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
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?
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
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
