Well the M1.4 supercruise means it should accelerate really well around these speeds.
However it’s clearly overcooked rn, especially when getting closer to M2 (probably)
But again, the elephant in the room here is supersonic drag modelling as a whole
There is a chance even if they “correct” it, the Rafale will still have the highest supersonic acceleration of any plane in-game.
All the planes in the game are configured according to the principle of 10% loss, you still need to shoot 500-800kgs
It should be noted that the Rafale with F404 engines found on the Hornet achieved Mach 2 at altitudes considerably higher than 10,000m where aircrafts in-game would have been gasping for air and could not achieve Mach 2 at all. Then consider that there is proof the M88 engines have higher supersonic thrust than the F404 engines which are already anemic to high altitude and supersonic regimes. Thus there should be a considerable amount of excess thrust. It is possible that the Rafale will still have the highest supersonic acceleration out of any aircrafts in-game. The Rafale is a more modern design than the F-15 and M88 is a top of the line engine. I am if anything, more concerned with why Eurofighter does not outclass the F-15s in this regard despite being of a newer design.
I dont think supersonic modelling is an issue. Most planes in-game struggle to accelerate to/past M2.0, particularly when loaded. The Rafale on the other hand can EASILY rip its wings in level flight up at 10km alt, blowing right by M2.0.
Take this with a grain of salt(cuz its SS), but SS has the Rafale with positive acceleration numbers out beyond M2.5, WELL past any speed limit the jet would have.
Which id hazard a guess at saying is absolutely insane.
I dont have any issues with the Rafales subsonic and low supersonic acceleration, but it becomes rather questionnable when it leaves every jet in-game in the dust even past its own structural limits.
If anything, the heavier Rafale M F3 achieved Mach 1.4 supercruise, when in reality the lighter Rafale C F3 which is considerably lighter should achieve around Mach 1.5 supercruise.
Friction coefficient of rubber on asphalt is pretty much a constant IRL. About 0.8 static, and about 0.5 dynamic.
Changing that would barely have an impact tho. With the power to weight ratio of those aircraft’s, ground drag is negligible and there’s no way even having no friction could be even close to compensating changing the actual power output of the engine
Then that would be unrealistic as Vizender pointed out, also, the friction of the wheels already had to be increased in order to reduce the landing run according to this report that had been fixed: Rafale should have stronger landing gear brakes // Gaijin.net // Issues
Your “fix” would cause a different/separate problems where the landing run would be too long.
0.8 is a very large value, rolling friction is 0.04-0.06.
You don’t realize that friction comes in many forms.
All other forms are already at their maximum theoretical efficiency. Reducing rolling friction is not realistic and would increase its landing run.
Those are the values taken by civilian gear manufacturers such as the landing gears of Airbus aircrafts. 0.8 for static, 0.3-0.5 for dynamic/rolling. might be different depending on the exact material, runway, and hypothesis.
Also 0.03 seems really low ? Aren’t you meaning 0.3 ?
Rolling friction is needed on run-up, and sliding friction is needed on run-up, which must be increased
I have to say I’m surprised by the rolling values here.
I have always seen around 0.3-0.5 as a relatively conservative estimate (dry asphalt), so a 10x to 0.03 is surprising to me.
Edit : never mind actually it’s because it’s brake on condition :/
In one case you are rolling, in the other you are sliding.
Gaijin once again failed in setting up the jets
I don’t think reducing the frictions would account for 10k thrust being missing in order to achieve the take-off run anyway.
Structural limits has nothing to do with aircraft’s’ accelerations prior to meeting those limits. And there’s nothing to prevent an aircraft from having excess thrust/acceleration past its own structural limits theoretically.
I don’t think the excess thrust should be to the tune of mach 2.8 as it is in-game, but it is intended for there to be so much acceleration above its structural limits even when the probability of reaching Mach 2 in combat is not realistic due to the nature of combat itself. The excess thrust there is needed in order to ensure even the heaviest Rafale variants can reach Mach 1.4 supercruise as I outlined in my report to developers and will revisit in the near future.
Strengthening the airframe in order to take advantage of the higher level of performance the engines offer is counter-productive for two reasons. One being that Mach 2+ flight is improbable, and that strengthening the airframe increases the weight of the airframe which also reduces super-cruise performance.
So you simply need to build engines that has excess thrust of Mach 2 like the Mirage 2000’s engine, but then build the airframe lighter which compromises the structural strength but allows for better supercruise performance at the cost of Mach 2+ performance.
Had the Eurofighter consortium opted for a lighter weakened airframe, it would have been unable to then physically go over Mach 2, but would have greater supersonic acceleration, greater energy retention, greater TWR, and greater supercruise speeds. Dassault had opted for a lighter weakened airframe which comes with more realistic trade-offs.
