AeriaGloria Posted May 3, 2020 Posted May 3, 2020 (edited) I wonder how much the smaller(more optimized?) MIL power output and installation/duct contribute to its better efficiency then MiG-29G. Using info from post 14, it looks about 11% more efficient at M 1.6 and 30,000 feet(for one engine) Edited May 3, 2020 by AeriaGloria Black Shark Den Squadron Member: We are open to new recruits, click here to check us out or apply to join! https://blacksharkden.com
Airhunter Posted May 3, 2020 Author Posted May 3, 2020 This assumption is wrong. Most figures from the JF-17 T.O. Dash-1 and RD-93 tech manual like thrust curve/fuel flow curve vs altitude & mach, detailed fuel flow of different cruise settings with different stores etc. are still NOT PUBLIC. We don't just put those docs on the internet by the request of random people. So what you are saying is you developed this with classified material, contrary to ED's statements than all their modules are built on "publically available" documents and data? Regardless, I do see the points some people are making. Intake geometry and aircraft weight do indeed affect overall performance, speed has a mostly linear effect on TSFC and should increase in low decimals between Mach numbers of 1.6 - 2.3 (roughly speaking from what I could find). With this being based on non-public information and performance charts I can't really make my case here as I don't have a reliable reference like I do for the F-16C (HAF manuals). On the same note, the developer can also claim whatever they want since they have the "real manuals" and data and we have to believe them somehow? The entire reason I conducted these tests was because I had a discussion with some people saying the JF-17 was more fuel efficient than the F-15 or F-16. There is also no FF gauge in the JF-17 which makes manually plotting any perf charts pretty much impossible for the scope of DCS.
paco2002 Posted May 3, 2020 Posted May 3, 2020 On the same note, the developer can also claim whatever they want since they have the "real manuals" and data and we have to believe them somehow? Somehow? It's a simulation team, that is developing a module in a sim, i think you could belive them.
Airhunter Posted May 3, 2020 Author Posted May 3, 2020 From the RD-93 specifications sheet you can find the SFC for the engine is 2.05 kg/kgf*h and the full burner thrust is 8300 kg. This is the test value with the stand along engine. After installation, the SFC will decrease by 25% and the thrust will increase by 16%. These are the value from all different website and you can easily find them. Calculating the FF from public resources: FF = SFC * 0.75 * Thrust * 1.16 * 2.2046 lb = 32634.8 lb/h Your value is 31760 lb/h, there is only 2.7% difference from your value to the real one. You still think this is unrealistic? For example check here: http://www.avia500.ru/eng/production_72 The efficiency of the engine does not only depend on the engine itself, it also depends on the inlet design and the nozzel design. If you take out all the engines and test them alone on the test stand, the newer engine might be more efficient than the older one. However, we are talking about combat aircrafts and you need to sacrifice efficiency for other performance, for example for radar cross section. If you put the GE F119 on the table, it might be more fuel efficient than all engines in DCS, however, if you take the F22, it might be less fuel efficient than a lot aircrafts in DCS since it traded in at least 20% of thrust for RCS as far as I know. Those values are stated for the SMR-95 on that site, no test conditions specified, and not the RD-93 apparently. Also in your calculation, what are the 2.2046 lb? Where do you get this value?
LJQCN101 Posted May 3, 2020 Posted May 3, 2020 (edited) So what you are saying is you developed this with classified material, contrary to ED's statements than all their modules are built on "publically available" documents and data? Regardless, I do see the points some people are making. Intake geometry and aircraft weight do indeed affect overall performance, speed has a mostly linear effect on TSFC and should increase in low decimals between Mach numbers of 1.6 - 2.3 (roughly speaking from what I could find). With this being based on non-public information and performance charts I can't really make my case here as I don't have a reliable reference like I do for the F-16C (HAF manuals). On the same note, the developer can also claim whatever they want since they have the "real manuals" and data and we have to believe them somehow? The entire reason I conducted these tests was because I had a discussion with some people saying the JF-17 was more fuel efficient than the F-15 or F-16. There is also no FF gauge in the JF-17 which makes manually plotting any perf charts pretty much impossible for the scope of DCS. The same goes for T.O.1F-16CM circa 2007 and F-18 EM chart, do you able to find those online? HAF manual is not the correct one for the version DCS models, but yeah some aspects like fuel flow chart from it is comparable. Edited May 3, 2020 by LJQCN101 EFM / FCS developer, Deka Ironwork Simulations.
Kumabit Posted May 3, 2020 Posted May 3, 2020 (edited) Those values are stated for the SMR-95 on that site, no test conditions specified, and not the RD-93 apparently. Also in your calculation, what are the 2.2046 lb? Where do you get this value? If you do your research you will find SMR-95 is basicly just another name of the RD-93. That 2.2046 lb is the unit conversion from kg to lb Edited May 3, 2020 by Kumabit
PetRock Posted May 5, 2020 Posted May 5, 2020 Wow... Textbook example of "you get more flies with honey than vinegar" or what... I would try to find where your data is actually apples to apples to start and go from there...
Airhunter Posted May 6, 2020 Author Posted May 6, 2020 The same goes for T.O.1F-16CM circa 2007 and F-18 EM chart, do you able to find those online? HAF manual is not the correct one for the version DCS models, but yeah some aspects like fuel flow chart from it is comparable. The HAF one has the -129 engine so it is correct. Block 50 and 52 (CCIP is just avionics).
Airhunter Posted May 6, 2020 Author Posted May 6, 2020 Wow... Textbook example of "you get more flies with honey than vinegar" or what... I would try to find where your data is actually apples to apples to start and go from there... Again, this is just an observation. Since there are no public documents for these engines and planes I can't really do an apples to apples comparison. Seems like DCS isn't built on public data after all...
paco2002 Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 It's normal that DCS isn't built on public data, you're speaking about military things, and those are confidentials, not everything, but a big part of all the systems are secrets.
Bananabrai Posted May 6, 2020 Posted May 6, 2020 (edited) Again, this is just an observation. Since there are no public documents for these engines and planes I can't really do an apples to apples comparison. Seems like DCS isn't built on public data after all... It is not. I don't know why some people think that it is. Hear the Fighter Pilot Podcast episode about DCS. Wags himself said, (sorry to not know the exact wording) that some info comes from kind of a gray area. Not public, but not classified in the higher regiemes as well. NATO Resitricted is not that hard to find anyway, you just won't know that numbers are NR, because they will not but a giant NR-caption above it on the internet. Of course you'll get problems for NATO Confidential and NATO Secret... if someone finds out ... Isn't that Wags's job at DCS anyway? I thought he looks that to hard stuff isn't going into the game. Because you can really find some numbers sometimes... If they don't tell us all the values, it's fine anyway. I think they mostly round stuff a little up or down and hide it in the code. Plus, you have former pilots, mechanics and other people knowing things to great detail. They say "but that number in" and it's fine. And that's ok. We can't even know how realistic modules are anyway. We have to trust people saying they have flown the real deal. I respect your courage to look into stuff in detail and try and find out if things are ok or are unfair to other module users. Thats great. But at some point we should just accept that we have a more or less realistic simulation and enjoy that. :pilotfly: Edited May 6, 2020 by Bananabrai Alias in Discord: Mailman
Kumabit Posted May 9, 2020 Posted May 9, 2020 Again, this is just an observation. Since there are no public documents for these engines and planes I can't really do an apples to apples comparison. Seems like DCS isn't built on public data after all... DO YOUR RESEARCH before you screaming out nonsense. Both of your missile range and fuel efficient "analysis" are just nonsecse
shaHeen-1 Posted May 9, 2020 Posted May 9, 2020 I think his point is that DCS is non-sense since you can't verify it.
Airhunter Posted May 9, 2020 Author Posted May 9, 2020 DO YOUR RESEARCH before you screaming out nonsense. Both of your missile range and fuel efficient "analysis" are just nonsecse Explain yourself.
Tiger-II Posted May 11, 2020 Posted May 11, 2020 (edited) Please explain yourself? Are you telling me a JF-17 is significantly more fuel efficient than a F-16 or Viggen with significantly less fuel at nearly the same test conditions? More than 10 minutes in max afterburner with 5k lbs of fuel? Yes. Why not? All you've done is convince me they did a great job with the engine. RD-93 is not an RD-33, and they made great improvements. Fuel efficiency was one of the aims of the improvements as increased fuel efficiency = more thrust (and this is what they achieved). Don't forget also that the RD-93 has different design stators which I think are controllable in the -93 and fixed in the -33. This alone makes a huge difference. Edited May 11, 2020 by Tiger-II Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."
shaHeen-1 Posted May 11, 2020 Posted May 11, 2020 I wouldn't go that far. This post taught us all a little something.
Tiger-II Posted May 11, 2020 Posted May 11, 2020 I wouldn't go that far. This post taught us all a little something. You're right. Edited. I saw a video the other day of an AIM-120C launch in DCS, fired at 60 NM from high altitude. It hit the other (non-maneuvering) aircraft 60 NM later at Mach 3.0. They said it was "cool". Imagine if that had been the SD-10 on release day... Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port "When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover. The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts. "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."
Recommended Posts