Engines underpowered

[Vitormouraa]

Engines underpowered

 

To calculate the in-game thrust?

 

I was actually replying Dakota. If we had these numbers, we would be able to calculate the in-game thrust.

 

People say the TF34 in DCS is underpowered because that Hawg pilot said so.

 

I was just saying that if we could have proper ways to calculate the thrust, we wouldn't see these discussions anymore.

 

About the engine being out of the jet, that's not entirely correct. When they test the engine, they always check the parameters, and if it meets specific conditions, it can get back to the jet. It's not that simple.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Vitormouraa

[Schmidtfire]

I suspect that the in-game drag values are probably a bit too high even in clean config.

[David OC]

To calculate the in-game thrust?

 

I was actually replying Dakota. If we had these numbers, we would be able to calculate the in-game thrust.

 

People say the TF34 in DCS is underpowered because that Hawg pilot said so.

 

I was just saying that if we could have proper ways to calculate the thrust, we wouldn't see these discussions anymore.

 

About the engine being out of the jet, that's not entirely correct. When they test the engine, they always check the parameters, and if it meets specific conditions, it can get back to the jet. It's not that simple.

 

They don't test trust, only parameters. Ask mvsgas, f16 thread;) he worked on jet engines. Just go off the engine specs Of the manufacture data range that yo-yo posted.

 

_

[Jafferson]

We missing the Engine override function and ITT/EGT at all. In the Sim we can't use the Thrust above Temperature Limits.. and that's the missing Thrust, at least.

I mentioned this a while ago, I have provide some Dokuments to proof it.. but it was not allowed to post classified dokuments, and my post was deleted.

I was a bit angry about this.. im sorry for that DEVs

 

There is no doubt the engine is missing something...

Stuck in the dirt with full Thrust for ages without any engine Fire and damage looks not really realistic. It would be great when the devs put some love in.. when they have time..

I will pay for a Suit upgrade with HMS and realistic engine model !

[Vitormouraa]

Engines underpowered

 

They don't test trust, only parameters. Ask mvsgas, f16 thread he worked on jet engines. Just go off the engine specs Of the manufacture data range that yo-yo posted.

 

 

 

_

 

 

 

David,

 

 

 

That data is from Real life. We aren't talking about real life here, we are talking about DCS. We don't want to find out the thrust of the TF34 in real life, the people that are asking and discussing the topic want to know how the TF34 is performing IN DCS, not real life.

 

 

 

If you want to find out the thrust in DCS, you'd use the dev tools. We don't have access, that's why this discussion always comes up once in a while. We simply can not jump into the game, do some math and done, you have the thrust of the TF34. Yo-Yo said the engine in DCS meets GE charts, I'm fine with that. But what if you wanted to find out the thrust yourself? That's what I was trying to say. Let's forget the documents for a moment, please.

 

 

 

Regarding the other topic; It DEPENDS. Generally speaking, there are two types of maintenance, the one that is done on the flight line, and the one in the shop. But you're right. They don't always test the thrust. But they do test other parameters which can give you an idea of the engine's health. Therefore you can estimate the thrust by using the data.

 

 

 

On the flight line, you'd be doing the basic maintenance of the aircraft and engine, such as fluid cleaning, FOD, erosion inspections, basic repairs, changing parts of the engine and so on. Since this kind of operation needs a special care, sending the engine to a proper facility might be the best thing to do, in case the inspection on the flight line detects FOD and erosion damages for example.

 

 

 

Damages to the compressor and turbine rotors will affect engine's performance. Obviously, it depends on the damage itself, but when a greater change in geometry of the turbine/compressor rotor blades occur, this can degrade the performance and cause malfunctions. Which results in lack of compression ratio, lower/greater ITT, loss of turbine efficiency (which is pretty normal actually, unless beyond normal conditions) and others. Then, the engine must go to a facility. But on the flight line, you can still do repair and other things while the engine is mounted on the airframe.

 

 

 

In the shop is where they do the heavy duty stuff. Since they have special tools, they can remove the turbine rotor assembly, compressor etc.

 

 

 

After all the troubleshooting, repair, replacement is done, they test the engine, and thrust is included.

 

 

 

But before they must check if the gauges are calibrated. Otherwise, the info on the display would be meaningless (And this happened in the AgentJayZ shop, watch his last videos and you'll see )

 

 

 

Anyway, here's an example of how it's done.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2018 by Vitormouraa

[Vitormouraa]

Didn't a real pilot say in the recent Q/A about the A-10C that the engines in DCS are underpowered compared to the real thing? I remember the person also mentioning that DCS is suite 3 and currently the A-10C is on suite 8 or 9. I'm trying to find the thread

 

edit: Found it.

 

"Q: MajorMoore

Is the A10s engines power in dcs realistic as it is in real I live right next to nellis and and I'm on the base a couple times a week and the a10 compared to f22 or f15 is relatively quiet compared to the big afterburners

 

A: From what I've seen, DCS engines are less powerfull than the actual A-10 engines. However, you are correct; without afterburners we simply don't produce that raw sound like the pointy nose guys."

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=170487

 

By the way, Suite has nothing to do with thrust really. It can either be Suite 2 or Suite 8, engine is going to be the same.

[SkateZilla]

The Engines have never Changed from A-10A to Current A-10s AFAIK.

Edited May 3, 2018 by SkateZilla

[Snoopy]

The Engines have never Changes from A-10A to Current A-10s AFAIK.

 

Correct

[Vitormouraa]

The Engines have never Changes from A-10A to Current A-10s AFAIK.

 

 

 

That's what I said above. lol

[SkateZilla]

That's what I said above. lol

 

I know, I just get a tingly feeling when Snoopy says Im correct...

[Snoopy]

I know, I just get a tingly feeling when Snoopy says Im correct...

 

That is the scariest thing I’ve read today. :lol: :megalol:

[cichlidfan]

I know, I just get a tingly feeling when Snoopy says Im correct...

 

You should, since Snoopy is the one of the few on this forum that actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to the A-10.

[David OC]

I know, I just get a tingly feeling when Snoopy says Im correct...

 

That is the scariest thing I’ve read today. :lol: :megalol:

 

You should, since Snoopy is the one of the few on this forum that actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to the A-10.

 

OK, this is now getting really weird....Not sure how I feel about this, do you guy's need to hug it out. Bit of bromance going on a round here....:D

 

-

[cichlidfan]

OK, this is now getting really weird....Not sure how I feel about this, do you guy's need to hug it out. Bit of bromance going on a round here....:D

 

-

 

Nothing but deep respect on my part. I've been learning from Snoopy's posts for seven years. Aside from his tendency toward harder rock than I usually like, his knowledge is second to none around here.

[cichlidfan]

By the way, Suite has nothing to do with thrust really. It can either be Suite 2 or Suite 8, engine is going to be the same.

 

Correct. The Suites are cockpit electronic changes. The engines are still basically the same thing as the ones that rolled out with the very first version of the aircraft.

[Vitormouraa]

Nothing but deep respect on my part. I've been learning from Snoopy's posts for seven years. Aside from his tendency toward harder rock than I usually like, his knowledge is second to none around here.

 

 

 

Yeah but there are a lot of talented people here with a ton of knowledge cich. I happen to be very pleased with people here. I learn a lot. Glad to be part of this community.

 

 

Although sometimes I would like to unsee what I have seen :D

[cichlidfan]

Yeah but there are a lot of talented people here with a ton of knowledge cich.

 

Never meant to detract from other users. However, book knowledge is never the same as having hands on the hardware.

 

I have read just about every book, that I have found, on the development of the rifle. It doesn't make me a great shooter.

Edited May 4, 2018 by cichlidfan

[Vitormouraa]

True. That's something I've been trying to do. But I just love the theory behind it. Love sharing it and learning too :)

[David OC]

Nothing but deep respect on my part. I've been learning from Snoopy's posts for seven years. Aside from his tendency toward harder rock than I usually like, his knowledge is second to none around here.

 

Just kidding around:thumbup:

 

Totally agree, I send everyone over to pickup the manuals on the 476th. All top quality Publications, still just a fun highly accurate sim at the end of the day. I'm sure they would love to get every aspect 100% if they could, somethings need to be more inaccurate to be realistically accurate;) (A2A), still way higher accuracy then the others out there in FM, system and engine modeling and only bettered perhaps by some military and NASA simulators.

 

Quote

"No matter what it is, the world is not run by absolute numbers; it's run by real things we can see and touch. It's observing the behavior of such things and making decisions based upon what we know to be true."

 

Does that also include a simulated dynamic engine model in a simulator? Or should it just always be by the numbers because it's not real life? I.E. scripted...

 

-

Edited May 4, 2018 by David OC

[cichlidfan]

True. That's something I've been trying to do. But I just love the theory behind it. Love sharing it and learning too :)

 

Just kidding around:thumbup:

 

Totally agree, I send everyone over to pickup the manuals on the 476th. All top quality Publications, still just a fun highly accurate sim at the end of the day.

-

 

No offense taken. I love this stuff.

 

Btw, Martin Pegler will make you realize that a rifle, or a handgun, is far more complicated than you ever thought.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Pegler/e/B001JP20LC

[Aluminum Donkey]

Point taken. although the A10 does nonetheless have performance issues.

 

The *real* A-10 has performance issues! It's as slow as a dog--despite being a fairly modern jet aircraft, it's slower than just about any WW2 piston engine fighter :)

 

I'm wondering why it's so common for people on these forums to gripe about the A-10's lack of thrust. When loaded with fuel and weapons, the real thing flies like a tired cow with a ball and chain around each ankle. It's a well-known aspect of the A-10. It's no rocketship!

 

AD

[WildBillKelsoe]

well I wont headache myself with all these technicalities. Its fine I'm vouching on the engine accuracy.

[David OC]

David,

 

That data is from Real life. We aren't talking about real life here, we are talking about DCS. We don't want to find out the thrust of the TF34 in real life, the people that are asking and discussing the topic want to know how the TF34 is performing IN DCS, not real life.

 

Well it's all modeled dynamically as close to real life in the sim, so if any of the flight performance chart data was off, it could also be the Flight modeling or atmospheric conditions in the sim, do you also want the specs on how they modeled that too in sim? :D

 

The mathematical physics equations of the TF-34 would be in range to what Yo-Yo posted before, just remember you always have to allow for atmospheric conditions in sim and IRL to get the average.

 

If you want to find out the thrust in DCS, you'd use the dev tools. We don't have access, that's why this discussion always comes up once in a while. We simply can not jump into the game, do some math and done, you have the thrust of the TF34. Yo-Yo said the engine in DCS meets GE charts, I'm fine with that. But what if you wanted to find out the thrust yourself? That's what I was trying to say. Let's forget the documents for a moment, please.

 

 

Regarding the other topic; It DEPENDS. Generally speaking, there are two types of maintenance, the one that is done on the flight line, and the one in the shop. But you're right. They don't always test the thrust. But they do test other parameters which can give you an idea of the engine's health. Therefore you can estimate the thrust by using the data.

 

After all the troubleshooting, repair, replacement is done, they test the engine, and thrust is included.

 

Anyway, here's an example of how it's done.

 

 

As you can see there is a correction allowance, pressure and temperature when testing parameters.

 

I still have not found anything to suggest they check thrust, when they are first engineered and fully tested of course and to check the "average" thrust parameters, at whatever atmospheric conditions it was tested in.

 

Looking at the discussion "what is the thrust in the DCS - 8900 or 9065 lb" I would like to mention that 9065/8900 = 1.019, i.e. the discussed difference is less than 2%, so, for example the difference in max speed for these two numbers is less than 1%....

 

Then, I'd like to say that in RL the thrust of real engines as well as other parameters never meet the specified parameters that are something like AVERAGE.

 

Real parameters make a dispersion cloud like at the first two pictires. As they are form Russian high school textbook for "an engine" (the real type is not specifed for some reasons) I will explain the abbreviations:

n_ВД - Ng

n_НД - Nf

Tt* = ITT, K

P = thrust in kN

Cуд - Ce kg/(kN*h)

 

The graphs represent the test result of 100 produced engine.

Link to post

 

So my guess it's around 9065/8900 lb.....:D it's only 1%

 

If you want to check I would still go off ALL the range of parameters in the TO IA-IOA-I etc. I'm guessing this is how the military would sign off an aircraft also. Not test the thrust out of the aircraft, why? they ordered an aircraft and the engineers said it could do all this on paper. Does it?

 

This would cover ALL the aspects of things that could "be wrong" in a simulated world with simulated atmospheric conditions, simulated engine and flight model.

 

If just one of these "elements" are "slightly out 0.01", the charts would be way off at some point and "very easily seen in sim" at a given speed / altitude / temperature / pressure, as they would magnify any fault immensely.

 

That's the way I see it anyway.

 

-

Edited May 4, 2018 by David OC

[Vitormouraa]

I've found a very interesting image on the internet of a simulator which I'm not gonna quote the name, but it's the simulator used at Davis Monthan airbase, where you can see a temperature of 814-824°C~ on the ITT gauge. Although I've seen a post from NineLine saying he was able to reach temperatures of 820°C~, I've never seen temperatures above 800°C in DCS.

 

Love the Maverick flying towards the target though!

 

Thought it was interesting:

 

[Nooch]

I've never seen temperatures above 800°C in DCS.

 

Try increasing the ambient air temperature in the mission editor. It should have an effect on engine temps as well.