Afterburner like this...

[Thacyoon]

[Demongornot]

Ah, the famous afterburner wish...

There is issues is that afterburner visibility depend on a lot of condition, the most important one is luminosity, in low luminosity and at night afterburner is visible but during the day it is almost invisible.

There is also how the air is (humidity and other particles) and there is also the debate between yellow and blue flame (or the white ish one with either a little bit of blue or yellow to it), in some conditions it is still visible in the day light condition.

Altitude is also an important factor,

Also the angle where you look at it, and even the camera ISO settings influence that...

The only certain flame we see is the F-111 when it dump fuel and ignite it :D

 

Just look images for "Aircraft afterburner" or even "Falcon afterburner" and you'll see that even in the specific case of the Falcon, it can be visible or not, yellow, blue or white, really bright or faint etc.

 

But maybe you talked about a higher resolution one or one with good lighting effect or one with animation where the tip of the flame isn't static but "flicker" a little like the video ?

[Raisuli]

 

 

The only certain flame we see is the F-111 when it dump fuel and ignite it :D

 

 

 

The F-14 can also dump and burn; the dump mast is in the pancake between the engines. I suspect that's not modeled, which should have been a blocking bug for Heatblur, but apparently they were more worried about trivial things like flight characteristics.

 

 

Lighting far...er...dumped fuel. Now THAT is what's important.

[Demongornot]

The F-14 can also dump and burn; the dump mast is in the pancake between the engines. I suspect that's not modeled, which should have been a blocking bug for Heatblur, but apparently they were more worried about trivial things like flight characteristics.

 

 

Lighting far...er...dumped fuel. Now THAT is what's important.

 

I did not know the Tomcat could also burn dumped fuel, the F-111 is really popular with that.

 

Yeah ! Who care about how the aircraft fly, fuel dump is a must have feature !

I think they should have modeled the Tomcat 3D model from the flame of the dumped fuel as it is certainly the first stone you want to put.

[Wizard_03]

I suspect that's not modeled

 

 

It most certainly is implemented :) at least last time I checked. Last OB update broke a few things like AB effects thou so not sure its still working but it was before.

[Raisuli]

It most certainly is implemented :) at least last time I checked. Last OB update broke a few things like AB effects thou so not sure its still working but it was before.

 

 

 

 

I stand (in the interests of full disclosure I'm actually sitting) pleasantly corrected! I'll have to hop in a -14 and give it a try once the AB effects are fixed. I'm assuming that's why I don't see anything in external view when I light the blower on my I-16.

 

 

:pilotfly:

[VampireNZ]

It most certainly is implemented :) at least last time I checked. Last OB update broke a few things like AB effects thou so not sure its still working but it was before.

 

 

Sure is - dumped and burned just yesterday. Standard ops as I come in to land is to lighten her up a bit...and what better way than to dump fuel AND light the cans. :thumbup:

 

Regarding AB effects - there is no doubt that vid looks fully sick with the F-16 at twilight, but then I have also watched Hornets IRL take off during the day in AB and you can barely tell they're lit.

Edited June 27, 2019 by VampireNZ

[KPenn5]

I believe it was prohibited in the F-14 NATOPS to dump and burn. I recall an article with a former RIO discussing that

[unknown]

 

Fast forward to ~ 19:05 to see it.

 

Sorry for OT :beer: ;)

[Thacyoon]

[snip]...But maybe you talked about a higher resolution one or one with good lighting effect or one with animation where the tip of the flame isn't static but "flicker" a little like the video ?

 

I primarily meant (by linking that youtube video) the length of the afterburner flame. But also the visibility/lightning/colors - the pure "raw power" effect.

[KalAbaddon]

Here are some pictures taken midday at Nellis.

 

only see heat effects on F-16.

 

 

and

 

More visible for this F-15. I guess the way P&W AB is setup it is more visible, but I do not have any pics of a F-16 with the P&W engine.

 

[Mars Exulte]

Also photos/youtube don't equal real life. Camera limitations and characteristic affect these things. For example ''flickering'' afterburner.... it doesn't flicker. That's a camera issue.

 

 

-edit removing commentary, the F-16 in cited photo is def using bur.ers as others mentioned :p

Edited June 27, 2019 by zhukov032186

[=Panther=]

It's difficult to know exactly what the pilots are doing based on a caption that may or may not be correct. It's unlikely the F-16 in your photo is using burners. Jets don't ALWAYS use them for takeoff.

 

In that configuration (with tanks), he/she has definitely lit the can. Can also tell by the turkey feathers, as the nozzle is opened versus being closed if it was a MIL power.

[mvsgas]

It's unlikely the F-16 in your photo is using burners.

 

AB is on, the nozzle is open. If the nozzle was that open at mill power the engine would not have power. He is not landing, speed brakes aren't open, it is just the camera angle. If the F-15 photo was that far away, same camera angle, same lighting conditions, etc. it would look the same.

 

Here is a no AB take off from a F100-PW-220 engine at Nellis AFB

https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2002135828/

 

F100-PW-220 with AB on, Nellis AB. Barely visible

https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001841438/

 

Change the camera angle and you can see the AB no problem, F110-GE-129 at Nellis

https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001783382/

 

Here is a F110-GE-100 at Nellis

https://www.nellis.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2001591594/

 

My point is the AB in real life can and will look different depending on many variable. Same engine, same aircraft, same camera and lens could still get different results.

[Mars Exulte]

In that configuration (with tanks), he/she has definitely lit the can. Can also tell by the turkey feathers, as the nozzle is opened versus being closed if it was a MIL power.

 

Yep, I made two mistakes. Thinking that was the OP and.not noticing the nozzles. You're right lol When I saw his photos I just automatically thought of the issue with cameras blah blah and didn't really look too closely.

[KalAbaddon]

haha, NP. I was there launching F-16's and got a photo pass for an old friend in the area who was taking the picture.

 

I was just throwing them up cause it showed 2 different sunny mid day examples of AB. I also just thought it might of been related to the P&W engines since I only worked on them for a few months at luke for training so was not sure, both pictures were taken from same spot with same lens, but different focal lengths just to clarify the pictures themselves, Reason I figured P&W might be the cause is all the F-15 images from same shoot show AB somewhat and none of the F-16 do unless looking right up the butt. But I agree that seeing the AB during the day is completely hit and miss.

Edited June 27, 2019 by KalAbaddon

[=Panther=]

Yep, I made two mistakes. Thinking that was the OP and.not noticing the nozzles. You're right lol When I saw his photos I just automatically thought of the issue with cameras blah blah and didn't really look too closely.

 

I hope I didn't sound harsh, definitely didn't mean it. :thumbup: I don't know from just a forum conversation if everyone knows the little details, that us maintainers can pick up on from images. I just wanted to point out the details that indicated that the aircraft was in afterburner. :pilotfly:

[Demongornot]

Also photos/youtube don't equal real life. Camera limitations and characteristic affect these things. For example ''flickering'' afterburner.... it doesn't flicker. That's a camera issue.

 

When I said flicker this is because of the lack of a better word, I talk about the fact that the end of the plume isn't perfectly cone shaped and static, but rather it vibrate a lot, arggg I can't even words, I don't know how to describe that even in my native language, damn it dyslexia you win this type :cry:.

Here is some examples if you can figure out what I am trying to say.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2MZi9dJ8vU

Even rocket plume don't keep a perfect shape but rather move a lot.

[=Panther=]

I think flicker is the best term, it is a flame and it is going to move or change shape especially as it tapers out toward the end.

[Mars Exulte]

All good. Btw, what by flicker I didn't mean the natural effects of a flame. Some youtube videos show the whole afterburner tail flickering, i.e. high frequency oscillation. Somebody a while back asked for 'realistic burners' citing one of those videos, that's what I was referring to. If they flickered it would imply an unsteady fuel flow or something, they burn steady and stable like a blow torch.

[Agg]

In that configuration (with tanks), he/she has definitely lit the can. Can also tell by the turkey feathers, as the nozzle is opened versus being closed if it was a MIL power.

Maybe the USAF procedures dictate that burner should be used with that loadout, but we routinely see RNorAF F-16s taking off with a similar load in mil power. And they're using the less powerful F100. You are of course right that the turkey feathers are a dead give away here - but it should also be possible to do a dry thrust take off with this load out.

[Demongornot]

I think it also depend on the operation, during a scramble I think AB would be used regardless of the payload since time is critical, and I don't know how exercises rules are, but when they train for scramble, and potentially for things like Red Flag, they probably use AB too regardless of the payload. But this is just speculations.

[Creature_1stVFW]

Here at Luke, they use burner when they’re in air to ground config, (2 tanks, 2 TERs, bombs etc.), and don’t when they’re in air to air config, ( Centerline tank, 120s and 9s.). Sometimes you can see the burner and sometimes you can’t. On sunny days you can’t really see it, all you get is the heat blur, whereas on overcast days, and obviously dawn / dusk you can see it very well. Like Panther and MV said, us maintainers can tell just by looking, and you can tell it’s in burner just by hearing it too as it goes by. You can “feel” it! It’s awesome!!!

[=Panther=]

Maybe the USAF procedures dictate that burner should be used with that loadout, but we routinely see RNorAF F-16s taking off with a similar load in mil power. And they're using the less powerful F100. You are of course right that the turkey feathers are a dead give away here - but it should also be possible to do a dry thrust take off with this load out.

 

That’s the difference between operators, every USAF Viper unit I have been with, have used AB in the A/G configuration (wing tanks).

[KalAbaddon]

I mostly worked on A2G Wild Weasel loadout iirc. Sometimes got bombs but the AGM-88 was the most common loadout I saw, Not a weapons guy tho so was not paying the most attention. That said I would do EOR a bit I would say it was rare to see a Viper not use AB to take off, centerline or wing tanks iirc. I could be remembering wrong however.