Jump to content

Engines underpowered


Mods-o_joy

Recommended Posts

  • 6 months later...

I’d love to see if those numbers can be duplicated.

It’s clear enough to see his load out, airspeed, and altitude in picture.

Assume 50% fuel maybe 30% best case.

 

A 400 knot 5 degree 1700foot ASL dive, and yes I know he’s pulling out of it.

 

The most I’ve seen in 8 years of DcS A10 is 3000 pounds of fuel flow and 83 maybe 84 % fan speed. Also his core RPM is only 94%

This dude is flying a missile with a man in it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hopefully this question isn't too tangential, but...... why is there no afterburn capability for the A-10, at least for hastening exit? There's one answer out there that the probability of anyone left to retaliate after a gun run is so low.... but following a strafe or other low-altitude attack, a steep climb can quickly seem sluggish. I wish I could find again the standard exit procedure that minimizes footprint of the plane to ground units, for one of other tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this question isn't too tangential, but...... why is there no afterburn capability for the A-10, at least for hastening exit?

 

I'm not an expert on jet engines, but my take on the situation:

 

An afterburner isn't just a module that's connected to an engine. It has to be built into the engine, or in other words it's an integral component, so this would have to be done during the A-10 design phase.

 

Afterburner chambers are long and add weight, which is detrimental to everything outside of AB use. Would you want to carry that additional weight around during every minute of flight? In fighters, the answer is obviously "yes, because it's worth it". In an attack aircraft like the Hog, the answer was apparently "no, not worth it".

 

And then there's the cost-argument. The A-10's TF-34 is the same engine that was already in use in the S-3 Viking, and it's said to be very reliable. As a turbofan engine, it's also very fuel efficient. I have no idea whether or not it would have been feasible to strap an afterburning jet engine onto the Hog's fuselage, or how that would have affected the layout of the aircraft.

 

Ultimately, it seems the designers figured that just like the A-6 and the A-7 (and the Su-25), this aircraft just didn't need afterburners, as the benefit of more power in an emergency didn't justify the downsides of more weight, more fuel consumption and more cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully this question isn't too tangential, but...... why is there no afterburn capability for the A-10, at least for hastening exit? There's one answer out there that the probability of anyone left to retaliate after a gun run is so low.... but following a strafe or other low-altitude attack, a steep climb can quickly seem sluggish. I wish I could find again the standard exit procedure that minimizes footprint of the plane to ground units, for one of other tactics.

 

Afterburner is a bad idea because it goes against the whole point of the A-10 engines, which is efficiency. Afterburner is used on fast flying airframes, AB is used in those cases because it provides a very high exhaust gas velocity, as well as additional thrust without increasing the inlet diameter, which is great because no additional drag is created. But afterburner is terrible for efficiency, not only for fuel but also propulsive efficiency.

 

It's like traction on your car when the wheels spin too fast, you lose traction which results in a bad acceleration. It's more or less the same thing here, unless you're at a decent speed, using AB at slow speeds, which is what the A-10 was designed for, isn't very efficient.

 

The A-10 is a very draggy airframe, the maximum allowable airspeed is just 450 knots, you wouldn't want to go past that number. The idea behind the A-10 engines is to move a huge mass of airflow but at a slower speed. AB does the opposite, much lower mass flow, but at a very high speed. And according to the Kinetic energy formula, energy is equal to 0.5 * mass multiplied by the square of the speed. I.e, in order to shoot a little mass of airflow out of the exhaust at Mach 2, you need four times the energy.

 

pbufzbE.png

nNpi13Q.png

B509yJx.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to a real Hog pilot on the Fighter Pilot Podcast last night. He talked about how painfully slow the plane is. He said it was designed to be that way to do the job it was built for. (CAS)

Buzz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I fly the A-10, and the power available in game is noticeably less than real life. I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it. The jet should be able to fly at 280-300 KIAS on a standard atmosphere day from the surface to 10,000 ft. I routinely can do this with a SCL (loadout) of two TGM mavericks, a rocket pod, LITENING II pod, an ALQ-184 long pod that is heavier than the 184 in game, a LAU-105 with an AIM-9, and two empty TER's. I've reached out already to the devs regarding this performance limitation but other modules are taking priority.

 

The power limitation in game is crippling when it comes to Turn Level Turn safe escapes, low altitude maneuvering, and medium altitude holding. From what I see the ITT's of both engines are generally too low at max power at sea level and the fuel flows are too low. It's entirely possible that a simple revisit of the engine modeling with actual pilot consultation is all that is needed to fix this.


Edited by Habu23

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the A-10, and the power available in game is noticeably less than real life. I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it. The jet should be able to fly at 280-300 KIAS on a standard atmosphere day from the surface to 10,000 ft. I routinely can do this with a SCL (loadout) of two TGM mavericks, a rocket pod, LITENING II pod, an ALQ-184 long pod that is heavier than the 184 in game, a LAU-105 with an AIM-9, and two empty TER's. I've reached out already to the devs regarding this performance limitation but other modules are taking priority.

 

The power limitation in game is crippling when it comes to Turn Level Turn safe escapes, low altitude maneuvering, and medium altitude holding. From what I see the ITT's of both engines are generally too low at max power at sea level and the fuel flows are too low. It's entirely possible that a simple revisit of the engine modeling with actual pilot consultation is all that is needed to fix this.

 

Hopefully, they will find some time to revisit and make the necessary adjustment to the engines performance. The A-10 is one of my favorite models.

 

 

Spoiler:

MSI Z790 Carbon WIFI, i9 14900KF, 64GB DDR4, MSI RTX 4090, Thrustmaster Warthog Throttle, VKB Gunfighter Ultimate MCG Pro w/200mm Extension, Winwing Orion Rudder Pedals W/damper, UTC MK II Pro, Virpil TCS Plus Collective, Dell AW3418DW Gsync monitor, 970 Pro M2 1TB (for DCS), Playseat Air Force Seat, KW-980 Jetseat, Vaicom Pro, 3X TM Cougar with Lilliput 8" screens. Tek Creations panels and controllers.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was always under the impression the A-10 was nerfed for the same reason it doesn't have laser mavs : part of the deal with the feds for letting them reuse the work they did. But, I do not have a particular source for that, was just my impression.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the A-10, and the power available in game is noticeably less than real life. 'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it.

 

It's entirely possible that a simple revisit of the engine modeling with actual pilot consultation is all that is needed to fix this.

 

+1

C’mon DCS, show the Hawg some luv! :music_whistling:

Lobo's DCS A-10C Normal Checklist & Quick Reference Handbook current version 8D available here:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/172905/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the A-10, and the power available in game is noticeably less than real life. I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it. The jet should be able to fly at 280-300 KIAS on a standard atmosphere day from the surface to 10,000 ft. I routinely can do this with a SCL (loadout) of two TGM mavericks, a rocket pod, LITENING II pod, an ALQ-184 long pod that is heavier than the 184 in game, a LAU-105 with an AIM-9, and two empty TER's. I've reached out already to the devs regarding this performance limitation but other modules are taking priority.

 

The power limitation in game is crippling when it comes to Turn Level Turn safe escapes, low altitude maneuvering, and medium altitude holding. From what I see the ITT's of both engines are generally too low at max power at sea level and the fuel flows are too low. It's entirely possible that a simple revisit of the engine modeling with actual pilot consultation is all that is needed to fix this.

 

Always cool to hear from a hog driver

 

So rumor has it some downgrading of performance was part of the commercial release. I am just parroting previous comments, I have no direct knowledge. I do have some experience with DoD contracts and ITAR though, and certainly possible if US funded sim was created previously, or if there were licensing agreements or some agreement with DDTC, changes to any covered item (engine performance) could be difficult or expensive to change (administratively, not technology).

 

Though its a bit silly to have throttle to the wall and see 1500fpm at 180kts, I can live with the airspeed and climb performance. It'd be great if she would keep a little energy through TLT or any aggressive maneuvering, as you said. Damn stall warning drives me insane though! I can push harder in my su-29 than I can pull in the a-10 as modeled, and while the M14P is probably #2 to Vodka in Russia's all time greats, its no jet.

 

Still a lot of fun to fly, just a bummer that bureaucracy prevents even more fun. Hard to imagine critical AoA of a 40 year old airframe is a state secret

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true that ED intentionally derated the engines, this would be the most stupid thing I've ever heard/read for a flight simulator.

 

Bought the A-10C yesterday and will do some tests ASAP.


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it is true that ED intentionally downrated the engines, this would be the most stupid thing I've ever heard/read for a flight simulator.

 

Bought the A-10C yesterday and will do some tests ASAP.

 

What, like deliberately leaving off the laser mavs at government request? I KNOW that's the reason for that particular oddity. It is hardly out of the realm of possibility. The A-10C was made for the ANG and ported. There were conditions on that, though.

 

Btw, as much as people like throwing around ''simulator'', it's a video game. Hard core. But still a video game. A lot of stuff is abstracted or made up, due to lack of info or security. Just a fact. Your A-10, F-14/16/18 is not a 1-to-1 reproduction.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of stuff is abstracted or made up, due to lack of info or security. Just a fact. Your A-10, F-14/16/18 is not a 1-to-1 reproduction.

That's new to me since e.g. the performance data/manuals for the A-10 are available.

Following this logic Ace Combat 7 would be as realistic as DCS.

 

edit: just did a max power run with a DI of 0 at S.L. where the A-10 should accelerate to 345kias, and that's exactly what I'm seeing.

Concerning the AoA 'secret'; With the NACA 6716/13 a close to 17° max AoA doesn't seem to be too far off, if at all. Found the 6716 wind tunnel data. Max AoA = 18°.

 

edit 2: Did another test: 30000lbs, DI 0, max sustained G at 270kts should be 3.8G.....again exactly what I'm seing. Presently I'm rather impressed!


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the A-10, and the power available in game is noticeably less than real life. I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it. The jet should be able to fly at 280-300 KIAS on a standard atmosphere day from the surface to 10,000 ft. I routinely can do this with a SCL (loadout) of two TGM mavericks, a rocket pod, LITENING II pod, an ALQ-184 long pod that is heavier than the 184 in game, a LAU-105 with an AIM-9, and two empty TER's. I've reached out already to the devs regarding this performance limitation but other modules are taking priority.

 

The power limitation in game is crippling when it comes to Turn Level Turn safe escapes, low altitude maneuvering, and medium altitude holding. From what I see the ITT's of both engines are generally too low at max power at sea level and the fuel flows are too low. It's entirely possible that a simple revisit of the engine modeling with actual pilot consultation is all that is needed to fix this.

 

 

I'll take your internet word for it when you can show how it doesn't hit the "numbers" in a very simple video, perhaps even with tacview... Many have tried... Not how it feels to you, you don't feel anything, in your butt or in simple controls here. It's way better now for me using the VKB gunfighter pro for instance.

 

We know how much power there is here.

 

 

Unless there are more documents engineers can really use, this is just silly guess work. Is it modeled 100%? no, you make it sound like it's way off. Show me.

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least with DI 0 @ 30000lbs the climb, sustained turn, max speed and AoA values are matching the performance section from the -1.

The time from brake release to climb speed is even noticable shorter than the -1 numbers.

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of stuff is abstracted or made up, due to lack of info or security. Just a fact. Your A-10, F-14/16/18 is not a 1-to-1 reproduction.

 

That's new to me since e.g. the performance data/manuals for the A-10 are available.

Following this logic Ace Combat 7 would be as realistic as DCS.

 

I get frustrated with this topic so I am going to be as polite as possible, if I come across rude its unintentional. That said, don't pretend to be an tech export lawyer. The rules are complicated. In the past I've run departments that did nothing but compliance, and still begin almost every sentence with "it depends," "most likely," "its possible," etc. But with absolute certain I can say that just because -1 in online, or even public domain, that is not determinative as to how something is classified.

 

Ace Combat is a game. It is exempt from ITAR. DCS is something else. I'm won't discuss ED specific legal issues, I'm sure they would not appreciate it, nor do I have all the facts. I'm also not trying to pick on you or other posters (well maybe the "most ridiculous i've ever heard guy" a little bit - lots of edits going on). Again, just because technical documents regarding a specific combat system is public domain, doesn't give free reign to simulate it, as there are many other ways to violate, the regs that are very counterintuitive and ambiguous, subject to (at time unreasonable) administrative interpretation. I don't want to write an appellate brief, but if you are interested i'll point you in the direction for some self learning.

 

This article from a law firm on the challenges of flight sim software and ITAR dependent classifications gives an idea of how difficult compliance is. The United States Munitions List is 22 CFR § 121.1, try giving that a read (Cat VIII and IX are most relevant here). Certain aircraft are completely off limits - Category VIII (F) lists the B-1B, B-2, B-21, F-15SE, F/A-18 E/F, EA-18G, F-22, F-35, and future variants thereof; or the F-117. They can be included in "games," but not simulators. As with every ex-aviator that does an AMA, certain topics are just safer to stay away from.

 

To make things more fun, every country has different laws. If its US tech or simulates US tech, ITAR covers it. Doesn't matter where you are, how uncooperative the country you live in is. OFAC has a long arms, even wealthy Russians will go to great lengths to appease or otherwise avoid sanction.

 

I mentioned games earlier, but what's a game? Well, Australia has a specific "serious games" definition. In the US its more complicated of course. It depends on functionality, not what you call it or how you sell it. This leads to some absurd results btw. For example, a simulation based on public domain information might be OK, but if you build a sim pit that it "replicates the operation of a crew position" then suddenly it is not. So a replica f-18 cockpit? What about just using a TM Warthog? Proprietorial discretion prevents most of this, but for companies at up to $1M fine per violation, these risks are taken very seriously.

 

Dependent classifications are another animal. An A-10 is a system comprised of many subsystems, each of which has a classification. It could be a 40 year old airframe, but if it simulates, for example, frequency modulation - you're toast. Or certain types of weapon guidance systems... well, i'll just say that the answer could be "no, no way that goes in. End of discussion."

 

Again, I'm not going to go into specific DCS or ED stuff, I appreciate the line they have to balance. There's a reason we don't have a ton of mil sims competing with each other, why MSFT never has weapon systems, and I'd like ED to stay around.

 

I am literally just scratching the surface of this, it is an incredibly complex and deep subject. I was CLO for company with complex compliance issues, for the cost of a mid-level compliance lawyer you can employ probably 10 devs. Where would you prefer they put their resources?

 

Btw - even the oldest most basic unclassified WW1 plane, if simulating using classified documents, is covered. That's the kind of thing that would make a company a little anxious about what people post on their forums I think?

 

I should add that once you're a contractor, a whole other set of rules apply, and contracts impose additional burdens, incl. specific provisions governing end use, modification, etc.

 

So its not abstracted or made up. Agaijn, I have no knowledge about ED, but often its DTCC compromise, or perhaps a company has information but cannot use it (that based on classified info thing again)

 

Bitching betty bugs me to no end, but on this topic ED gets the benefit of doubt from me. If they could edit a lua and give us proper FM I am sure they would happily do so, its a lot less work then rebuilding the entire model (ala ka-50), or whatever they're doing to the a-10.

  • Like 1

just a dude who probably doesn't know what he's talking about

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they could edit a lua and give us proper FM I am sure they would happily do so.

I've only tested the A-10 in clean config so far, but at least in this area she performs according to the manuals (and even better).

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Have you tested the DCS A-10 performance yourself? How do you know that the FM is 'improper' and/or which part of the performance envelope?


Edited by bbrz

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only tested the A-10 in clean config so far, but at least in this area she performs according to the manuals (and even better).

I don't know what point you are trying to make. Have you tested the DCS A-10 performance yourself? How do you know that the FM is 'improper' and/or which part of the performance envelope?

 

I feel like people keep saying/sharing stuff like this without even testing it like it was 100% true. :music_whistling:

 

Looking forward to seeing what Habu can do for us other than feedback. It's always very important, hopefully, this SME feedback won't be ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What, like deliberately leaving off the laser mavs at government request? I KNOW that's the reason for that particular oddity. It is hardly out of the realm of possibility. The A-10C was made for the ANG and ported. There were conditions on that, though.

 

Btw, as much as people like throwing around ''simulator'', it's a video game. Hard core. But still a video game. A lot of stuff is abstracted or made up, due to lack of info or security. Just a fact. Your A-10, F-14/16/18 is not a 1-to-1 reproduction.

Oh boy. Now you've gone and done it. Calling DCS a video game. Right now there are "pilots" furiously unclipping their oxygen mask and yanking off nomex gloves to type out a furious response. Get countermeasures armed and ready.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh boy. Now you've gone and done it. Calling DCS a video game.

Simulator or video game. Getting the performance and handling correct isn't rocket sience neither in a sim or a video game.

That said, even RW multimillion dollar Level D sims are sometimes grossly wrong at the edge of their performance envelope.

I haven't read all the complaints about the FM since I own this module only since yesterday.

All I can say is that under few the conditions I've tested so far, the A-10 performs according to the -1.

i7-7700K 4.2GHz, 16GB, GTX 1070 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll take your internet word for it when you can show how it doesn't hit the "numbers" in a very simple video, perhaps even with tacview... Many have tried... Not how it feels to you, you don't feel anything, in your butt or in simple controls here. It's way better now for me using the VKB gunfighter pro for instance.

 

We know how much power there is here.

 

 

Unless there are more documents engineers can really use, this is just silly guess work. Is it modeled 100%? no, you make it sound like it's way off. Show me.

 

 

I think it is time for you to sit back down and let the people with actual knowledge speak (like Habu) and give their information, and not you who is another keyboard warrior thinking he knows all.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the A-10, and the power available in game is noticeably less than real life. I'm not going to cite documents but just take my word for it. The jet should be able to fly at 280-300 KIAS on a standard atmosphere day from the surface to 10,000 ft. I routinely can do this with a SCL (loadout) of two TGM mavericks, a rocket pod, LITENING II pod, an ALQ-184 long pod that is heavier than the 184 in game, a LAU-105 with an AIM-9, and two empty TER's. I've reached out already to the devs regarding this performance limitation but other modules are taking priority.

 

The power limitation in game is crippling when it comes to Turn Level Turn safe escapes, low altitude maneuvering, and medium altitude holding. From what I see the ITT's of both engines are generally too low at max power at sea level and the fuel flows are too low. It's entirely possible that a simple revisit of the engine modeling with actual pilot consultation is all that is needed to fix this.

 

 

Thanks for that info, i hope ED will take note and improve it in-game

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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