su-27 performance

[Pilotasso]

havent gotten OF yet, will do it soon and test.

[VMFA-Blaze]

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...

 

Well of course Guy ... That goes with out saying...:lol:

 

 

~S~

 

 

Blaze

[Pilotasso]

Comparison between BS and F4 is going to be even more dispar than they are now. LOMAC has become all about slow moving ground pounders. All others are remnants of what this game was under controll of UBI. Fighters are Bonuses right now, KA-50 and Su-25 is what this SIM is all about.

[Esac_mirmidon]

Really?

 

Air refuelling it´s not important?

 

Carrier take offs and landings?

 

AFM with heavy turbulence and crosswind in a landing with the frog?

 

CAC F-15 vs Mig-29 with two experience pilots?

 

Guns combat?

 

I really think FC is more, much more than slow moving ground pounders.

 

But is only my opinion. Hard code realism about weapons functions, systems, Flight Model of jets in FC is one of my dreams, but the level of detail of this things right now ( not very adecuated ) don´t stop me to enjoy every second I fly them in the complete envelope of FC.

[GiGurra]

I just did a test in OF comparing it to :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3VuypkS4PI

 

felt pretty much spot on, but that could just be me.

[Pilotasso]

I tested OF, it didnt work well for me. Graphics glitches and controllers not being detected correctly. FM although different felt still pretty sterile. I didnt expect it to be a radical change because all F4 variants are based on the same method of FM calculation: through perfomance charts.

[crusty1606687734]

I tested OF, it didnt work well for me. Graphics glitches and controllers not being detected correctly. FM although different felt still pretty sterile. I didnt expect it to be a radical change because all F4 variants are based on the same method of FM calculation: through perfomance charts.

 

Fair enough, still... give it to your bro:D

 

(oops, this thread is about flankers -crusty out)

[VMFA-Blaze]

Comparison between BS and F4 is going to be even more dispar than they are now. LOMAC has become all about slow moving ground pounders. All others are remnants of what this game was under controll of UBI. Fighters are Bonuses right now, KA-50 and Su-25 is what this SIM is all about.

 

Do you think that the clickable choppers and A/C centering on ATG simulation will actually cause that much of a stir over at the Falcons Nest??? To be honest I think that a lot of those dudes will most likely migrate over to ED just to see what's happening.. And I predict that once they do they'll be here to stay.. At least most will, with exception of, need I go any further... :lol:

 

~S~

 

 

Blaze

[ViperEagle]

One thing that Falcon has on Lock On is the dynamic camp.

 

However, I agree, engine models are most definately porked in both, the F-16 behaves like a T-38 and a F-15 like a F-4. Mind you, the F-4 was very fast, but the F-15 is faster in acceleration and such.

[mikoyan]

I was asking if some one knew the performance numbers of the su-27 because in some sources the information is not very good.

[Shaman]

Question is. Will AFM for fighters fix performance problems that occur with scripted flight model? I'm also very worried with fuel consumption at high alt. when your AB are on. You can fly with AB on almost forever, what the hell is wrong with that?

[Pilotasso]

Question is. Will AFM for fighters fix performance problems that occur with scripted flight model? I'm also very worried with fuel consumption at high alt. when your AB are on. You can fly with AB on almost forever, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

According to what the testers and ED staff say, yes, even cobras engine modeling and even suspention and ground modeling. The flight modeling we see now will feel like wing commander from 1990 compared to it. Its a shame that we only can compare the Su-25 in 1.02 with the AFM on FC wich is hardly a plane that can dogfight or do other crazy stunts. Its a plane we dont know very much from airshows to critize any aspects of the flight anyway. Im looking forward to AFM because then there will be no excuse for flawed scripts to spoil your gaming. :)

[Yo-Yo]

Question is. Will AFM for fighters fix performance problems that occur with scripted flight model? I'm also very worried with fuel consumption at high alt. when your AB are on. You can fly with AB on almost forever, what the hell is wrong with that?

 

 

The answer is very simple. The SFC decreases at high alt and so thrust decreases too. That's why the fuel flow is much less than at low alt.

It's not a bug. It's a feature.

So I have to say that there are no significant PERFORMANCE issues either in AFM or SFM. If you test Su-25SFM and Su-25AFM performance there will be no noticable differences because trajectory movement for both FM are the same.

After FC was released we found some data and managed to conclude that some payloads (not for Su-25AFM) have incorrect drag values but the clean planes fit their prototypes. Take at Su-27 and F-15 comparison charts:

 

http://lockon.co.uk/index.php?lang=en&end_pos=574&scr=default

 

The blah-blah about "overmodelled" or "undermodelled" is the usual thing regardless of models fidelity and sim name.

We have all means to fit the model to the data we have so why we have not to do it? (have^3 in one sentence - bravo :) )

 

P.S.

Of course a mistake can be made, for example, zero was missed in drag value for one or to payloads for Su-25... sorry, but we are human too.

[D-Scythe]

The answer is very simple. The SFC decreases at high alt and so thrust decreases too. That's why the fuel flow is much less than at low alt.

It's not a bug. It's a feature.

So I have to say that there are no significant PERFORMANCE issues either in AFM or SFM. If you test Su-25SFM and Su-25AFM performance there will be no noticable differences because trajectory movement for both FM are the same.

After FC was released we found some data and managed to conclude that some payloads (not for Su-25AFM) have incorrect drag values but the clean planes fit their prototypes. Take at Su-27 and F-15 comparison charts:

 

http://lockon.co.uk/index.php?lang=en&end_pos=574&scr=default

 

The blah-blah about "overmodelled" or "undermodelled" is the usual thing regardless of models fidelity and sim name.

We have all means to fit the model to the data we have so why we have not to do it? (have^3 in one sentence - bravo :) )

 

P.S.

Of course a mistake can be made, for example, zero was missed in drag value for one or to payloads for Su-25... sorry, but we are human too.

 

Can you please comment on why, if we were to adjust the F-15C's weight to about the same as the Streak Eagle's weight, the time-to-climb figures are TOTALLY off? Same basic airframe, same basic engines and same weight, but the F-15C in LOMAC is horribly under-climbing in comparison.

 

Swingkid did the tests.

[GGTharos]

Streak Eagle is NOT an F-15C. That thing had a -lot- of stuff removed, including flaps.

In addition the engines were fitted with a VMAX switch is a use-it-once and overhaul the engines deal.

 

Both F-15C and Su-27 are underpowered at high altitudes - but let's not go comparing them to aircraft created specifically to break time-to-climb records. It's woefully inappropriate, and I know at one F-15C pilot who disagrees with Swingkid's methodology in this case.

Not a slam on SK - he's going off the only data he's got available.

[Yo-Yo]

Can you please comment on why, if we were to adjust the F-15C's weight to about the same as the Streak Eagle's weight, the time-to-climb figures are TOTALLY off? Same basic airframe, same basic engines and same weight, but the F-15C in LOMAC is horribly under-climbing in comparison.

 

Swingkid did the tests.

 

Please show the figures he based his conclusions on. The charts from FM for F-15 is available. One of the climb/acceleration curve you can find at the link above. (I use climb/acceleration term because they are coupled with the simple energy equation).

"You don't like cats? I think you can not cook them...", Some guys here were very surprised when they can not get 17-18 km in Su-27.

[GGTharos]

Yo-Yo, thanks for commenting in this thread :)

 

I have heard from an F-15C pilot directly that F-15's FM has some problems - acceleration is not fast enough, handling at particular speeds (especially slow) is not entirely correct and high-altitude thrust in not adequate - in terms of acceleration and available G (eg. the limit for a 4G turn - a tacicla turn - is 25000' ... the highest altitude at which 4G may be sustained)

 

He was speaking specifically about F-15C configuration at 46000lbs, which is the following loadout: 4xAIM-7, 4xAIM-9, 1 fuel tank.

 

I have heard indirectly commentary from Su-27 pilots that Su-27 performance should be very similar (though the weight parameter and weapon loadout may be different)

 

Your sources are usually pretty good, so could you please investigate these issues?

 

Thanks :)

[Pilotasso]

Me thinks YO-YO is simplifying the AFM concept, it doesnt only take in consideration airframe charestics over different altitudes and angles of attack and moments of inertia, to be complete you must add also engine perfomance, with intake shockwave taken in consideration. Basic simplified calculus for shockwaves is based on published tables and is relatively simple, I've donne it myself at university.

[mikoyan]

I also found that the deflection at low speed of the elebator on the mig-29 is less than it is suposed to be, if you take a look at videos showing a mig-29 landing, you will notice that elevators are deflected (to keep the nose high-aerodynamic braking)more than in lock-on

[D-Scythe]

Streak Eagle is NOT an F-15C. That thing had a -lot- of stuff removed, including flaps.

In addition the engines were fitted with a VMAX switch is a use-it-once and overhaul the engines deal.

 

Have you any proof that the F100-PW-100s installed in the F-15A Streak Eagle provided a *significantly* different thrust output than a wartime Dash 220?

 

Both F-15C and Su-27 are underpowered at high altitudes - but let's not go comparing them to aircraft created specifically to break time-to-climb records.

 

Again, why not? Same airframe, same or even LESS weight (we have the liberty of reducing fuel to 100 lbs and turning on "unlimited fuel") and approximately the same thrust.

 

Cept in LOMAC, the F-15C climbs *significantly* slower - like by minutes.

 

It's woefully inappropriate, and I know at one F-15C pilot who disagrees with Swingkid's methodology in this case.

Not a slam on SK - he's going off the only data he's got available.

 

Obviously this data is an approximation, but the point is, this is the BEST data we have to go on. Thus, if Lock On's F-15 can be configured the same way as the Streak Eagle - and it CAN - we should expect ROUGHLY the same performance.

 

And when we do, Lock On's F-15C is not even in the same ballpark as the Streak Eagle. It can't even perform a proper viking take-off - the thrust provided by its -220s never seems to exceed 41 000 lbs, when in reality they are rated at almost 47 000lbs together.

 

Please show the figures he based his conclusions on. The charts from FM for F-15 is available. One of the climb/acceleration curve you can find at the link above. (I use climb/acceleration term because they are coupled with the simple energy equation).

"You don't like cats? I think you can not cook them...", Some guys here were very surprised when they can not get 17-18 km in Su-27.

 

It's in the beta forums somewhere. It was the thread about the F-15C - I don't want violate any NDA stuff, but I'm sure you can find it if you search it.

[Pilotasso]

Have you any proof that the F100-PW-100s installed in the F-15A Streak Eagle provided a *significantly* different thrust output than a wartime Dash 220?

 

 

 

Again, why not? Same airframe, same weight (we have the liberty of reducing fuel to 100 lbs and turning on "unlimited fuel") and approximately the same thrust.

 

 

Im sorry to say but both the P-42 and the Streak eagle were different from series production aircraft, in both planes their engines were uprated for record breaking with all life cycle safety design margins off because the engines were not required to last in such activitites.

 

Having said that, theres still data out there about series production aircraft and, yes LOMACs are off. IRL T/W is above 1 under certain altitude/speed boxes, but you cant do vertical acceleration, not even maintain it, past 60 degress pitch the speed goes down noticeably no matter what you do. I have a brother who flies block 15 F-16's and his accounts puts LOMACs F-15 to shame, utterly.

He flew up to angels 45000 feet without the use of afterburner and kept it that way for level flight(clean config) and at least once up to 30000 with 2 drop tanks and dummy wingtip missiles. Thats completely impossible with any plane in LOMAC and we know how much better the F-15 was suposed to be up there. I read somewhere that LOMAC's version of all planes were modeled targeting one altitude box only, thus engines get underpowered high up.

[D-Scythe]

Im sorry to say but both the P-42 and the Streak eagle were different from series production aircraft, in both planes their engines were uprated for record breaking with all life cycle safety design margins off because the engines were not required to last in such activitites.

 

Still looking for a number here. Exactly how much more thrust did the Streak Eagle's F100-PW-100 produce over the F100-PW-220? And would it be enough to say, allow the F-15A Streak Eagle to beat the F-15C to 20000 ft by a time in the order of minutes?

[Yo-Yo]

Yo-Yo, thanks for commenting in this thread :)

 

I have heard from an F-15C pilot directly that F-15's FM has some problems - acceleration is not fast enough, handling at particular speeds (especially slow) is not entirely correct and high-altitude thrust in not adequate - in terms of acceleration and available G (eg. the limit for a 4G turn - a tacicla turn - is 25000' ... the highest altitude at which 4G may be sustained)

 

He was speaking specifically about F-15C configuration at 46000lbs, which is the following loadout: 4xAIM-7, 4xAIM-9, 1 fuel tank.

 

I have heard indirectly commentary from Su-27 pilots that Su-27 performance should be very similar (though the weight parameter and weapon loadout may be different)

 

Your sources are usually pretty good, so could you please investigate these issues?

 

Thanks :)

 

I investigated this item. Real F-15 at 46000 lb with 4 AIM-7 and 4 AIM-9 does hold 4 G (3.8 G to be accurate) at 0.92-0.94 M (380 KIAS). LockOn calcs shows me 4 G at the same speed. I beg your pardon I won't post the pictures for the lack of time but only few numbers: TAS(kph)/Real F-15 G/Sim F-15 G

 

525/1.6/1.4

760/3/2.8

1050/3.8/4

 

 

Then I went to FC and perform sustain turn at the same conditions as in the FM. Guys, please believe it was SUSTAINED turn.

Everybody can do the same. Use H autpilot to help yourself if you are not sure you can hold G, akt and speed simultaueously. :)

[Pilotasso]

Yo-YO it was the G to altitude chart that Ed followed, but there many other perfomance aspects that cant be matched with SFM, but we hope they could be with AFM. Ill investigate my F-15 book GG right after dinner BBL

[Yo-Yo]

For all who tries to make their own records in F-15 climbing:

Are you sure you keep the BEST speed to climb at certain altitude?

The climbing profile is not so simple some of people think.