JazonXD Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Just almost there but I ran out of fuel :D :joystick: AMD 5600X -- Gigabyte RTX 3070 Vision -- 32GB 3600MHz DDR4 -- HP Reverb G2 -- Logitech 3D Extreme Pro -- Thrustmaster TWCS BRRRT! Car and aviation enthusiast, gun nut and computer nerd!
Bushmanni Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) You get the best speed at 40k, you are too high for max speed run. Also you should climb at 1.0M to 45k and then dive at 5 degrees to about 35k and accelerate to around 1.3-1.4M and then climb at 5 degrees to 40k and then accelerate in level flight. This gets you past the transonic drag faster and hence saves fuel for longer acceleration. Edited January 9, 2016 by Bushmanni DCS Finland: Suomalainen DCS yhteisö -- Finnish DCS community -------------------------------------------------- SF Squadron
Holbeach Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 I dig this video out every time this question comes up. :) .. ASUS 2600K 3.8. P8Z68-V. ASUS ROG Strix RTX 2080Ti, RAM 16gb Corsair. M2 NVME 2gb. 2 SSD. 3 HDD. 1 kW ps. X-52. Saitek pedals. ..
pr1malr8ge Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) You get the best speed at 40k, you are too high for max speed run. Also you should climb at 1.0M to 45k and then dive at 5 degrees to about 35k and accelerate to around 1.3-1.4M and then climb at 5 degrees to 40k and then accelerate in level flight. This gets you past the transonic drag faster and hence saves fuel for longer acceleration. no he is not.. Mach speeds to relative air speed is higher as you go higher.. if you can't reach m2.5 at 50k ft that means you tried to hard to get up to that height. Once you hit 50k m2.5 it will top out at 2.50X push over to .8g and decend you can hit over m2.6 Edited January 9, 2016 by pr1malr8ge For the WIN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
SDsc0rch Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 i "think" M=2.606 is the absolute max you can get... i7-4790K | Asus Sabertooth Z97 MkI | 16Gb DDR3 | EVGA GTX 980 | TM Warthog | MFG Crosswind | Panasonic TC-58AX800U [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Sweep Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Yep, 2.606 is the max in-game. Found that out the hard way when I tried chasing down a few Eagles that had unlimited fuel...in a half-fueled Flanker. Lord of Salt
GGTharos Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 That was so funny :) [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
JazonXD Posted January 10, 2016 Author Posted January 10, 2016 Yep, 2.606 is the max in-game. Found that out the hard way when I tried chasing down a few Eagles that had unlimited fuel...in a half-fueled Flanker. What does that mean? :D AMD 5600X -- Gigabyte RTX 3070 Vision -- 32GB 3600MHz DDR4 -- HP Reverb G2 -- Logitech 3D Extreme Pro -- Thrustmaster TWCS BRRRT! Car and aviation enthusiast, gun nut and computer nerd!
Sweep Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 What does that mean? :D It means that GG and his buddy ran away from me at mach 2.606! :megalol: I was trying to chase him down in a Flanker, but it had something like 60% fuel in it...that didn't work. :D Lord of Salt
whitehot Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 so we can't hope to have realistic SR-71s and MiG-25s in the future .. :( [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Intel i7 6700K @ 4.2, MSI M5 Z170A Gaming, NZXT X61 Kraken liquid cooler, PNY Nvidia GTX 1080 Founders Edition, 16GB Corsair Vengeance 3000 Mhz C15, samsung 840 evo SSD, CoolerMaster 1000W Gold rated PSU, NZXT Noctis 450 cabinet, Samsung S240SW 24' 1920x1200 LED panel, X-52 Pro Flight stick. W10 Pro x64 1809, NO antivirus EVER
SinusoidDelta Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Why is it 2.606? I recall the eagle achieved M2.7 in a NASA paper. Considering we don't have a realistic damage model, shouldn't we be able to exceed the airframe dynamic pressure constraint?
pr1malr8ge Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 Why is it 2.606? I recall the eagle achieved M2.7 in a NASA paper. Considering we don't have a realistic damage model, shouldn't we be able to exceed the airframe dynamic pressure constraint? it's because someone decided to just put 2.606 as the max number it can achieve. For the WIN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
SinusoidDelta Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 ...I hope there's more to it than that.
GGTharos Posted January 14, 2016 Posted January 14, 2016 I would suspect a limitation of the atmosphere sim. [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
pr1malr8ge Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 I would suspect a limitation of the atmosphere sim. if this were the case then missiles would also be limited to m2.606 For the WIN [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]If your desired effect on the target is making the pilot defecate his pants laughing then you can definitely achieve it with a launch like that.
GGTharos Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Not necessarily, but who knows. [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
SinusoidDelta Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 (edited) Just fooling around, it isn't a hard limit at 2.606 but I can't get much faster. Also the dynamic weather in the MP server was completely insane. The nose was yawing all over the place above mach 1.6 yet the slip indicator didn't budge. Either I don't understand the concept of side slip or the HDI isn't being honest. Regardless I'm sure I could go faster with ideal conditions. Edited January 15, 2016 by SinusoidDelta
Nerd1000 Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Not necessarily, but who knows. Perhaps a limitation on air-breathing engines? Missiles can hit higher speeds, but they use rockets and are thus not subject to ram drag.
GGTharos Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Possibly yes. They may have also just not known what to do with the thrust curve at that point, I don't know. @SinusoidDelta, there's no sideslip with crosswind. Sideslip requires beta. However if the noise is just taking all over the place you might expect some movement of the ball - but it should center. You might be 'sideslipping' with respect to the ground, but not with respect to the air mass which is what the slip indicator measures. [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
JazonXD Posted January 15, 2016 Author Posted January 15, 2016 Also, just a random point, not sure if anyone did this before but if you go at suuuper high speeds (M 2+) and then just dive down to sea level, if you are still well over 1.5, the aircraft will start to wiggle REALLY badly and start yawing from side to side... it's the rudder CAS trying to correct the flight but it keeps over correcting and eventually it will get so much that you'll just about depart or black out lol. If you turn off rudder CAS however, the problem goes away. Just an interesting note on the 15's FM AMD 5600X -- Gigabyte RTX 3070 Vision -- 32GB 3600MHz DDR4 -- HP Reverb G2 -- Logitech 3D Extreme Pro -- Thrustmaster TWCS BRRRT! Car and aviation enthusiast, gun nut and computer nerd!
GGTharos Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 After 800kts indicated you should be at risk of losing control surfaces... Not yet implemented :-) [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
SinusoidDelta Posted January 15, 2016 Posted January 15, 2016 Should have 1.5 safety margin. A risk? Yes. Instant death, probably not.
JazonXD Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 After 800kts indicated you should be at risk of losing control surfaces... Not yet implemented :-) How so? I'm pretty sure the hydraulic systems in modern planes are pretty rugged? In what ways will you lose control surfaces? Physically ripping off?! AMD 5600X -- Gigabyte RTX 3070 Vision -- 32GB 3600MHz DDR4 -- HP Reverb G2 -- Logitech 3D Extreme Pro -- Thrustmaster TWCS BRRRT! Car and aviation enthusiast, gun nut and computer nerd!
GGTharos Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Yep. No longer on your plane. [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
JazonXD Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 Yep. No longer on your plane. Well interesting then... how did NASA or even just the airforce get the plane up to 2.5+ Mach? I'm pretty sure that at those speeds even at really high altitudes, IAS is much above 800 knots... AMD 5600X -- Gigabyte RTX 3070 Vision -- 32GB 3600MHz DDR4 -- HP Reverb G2 -- Logitech 3D Extreme Pro -- Thrustmaster TWCS BRRRT! Car and aviation enthusiast, gun nut and computer nerd!
Recommended Posts