These for a start:
I also edited my previous response with extra information that you might want to look at as well.
- “Have you taken account for channel loss?”
yes I provided BOTH specifications in my original report:
- UNINSTALLED thrust (engine on test stand): 26,950-27,000 lbf per engine
- INSTALLED thrust (in F-14 airframe with all losses): 23,400 lbf per engine at sea level static
In-game value (fully upgraded per wiki): 22,553 lbf per engine
Even using the MOST conservative installed thrust figure (23,400 lbf) that accounts for ALL installation/channel losses, the in-game value is STILL 847 lbf too low (3.6% deficit).
If using the uninstalled specification (27,000 lbf), the deficit is 4,447 lbf (16.5% underpowered).
The in-game value matches NEITHER specification.
- “Have you provided all the sources in the correct way (and are they acceptable sources)?”
I provided 10 sources in my original bug report including:
PRIMARY SOURCES (no restrictions):
- GE Aerospace official specification - 27,000 lbs (the OEM/manufacturer)
- F-14D Standard Aircraft Characteristics (SAC) - 26,950 lbs (official Navy specification document)
- US Fighter Aircraft Database - 27,000 lbs
- FAS Military Analysis Network - authoritative reference
- GlobalSecurity.org - military reference database
SUPPORTING SOURCES:
- Grokipedia, Wikipedia (both citing primary sources)
- Multiple cross-references
Regarding format: I provided URLs, document names, dates, and specifications. If there’s a specific format required beyond this, please specify what is needed.
- “Are they considered secondary or third party?”
no the core sources are PRIMARY:
-GE Aerospace = PRIMARY SOURCE (Original Equipment Manufacturer - they design, build, and test the engine)
-F-14D SAC** = PRIMARY SOURCE (Official U.S. Navy specification document)
These are THE authoritative sources. If the manufacturer’s own specification isn’t acceptable as a “primary source,” please explain what documentation would qualify?
2 Likes
Okay, so lets break this down.
-
You did not provide them in the correct way (did you even read the response from the bug reporting manager?)
-
You don’t seem to know what “primary source” means.
So lets break down your sources a bit more.
Source 1:
Good source, no arguments there. Provides dry (Edit: static) thrust and not installed.
Source 2:
Link leads to random third party blog and not the source cited.
Source 3:
Possibly classified/restricted and possibly a crime to share, no declassification proven.
Source 4:
Random third party website, not a valid source
Source 5:
Doesn’t open for me, at first glance looks like random third party website and not a valid source
Source 6:
Wikipedia, not a valid source
Source 7:
Wikipedia, not a valid source
Source 8:
AI, not a valid source
Source 9:
Random third party website, not a valid source
Source 10:
Likely valid source, provides no thrust numbers
The GE Aerospace specification states 27,000 lbs TOTAL thrust, not dry thrust.
- Dry thrust (military power): ~16,333 lbs
- Afterburner thrust: 27,000 lbs (per GE Aerospace)
The in-game value is 21,500 lbf afterburner (stock) and 22,553 lbf (fully upgraded per wiki).
Even accepting ONLY Source 1 (GE Aerospace), the engine is still underpowered by:
- 27,000 lbs (GE spec) vs 22,553 lbs (in-game upgraded) is a (16.5% underpowered)
im confused on the point am i wrong is there no bug is the engine not under powered
1 Like
Yeah sorry, i ment “static” and not “dry”. Will edit the previous response.
You’re missing channel loss (how much power is lost due to less oxygen because the air intakes restricts airflow) in that source. Something that if they don’t have a direct source for Gaijin estimates themselves (usually around 10-15% for most aircraft if i remember correctly).
Edit:
Here a player has compiled some tips and tricks for reporting in general:
You did not upload the sources, which you’re required to do. The bug-reporting manager is correct here.
1 Like
Don’t spread misinformation, you didn’t even read the bug report yourself. The bug-reporting manager is correct. The guy did not upload the sources. Providing links of the sources is not sufficient.
1 Like
unless your a F18 ofc then you get negative channel loss
1 Like
depends could be export restricted
Not sure what you are referring to.
could you be more precise?
F18 has a S duct as we all know but manages a channel loss of 5% lower than the F14 and F15
the S duct is buffed for some reason no clue why as S duct have to move air through a S shaped curve which would increase channel loss compared to F14/F15 with straight ducts
1 Like
The NATOPS manual provides installed thrust (23,400 lbs sea level) which accounts for all airframe losses. Even this conservative figure exceeds the in-game value is all I’m going to end this on ill re upload with individual pictures next since that’s what you want.
Which version of the F-18 and which engine and how much are you saying the channel loss is?
F18A/C havent seen anything on F18E cause no one cares about it
A manual you have not proven to be declassified and thus not only might be illegal to share but also cannot be used by Gaijin in that case, no matter how true it might be they cannot use restricted/classified documents/data.
1 Like
Any historical bug reports that do not have anything uploaded in the historical files section, can easily be closed in seconds, because it didn’t meet even the most basic rules. 90% of badly written historical bug reports do not contain historical files, so that is an easy tell of whether or not the report meets the necessary qualifications.
From what i can find they have used approximately 10% cannel loss (or more depending on the engine version installed)
https://www.geaerospace.com/sites/default/files/2022-01/F404%20Family%20Data%20Sheet_UPDATED.pdf
No negative channel loss there.
1 Like
What everyone here wants is for you to not commit a VERY serious crime. This isn’t about some numbers in a video game, it’s about possibly restricted military data and the real world consequences that might follow if you chare classified/restricted documents.
4 Likes
Something being available online does NOT make it declassified or unrestricted. Please read the rules very clearly: Source Material: Restrictions on Classified and Export Restricted information (“Military Restrictions”)
The Purden of proof of declassification is for you to provide. We will never accept, use or handle any sources that appear to be classified.
You also included no attachments at all in your report.
2 Likes