Su-27 FM Changes?

[DarkFire]

Does anyone know if the Su-27 FM was adjusted in the most recent patch (1.5.3.53108 )? It could be that I'm totally wrong and it's just that I've not flown for a week or so due to being busy at work, but things that I feel have changed are:

 

1. Bleeds a little more energy & airspeed in turns.

 

2. TAS for a given throttle setting is reduced. As an example, at 3,000m altitude with clean configuration TAS used to be ~1020 Km/h, now it's ~980 Km/h.

 

3. Significantly more stable & more controllable at low air speed, e.g. at pattern & finals speeds.

 

4. Engine power at any given RPM appears to have been slightly reduced.

 

5. Fuel consumption has significantly increased.

 

6. Rate of change of the trimmer appears to have been reduced. Now vastly easier to trim accurately. WOOOHOOO! AT LAST!!!!! :thumbup:

 

Am I imagining things or has the FM changed?

Edited May 20, 2016 by DarkFire

[Tomcat Driver]

I agree Darkfire Ive noticed its defo more stable and the trim is a lot better. Its a lot more enjoyable to fly now.

[DarkFire]

It seems I may have been wrong about the increased fuel consumption.

 

I just did a quick & dirty test on the VA server, flying from Krasnodar-Pashkovsky to Batumi & back again, cruising at 10,000m for most of the flight.

 

Starting conditions were full fuel and simulated (smoke pods) 3 x R-73. I used my normal climb profile and settled in at 85% RPM at 10,000m HUD-indicated altitude.

 

On return to KP I had 4650Kg of fuel remaining, equalling a total fuel consumption of 4750Kg.

 

Tacview reported an exactly 900Km round trip, with 754Km flown at cruise altitude. This equalled a steady cruise fraction of 84%.

 

Fuel consumption for this flight was therefore 5.2778 Kg/Km which is entirely consistent with the figures I obtained doing the tests for this thread (see the table on page 1):

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151731&highlight=su-27+range

 

The fuel consumption for today's flight was lower than the 10,000m altitude test referenced in the linked thread, but that can easily be explained by the fact that for the test in the linked thread I was carrying a full A-A war load of missiles, so higher drag.

 

Conclusions? Obviously this is only 1 data point, but I think my initial impression on fuel consumption was wrong, at least about cruising at altitude. Fuel consumption feels higher than it used to at lower altitudes, however I used my normal climb profile and climb performance felt unaffected.

 

As a side note, my recommendations with regards to the most efficient cruise RPM (it varies with altitude between 83% and 87%, but 85% is always a good choice no matter the altitude) have not changed, which I was afraid they might.

 

I wonder if rather than the aerodynamics having changed, the engine performance profile has been changed?

[Hummingbird]

Interesting regarding the trim, have been hoping for this for a long time, the trim changes were simply waay too extreme before - hope they reduced it a lot, will try it out tomorrow.

 

It doesn't take a lot of upwards pitch with speed to simulate positive stability, so I don't believe the Russians would've made the SAS induce so much upwards pitch as to be a nuisance to the pilot.

 

Btw, does anyone know if the later Su-27/35's feature auto trim?

[Svend_Dellepude]

There is no change to trim. still as coarse as before.

Or should I say, I at least didn't notice any changes at all.

Edited June 20, 2016 by Svend_Dellepude