) and found that the aircraft begins to make usable lift at ~330 KPH IAS with a nose-up and of 8 degrees. for landing a heavy bird, I believe that a final flare angle of 10 degrees, 300 KPH IAS, and somewhere around 80-85% RPM would produce a finely-selectable sink rate at high weights.

 

EDIT: yup, 300 IAS @ 10deg above horizon resulted in a touchdown with 3m/s sink, tires intact, fuel state ~8500kg Probably could have upped IAS to 320-340 and got the sink rate a little gentler, but this worked.

Tacview-20151019-171950-DCS.txt.zip

Edited October 19, 2015 by ShuRugal

[DarkFire]

A note on landing at heavy loadings: I have been practicing low-angle takeoffs (maintain <10m to runway threshold) and found that the aircraft begins to make usable lift at ~330 KPH IAS with a nose-up and of 8 degrees. for landing a heavy bird, I believe that a final flare angle of 10 degrees, 300 KPH IAS, and somewhere around 80-85% RPM would produce a finely-selectable sink rate at high weights.

 

EDIT: yup, 300 IAS @ 10deg above horizon resulted in a touchdown with 3m/s sink, tires intact, fuel state ~8500kg Probably could have upped IAS to 320-340 and got the sink rate a little gentler, but this worked.

 

Interesting, thanks, I'll give that a try. Did you have any issues with runway length at that landing speed?

[ShuRugal]

Had to use chute, nothing Else

[DarkFire]

OK cool, I'll definitely give that a try for future tests.

[DarkFire]

Test #7: 5,000m Altitude.

 

OK, so here we are at 5,000m altitude for today's test flight.

 

Test conditions and meteorological conditions were identical to previous tests. Here's the resultant performance graph:

 

 

So, generally we're continuing the trends evident from the previous 6,000m test. This time there is again a measured difference in speed between 95% RPM and maximum dry thrust (100% indicated), though again it's a tiny difference - only 1099 to 1111 Km/h. I expected to see a larger difference this time. Maybe next time, maybe not.

 

83% RPM is now clearly down in the linear increase portion of the graph. While 85% RPM is probably still the maximum efficiency setting, I would give some consideration to moving up to say 87% RPM if time on target became an issue for a given leg of a route plan.

 

As before both 75% and 78% RPM failed to maintain steady AOA at steady altitude. By the time I recorded the true air speed at 75% RPM I was well in to the zone where flaps would become useful - not an effective flight condition for cruising by any means. In fact, clearly totally ineffective. I did wonder about the 80% RPM figure, but I think at this altitude the air speed was just about holding steady. I doubt that this will continue as we go lower.

 

The autopilot again worked perfectly until I reduced RPM to 80% indicated. Interestingly this corresponded nearly exactly with a TAS of 725 Km/h and I'm beginning to wonder if the observed flutter, excessive roll/yaw cross-talk and lack of yaw dampening is somehow dependant on both AOA and airspeed. More testing necessary.

 

This time I used 2,775 Kg of fuel while Tacview measured flight distance as 333Km. This gave a fuel consumption figure of 8.33 Kg/Km and an associated maximum range of 1,128 Km.

 

Apparently avoiding the shambolic landing that happened last time is all about a slightly increased landing speed and a very gentle touchdown, in this case a sink rate of only 3m/s, pretty much exactly as ShuRugal suggested so thanks for that, it worked perfectly :thumbup:

 

Again something important to note for mission designers: the minimum effective TAS for a Flanker at this altitude, which is by no means uncommon for combat missions, is ~725 Km/h. The Flanker can't fly slowly and steadily. It needs speed :)

 

More to come later...

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 5000m ACMI.zip

[DarkFire]

Test #8: 4,000m Altitude.

 

Test number 8, this time we're at 4,000m altitude.

 

As usual meteorological conditions and test conditions were identical. Here's the performance graph:

 

 

We don't see anything radically different this time either. Again there was only 2 Km/h difference between 95% RPM and maximum dry throttle (100% indicated) - 1114 to 1116 Km/h. I'm beginning to wonder if there's ever a point in using 100% dry thrust over 95% RPM. I suspect not.

 

At this altitude 83% RPM is well down in to the linear increase area of the graph. While 85% RPM remains totally effective and also efficient, I'd give serious consideration to moving up to 87% RPM at this altitude. It appears likely that when we get to 3,000m and especially down to 2,000m altitude and below, that 85% RPM will likely be around the minimum effective cruise throttle setting.

 

78% and 75% RPM were as expected - totally ineffective in maintaining a steady altitude with steady AOA. In this case 75% RPM was so ineffective that when I measured the speed as 314 Km/h I was all the way up at 16 degrees AOA - this wasn't far off becoming a wing-level stall test :blink:

 

This time the autopilot maintained effectiveness down to ~630 - 650 Km/h before the onset of flutter gyrations. I really don't understand what's happening there, though I still suspect that there's too much cross-talk between roll & yaw axes and insufficient yaw dampening, however the onset of failure isn't predictable.

 

At 4,000m altitude I used 2,800 Kg of fuel to travel 336 Km which produced identical fuel consumption and maximum range figures to those calculated for 5,000m altitude.

 

For combat mission use at this altitude I wouldn't be comfortable using anything below 83% RPM to cruise, giving a minimum effective TAS of ~860 Km/h.

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 4000m ACMI.zip

[DarkFire]

Test #9: 3,000m Altitude.

 

OK, so we're comparatively getting down amongst the weeds now at 3,000m altitude. A-10C drivers may disagree with my description :lol:

 

Exactly as before, meteorological conditions and test characteristics were identical to all previous tests. Here's the performance graph:

 

 

Once again no real surprises. Again there was a measurable but steady and tiny difference in TAS between 95% and 100% (indicated) RPM, in this case 1121 - 1119 Km/h. Note that as we get lower in altitude the increase in Vmax is diminishing. Again using over 95% throttle achieves nothing. Increasing from 90% to 95% RPM only gives an increase of ~40 Km/h in TAS.

 

At this altitude even 83% RPM is becoming increasingly marginal as a cruise setting and is slipping down in to the linear increase area of the graph. Once again 85% is a completely viable choice. Though difficult to judge, the 'corner' or best efficiency RPM setting has probably moved up to 86 - 87% at this altitude. My recommendation would be to use 87% RPM if you have a throttle that's capable of that sort of accuracy. If not, 85% is perfectly acceptable.

 

Though difficult to judge, I think that 80% RPM was on the very limit of sustainable altitude at steady AOA. At 80% RPM I measured exactly 630 Km/h and 3* AOA. 78% and 75% were both completely unusable. The figures for 75% throttle are interesting - I made the measurement precisely at the onset of stall buffet which equated to 275 Km/h and a massive 19.5 degrees AOA. That was probably near the limit of safe controllability at that altitude so I decided not to do an actual stall test and recovered.

 

This time autopilot failure set in at about 450 Km/h which equated to an AOA of around 7 degrees. Again the onset of autopilot flutter wasn't predictable.

 

For the 3,000m altitude test I used 2,800 Kg of fuel and Tacview reported a flight distance of 319 Km. This equated to a fuel consumption figure of 8.78 Kg/Km and an associated maximum range of 1,071 Km. All being equal this theoretical maximum range is quite impressive given the relatively low altitude, again proving that a low fuel situation in the Flanker is rarely something to worry about in DCS combat missions.

 

Again 83% RPM is really the minimum throttle setting I'd feel comfortable using to cruise along in level flight, equating to a TAS of 825 Km/h.

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 3000m ACMI.zip

[DarkFire]

Test #10: 2,000m Altitude.

 

Now we're really getting down to the murky depths of the atmosphere at 2,000m altitude!

 

Test characteristics and meteorological conditions were again identical to all the other tests. Here's the relevant performance graph:

 

 

No surprises but we have confirmed a few things. As usual increasing from 95% RPM to maximum dry thrust (99% indicated) produced only a 3 Km/h TAS increase, in this case from 1125 to 1128 Km/h. Once again using 100% RPM is pointless unless you're engaging the afterburner. Even at 90% RPM the aircraft is still doing a very respectable 1081 Km/h or 584 Kts.

 

Please note that this time I added a data point at 87% RPM and removed the data point at 75% RPM because the latter test was becoming dangerously ineffective at maintaining altitude.

 

At 2,000m altitude 83% RPM is only marginally effective at maintaining steady altitude with steady AOA. 80% is on the very edge of steady altitude maintainability (3* AOA). 78% RPM failed miserably to maintain steady altitude with steady AOA. Again I recorded the results just at the onset of stall buffet: 249 Km/h and a massive 20.5* AOA.

 

At this altitude the 85% RPM setting is definitely in the linear increase portion of the graph and it appears that 87% RPM has become the best efficiency setting, giving a healthy cruise TAS of 1009 Km/h or 545 Kts.

 

The readings I took for 80% RPM were recorded just at the point at which the autopilot failed, but this time rather than flutter I experienced an oscillating roll phenomenon between ~4 degrees left and right roll. Again the onset of the problems doesn't appear to be predictable. AOA was exactly 3 degrees. These autopilot issues are really, really strange.

 

Tacview recorded a 363 Km trip with ~3,450 Kg of fuel used, giving a fuel consumption figure of 9.5 Kg/Km and an associated maximum range of 989 Km.

 

At this altitude 83% RPM would be the bare minimum I'd consider using for an effective cruise setting. Personally I would set 87% RPM or at least 85% if I was concerned about my remaining fuel. I'd consider 80% RPM to be an ineffective cruise setting at this altitude due to the loss of speed compared to 83% or 85% RPM settings.

 

One more to go! After I've got the test results for 1,000m altitude there are a couple of other derived performance graphs I'll generate to illustrate things like effective speed ranges versus altitude and that sort of thing.

 

Having gone to this much effort, if ED make any serious changes to the flight model I think I'll have a quiet cry in a corner :smilewink: ... Then start again...

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 2000m ACMI.zip

[DarkFire]

Test #11: 1,000m Altitude.

 

So here we are, the final test... For now.

 

Exactly as before, meteorological conditions and test characteristics were identical to previous tests. Here's the by now very familiar performance graph:

 

 

So it would appear that the Su-27 is by design entirely predictable. As far as consistency goes it appears that the designers at Sukhoi and indeed the team at ED did a fantastic job. No surprises really anywhere.

 

Exactly as before moving up from 95% RPM to maximum dry thrust (99% indicated) gave only a 2 Km/h TAS increase, in this case from 1130 to 1132 Km/h. So, it would appear that again there is no purpose in using anything over 95% indicated RPM unless you're engaging the afterburner.

 

As for the 2,000m altitude test I didn't test 75% RPM as it would be a dangerous test at this altitude. Instead I again inserted an extra data point at 87% RPM. The point at which increases in RPM give steady increases in TAS is a lot less well defined at this altitude, i.e. the graph is non-linear over a much wider range of RPM settings. That being said, I would still recommend 87% RPM as the sweet spot for efficient cruising, with 85% RPM being another very acceptable setting if your throttle setup isn't accurate enough to ensure a steady 87% setting. 87% indicated RPM will let you cruise at 992 Km/h or 536 Kts.

 

83% RPM while steady really isn't that efficient in terms of providing a decent cruise speed (761 Km/h or 411 Kts). 80% RPM is again barely effective and while it did provide a steady AOA at a steady altitude the TAS was a meagre 546 Km/h or 295 Kts with a 3.5* AOA. 78% RPM again as expected failed to maintain a steady altitude with steady AOA. At the onset of stall buffet I was at 239 Km/h and 20* AOA.

 

Interestingly 80% indicated RPM was again the point at which the autopilot failed and this time, as in the 2,000m altitude test, it produced roll oscillations instead of the flutter seen at higher altitudes. The onset still appears to be unpredictable and unexplained.

 

Tacview reported a 389 Km flight with 4,000 Kg of fuel used, corresponding to a fuel consumption of 10.28 Kg/Km and an associated maximum range of "only" 914 Km. This sort of range is very, very impressive given the very low altitude.

 

So that's it, test series completed! I'll post some more data analysis tomorrow. I've just realised that I need to get up for work in 4 hours :ermm:

Su-27 Cruise RPM v TAS 1000m ACMI.zip

[black27]

I've made some similar tests. My results are following: at high level the consumption was 120% of expected value (2700 km circuit with step climb from 10-13 km and steady M0,85 - avg speed 860 km/h). In the contrary at low level on 1000 km circuit @ 500m and speed 570-600 km/h the consumption was around 90% of expected value. Both was done at standard conditions - no wind, std. preasure, 15°C.

[DarkFire]

I've made some similar tests. My results are following: at high level the consumption was 120% of expected value (2700 km circuit with step climb from 10-13 km and steady M0,85 - avg speed 860 km/h). In the contrary at low level on 1000 km circuit @ 500m and speed 570-600 km/h the consumption was around 90% of expected value. Both was done at standard conditions - no wind, std. preasure, 15°C.

 

Very interesting. What were you using as the expected value?

[DarkFire]

Test Series Analysis & Conclusions.

 

I've carried out some basic analysis on the data I collected which has produced some interesting conclusions. First, a reminder of what the test conditions were:

 

TEST CONDITIONS:

1. Standard DCS day with no wind, no turbulence, no clouds.

2. Aircraft configuration: 100% fuel, 2xECM, 2xR-73, 2xR-27ET, 4xR-27ER, full gunpad, full expendables.

3. Barometric altimeter calibrated to takeoff runway within adjustment accuracy limit of the cockpit instrument.

 

FLIGHT PROFILE:

1. Takeoff performed under full military thrust.

2. Climb-out again performed under full military thrust until cruise altitude achieved.

3. Test started at ~8,000 Kg of fuel remaining, no weapons or consumables expended.

 

Note that this test series was conducted with a full war load of air-to-air ordnance and a full fuel load. Rather than calculating ideal performance figures for a clean aircraft my objective was to produce practical data for use in realistic combat missions.

 

For all but one test in the series the altitude was within ±20m of the desired cruise altitude and the throttle setting was within ±0.25% RPM of the desired setting. That's as accurate as I could get it. Systematic errors were therefore minimised as far as possible.

 

All the tests were carried out using DCS World 1.5 Beta + hotfix no.2. Flight distances were calculated using Tacview 1.3.4 64-bit and all the data was recorded on to an Excel workbook. Graphing was also done with Excel. So, on to the test conclusions.

 

 

TEST CONCLUSIONS

1. At all test altitudes increasing RPM from 95% to maximum dry thrust produced an insignificant increase in true air speed. Given the increased fuel usage at 100% RPM setting this is completely pointless unless you intend to engage the afterburner.
   
2. 85% RPM is an effective and efficient cruise setting at all altitudes, though the 'best efficiency' setting does change slightly.
   
3. The minimum speeds at which the Su-27 will maintain a steady altitude at a steady AOA are generally much higher than for other aircraft such as the Su-25. This is to be expected, but is very important for mission designers to bear in mind when calculating things like time-on-target, especially for escort missions. It's likely that the minimum effective TAS for the Su-27 could well be near to or above the maximum air speed for many strike aircraft at any given altitude.
   
4. Though I think the calculated figures are rather inaccurate, the Su-27 has a very impressive range even at very low altitude. For the vast majority of missions do not be concerned with fuel consumption unless you spend more than 5-10 minutes at afterburning thrust setting.
   

 

 

Here's the graph of recommended cruise RPM and resultant predicted TAS v altitude:

 

 

Note that the recommended RPM setting does change with altitude, but at any altitude 85% is always an effective choice. Unless your throttle hardware allows for accurate throttle settings to below 0.5% accuracy I would recommend using a cruise throttle setting of 85% at all altitudes. Note that by "efficiency" I mean the minimum throttle setting at which increased engine RPM no longer provides a linear increase in TAS.

 

 

Here are a pair of graphs showing minimum stable TAS and maximum TAS at dry thrust v altitude:

 

 

 

To provide reference material to those interested in the tests I've conducted, I've produced zipped archives of all the performance graphs, track files of all the test flights and also the associated acmi Tacview files. Also included is the Excel work book containing the raw data and the analysis graphs. Excel appears to calculate the graphs in real time and they may not appear if the work book is viewed with say a file viewer rather than Excel itself. I'm not familiar with the graphing abilities of something like Open Office or Libra Office so while I'd expect the data to display correctly the graphs may or may not work. These items are all available from this link:

 

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=D3293A5ED5656179!4791&authkey=!ANOPP6cChXDyJOQ&ithint=folder%2czip

 

Anyway, I hope this test series has been interesting and of value to Flanker pilots. By all means if you can see any errors or interesting things within my data feel free to post your observations here - the more information we have the better Flanker pilots we'll all become :)

Edited January 19, 2016 by DarkFire

[DarkFire]

If possible, could this thread be re-named to something like "Su-27 Cruise Performance" to better reflect the content please?

[pr1malr8ge]

I'm not a fan of the SU27 in game which hey nothing wrong with it and I don't discredit it nor its fans/pilots[accept 2 but pft not worth me time]. But the reason I am posting on this is simply now to say HOLY MOTHER OF GOD someone should give DarkFire some accolades dude has some very impressive skills on presenting data. Good Job Sir. Now please don't limit your ability of number crunching and presentations to just the RU birds!

 

Any rate good job Sir!

[*Rage*]

Great work Darkfire! "Must spread rep around some more before..."

 

Whilst there is very little difference generally between 90 and 100% rpm for cruise speed I wonder if there is a difference in acceleration to that speed?

 

Otherwise anything above 95% (and not AB) is virtually redundant in game.

[pr1malr8ge]

Great work Darkfire! "Must spread rep around some more before..."

 

Whilst there is very little difference generally between 90 and 100% rpm for cruise speed I wonder if there is a difference in acceleration to that speed?

 

Otherwise anything above 95% (and not AB) is virtually redundant in game.

 

No qualms about pride. I 100% agree with //Rage...

 

Again DarkFire awesome job!

[DarkFire]

Thanks for the kind words :) I've learned a huge amount from the DCS community as far back as the days of Flanker 2.0 so this is my humble way of contributing something back that others will hopefully find useful.

 

I've embarked on a second, much shorter test series designed to reveal some useful information about flight range based on an example ~550 Km flight profile, for which I've just started to gather data. I'll probably post that all at once.

 

As for other aircraft, I must admit that the F-15 doesn't really float my boat but on the NATO side of things, coming from the UK I'm definitely looking forwards to the Typhoon, having an RAF aircraft to fly will be nice, and I'm also quite looking forwards to the Mirage 2000.

 

As a bit of an aside, I think that a good counterpart for the forthcoming F-18C and augmenting the available Russian aircraft capabilities would be the Su-24M2. I'd love to see a DCS quality or even an FC3 quality version of the Fencer.

 

Anyway, thanks again for the complements, much appreciated :)