Cmptohocah Posted November 17, 2021 Share Posted November 17, 2021 (edited) According to the F-15C manual (F-100-PW-200 engine - I am assuming that this is the one DCS version has) engines have a hard limit of 800 knots CAS and for altitude of 11600' maximum mach number is around M1.43 ~ M1.44. However, from the TacView screenshot, from one of the multiplayer servers, one can see an F-15C doing M1.7 (1244KTS) at 11600 feet. This guy's engines had no issues as he went latter on to over M2.0 at a higher altitude, I just didn't include the rest of the engagement. Edited November 21, 2021 by Cmptohocah Added more information. Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 Know of any other aircraft that aren't missing the limitation? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northstar98 Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 26 minutes ago, GGTharos said: Know of any other aircraft that aren't missing the limitation? MiG-21? 1 Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk. Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas. System: GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV. Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmptohocah Posted November 18, 2021 Author Share Posted November 18, 2021 40 minutes ago, Northstar98 said: MiG-21? Yup, the Fishbed's engine flames out when max speed is exceeded. Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker Posted November 18, 2021 Share Posted November 18, 2021 Short answer...it's not an engine limitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmptohocah Posted November 19, 2021 Author Share Posted November 19, 2021 8 hours ago, Rainmaker said: Short answer...it's not an engine limitation. What isn't? Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 19, 2021 Share Posted November 19, 2021 It's structural at 800kts. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmptohocah Posted November 19, 2021 Author Share Posted November 19, 2021 23 hours ago, Rainmaker said: Short answer...it's not an engine limitation. 9 hours ago, GGTharos said: It's structural at 800kts. Should I edit the title of the post then to "structural limit" instead of "engine limit"? Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 53 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said: Should I edit the title of the post then to "structural limit" instead of "engine limit"? I was just clarifying the engine wasn’t the limitation here. The jet is built to go fast, the variable inlets are built to help/protect the motor. To my knowledge, down low, it’s speed limited due to air friction/heat, more specifically to the canopy, etc. same as about every other US fighter. Just like the whole G tolerance debate, it’s not saying that something negative will happen, it’s just a manufacturing limit imposted to protect the integrity of the airframe. Can/can’t do something vs should/shouldn’t are different applications here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max1mus Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 Su-27 will break apart if it goes too fast on the deck. Not sure if thats the same thing. F-16 definitely needs this modelled too, it currently easily maintains 1000kts close to the deck for a long timewhen coming down from altitude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmptohocah Posted November 20, 2021 Author Share Posted November 20, 2021 9 hours ago, Rainmaker said: I was just clarifying the engine wasn’t the limitation here. The jet is built to go fast, the variable inlets are built to help/protect the motor. To my knowledge, down low, it’s speed limited due to air friction/heat, more specifically to the canopy, etc. same as about every other US fighter. Just like the whole G tolerance debate, it’s not saying that something negative will happen, it’s just a manufacturing limit imposted to protect the integrity of the airframe. Can/can’t do something vs should/shouldn’t are different applications here. Just checked the Flanker's manual. So there are two limiting factors: - maximum airspeed (1400km/h ~ 756kts) which comes from structural strength - maximum mach number (M2.35) which is limited by cockpit glass I am guessing that the same applies for the Eagle. I know that F/A-18 and F-16 are also both limited to 800kts CAS. Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 And yet you don't see any of those fall apart on overspeed either. I think the flanker has the most detailed DM in that case. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cmptohocah Posted November 20, 2021 Author Share Posted November 20, 2021 9 hours ago, GGTharos said: And yet you don't see any of those fall apart on overspeed either. I think the flanker has the most detailed DM in that case. Yeah, I'm not going into that "over-stress" debate again. But it would be nice to see things starting to fail randomly when exceeding the limits by 150%. I would like to see this on ALL aircraft including the Red side as this would make flying much more realistic and complicated as it is in RL. Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
henshao Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 On 11/19/2021 at 7:23 PM, Rainmaker said: I was just clarifying the engine wasn’t the limitation here. The jet is built to go fast, the variable inlets are built to help/protect the motor. To my knowledge, down low, it’s speed limited due to air friction/heat, more specifically to the canopy, etc. same as about every other US fighter. Just like the whole G tolerance debate, it’s not saying that something negative will happen, it’s just a manufacturing limit imposted to protect the integrity of the airframe. Can/can’t do something vs should/shouldn’t are different applications here. up high, too. it's not as commonly realized but even at very low indicated airspeeds, high mach numbers put pressure on an object. pressure is nearly a synonym for heat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 21, 2021 Share Posted November 21, 2021 15 hours ago, Cmptohocah said: Yeah, I'm not going into that "over-stress" debate again. But it would be nice to see things starting to fail randomly when exceeding the limits by 150%. I would like to see this on ALL aircraft including the Red side as this would make flying much more realistic and complicated as it is in RL. It's not a debate, the point is simply that people notice things when it bothers them, but don't bother checking or realizing that it's more of a game-wide thing than the thing that escaped/beat them thing [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okopanja Posted November 30, 2021 Share Posted November 30, 2021 On 11/21/2021 at 3:42 PM, GGTharos said: It's not a debate, the point is simply that people notice things when it bothers them, but don't bother checking or realizing that it's more of a game-wide thing than the thing that escaped/beat them thing Well I think this issue is not yet another: "I feel missile X (that did hit me) had too much flare/chaff sensitivity, therefore it should be nerfed". Although it seems that these claims go quite nice if sufficient number of people or "significant" players complain. I am not nowhere near as long as you on the forum (and I do follow your posts with due attention and respect), but I got the impression is that this was a simulation. As far as I know some other planes/helicopters will break down if you venture outside of the prescribed flight parameters (e.g. negative G and shutdown of the engine on Flanker). The fact that in some module's documentation there are clear statements what those limits are (e.g. Mig-21), it does not mean we should assume that there are no such limits, especially since diagrams exist in this case. In this case ability to go beyond the parameters of the actual airplane can do, provide one player unfair advantage over the other. IRL such things are brutally unfair. This means whenever there are objective data that show deviation from RL, because it is clearly a bug/inaccuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts