su-27 performance

[mikoyan]

I have seen the performance info on the net, some say that the climb performance of the su-27 is 18000m/min, but others say 13000m/min , then witch one is correct ? in lomac the su-27 is the fighter with less climb performace(exp for the su-33) , shouldn't be the second after the mig?

[GGTharos]

The performance for the 'big jets' is not quite right for climbing and thrust at high altitudes at the very least - throughout - not just the Su-27 (or the F-15)

[Pilotasso]

Engines are castrated in this game but they have always been like this in any SIM but arcade ones. With simple Flight model if you have an engine capable of doing 1/1 thrust ratio they would all end overspeeding at all altitudes. Thats because engine modeling is about static max thrust and there is no aproximate drag estimation, it usualy is so big that at time drag can brake your speed faster than going straight up. Drag has always been undermodeled, as well as engines. Thats why they are trimed down to prevent you from reaching mach 3.

[mikoyan]

Yeah , you are right, the mig-25 can't even reach mach 2.83.

In the game the su-27 has the climb performance of an f-4. what I want to know is , what is the real climb performance of the flanker ?

[-flanker-]

18000m/min is the one of the P-42 modified model with an thrust/weight ratio of ca. 2 :D . This one was capable of braking the sound barrier in vertical flight.

 

For a standard Su-27 the climb rate would be something between 270 and 280 m/s afair

[mikoyan]

are you sure ? then the mig-29 has a better climb performance than the p-42?

Rate of Climb at SL: 330 m/s (65,000 ft/min)

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2.htm

[Teknetinium]

http://www.avia-su.ru/su_p42.php

 

smal pic off P-42,

[-flanker-]

are you sure ? then the mig-29 has a better climb performance than the p-42?

Rate of Climb at SL: 330 m/s (65,000 ft/min)

http://www.saunalahti.fi/~fta/MiG-29-2.htm

 

i doubt that, because P-42 holds the official record :smilewink:

 

even the P-42 needs 75s for 15km (from the link above)

[GiGurra]

Engines are castrated in this game but they have always been like this in any SIM but arcade ones. With simple Flight model if you have an engine capable of doing 1/1 thrust ratio they would all end overspeeding at all altitudes. Thats because engine modeling is about static max thrust and there is no aproximate drag estimation, it usualy is so big that at time drag can brake your speed faster than going straight up. Drag has always been undermodeled, as well as engines. Thats why they are trimed down to prevent you from reaching mach 3.

 

Hmm.....I suspected something like this. The engines definately feel weak in lomac compared to for example Falcon (OF to be more precise). I wonder how FO will deal with this.

[Pilotasso]

Falcon 4 has the exact same problem, the plane just wont even keep speed for a short amount of time at low altitude, it will drop above 60-70 degrees pitch angle already, just like LOMAC, its curious.

[VMFA-Blaze]

Hmm.....I suspected something like this. The engines definately feel weak in lomac compared to for example Falcon (OF to be more precise). I wonder how FO will deal with this.

 

Weak??? lets not get into this again... I fly both of these sims, and my feelings on the subject are that there is more of a flight sensation with Lock On then Falcon..

 

When you push the throttle forward in Lock On you get a feeling that you're actually being propelled forward.

 

In Falcon you hear the engine but its muted and because the graphic engine is so dated even with all of the added mods, you can't really distinguish visual motion like you can in Lock On..

 

Where Falcon shines is in its avionics, that's beyond Lock On's scope, at least for now anyway ......

 

Blaze

[GiGurra]

Falcon imo feels way more accurate, and the sensation of accelleration is better in there imo.

The keyword is FBW(falcon) controls vs non-FBW controls(lomac).

[GGTharos]

You gotta keep in mind falcon uses the FBW controls excuse to fly on rails while lomac doesnt.

 

I corrected what you meant to say ;)

[Aeroscout]

Ya, but i still like lomac better... don't know why... maybe it's because i don't like the F-16. (singe engine... doesn't look good. IMO)

[Poopskadoop]

I understand that they didn't paint the P-42 to reduce weight and drag in every way they can, but a flanker without a paint job looks miserable. Well, at least that third image in the link on the previous page does.

[Pilotasso]

Falcon imo feels way more accurate, and the sensation of accelleration is better in there imo.

The keyword is FBW(falcon) controls vs non-FBW controls(lomac).

 

The old excuse that I have already seen a million times. You dont get the sensation to fly Automan's holographic non intertial plane in real planes, just because there is no maths behind the F4's flightmodel to do it. All it does is adjust speed according to drag and lift charts. F4 FM is just as falible as LOMACs. My brother flies block 15 F-16 and takes the back seat of MLU' s as well and he says F4 models are COMPLETELY screwed over in what regards flight sensation.

I asked if the speeds were wrong and he said:

 

"Its not the crsuise speed that wrong, its the whole AOA and low speed handling, its way off, I can controll much easier and in F4 it becomes like a dead weight at landing"

 

-When I ask him about abou this his typical answers are:

 

"F4 engine power modeling is closer to that of a T-38C than that of an F-16. A few days ago my instructor on my wing told me I was cleared to use AB ( to get me the feel for it for the first time), wich I did, I was at normal cruise about 300-400 knts speed at 1700 feet and I felt tremendous acceleration as the AB stages kicked in, as I started a turn it still kept on accelerating, then I pushed more, past 8G's and the thing still kept on accelerating, it took just moments untill I saw mach 0.97 on the HUD and just had to throttle it back before I broke the speed limits (sound barrier pi$$es alot of people down there)"

 

-What about flight charestics in regards to handling compared to F4 and LOMAC?

 

"lets revise what FBW is about: its there to prevent you from exceeding the aircrafts limits and do quick adjustements to prevent that from hapening, too quick for us to notice it, apart from not having to trim the aircraft all that much like in others, there is not much difference in flight sensation to other aircraft aside from pure turn and speed perfomance of course. Our simulators we have at home, F4 is off (but then so is our remaining training simulator at the base, the other one we had before was better) LOMAC is better but the plane it simulates is different (he flies only f-15 in LOMAC)"

 

-What about BFM and high altitude perfomance?

 

"I have routinely flown above 30000 feet and went over 45000 once, I had no trouble climbing that high without the use of afterburner and keep level flight in military power. Thats because we refrain from using AB except for take off runs so we keep the most fuel for the mission, not for hot dogging. I just cant do that in LOMAC"

[GGTharos]

Excellent testimonial Pilotasso, thanks! :)

[GiGurra]

So with mr Pilotasso's knowledge we can conclude both games/sims being way off =)

 

I have no idea if this applies to both OF and F4AF/vanilla/RV, but I saw a vid on youtube of a pilot doing some crazy shit in the f16 straight after takeoff (you saw it from the cockpit view with the hud in front). speeds 130-400 kts. The handling looked EXACTLY the same as what I see in OF, but ofc hard to compare to whats being said by someone that actually flies the thing irl.

[GGTharos]

Yes, it does apply to all versions of F4. While they have HFFMs now, the fundamentals that were missing before are still missing now.

[diveplane]

Where Falcon shines is in its avionics, that's beyond Lock On's scope, at least for now anyway ......

 

Blaze

 

until black shark gets launched...

[Pilotasso]

All HUD tapes I've seen of the f-16 show exactly that the F4's FM on rails and underpowered engine is very much wrong in the actual flight dynamics.

[Force_Feedback]

All HUD tapes I've seen of the f-16 show exactly that the F4's FM on rails and underpowered engine is very much wrong in the actual flight dynamics.

 

Guess real F-16s don't start flipping around like crazy after a few tailslides as well in real life :/ F4 LOOKS like a real F-16 sim, but is not realistic at all FM wise, gosh I hate reading posts on frugals like falcon was some dedicated 'sim' (multi thousand dollar) sim and wearing oxygen masks and stuff, thinking the real F-16 flies as crappy and boring like in F4.

 

No sim can be perfect, no matter how much info the devs have.

[nscode]

Speaking of oxygen, did anyone (maybe some of them pit builders) try fighting online with 100% O2 ? :D

[Pilotasso]

Dunno about that but helium would definatly be good for the vocal cords... it would make comms so much fun! :D

[crusty1606687734]

Pilotasso, tell your brother to test Open Falcon (blk 52)... make sure that the roll inertia in the config file (the one for all the patches,etc) is

enabled:) ... try different loads:D

Oh, this FM is way different from RV.