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
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 ?
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 :/
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.
What makes you say M2+ flight is improbable, seeing as almost every other modern fighter jet is M2+ capable, and the in-game Rafale with full fuel, 8x MICA, DAMOCLES TGP, unspaded can hit M2.0+ at 10km alt from brakes off in under 3min45sec (on afghanistan).
If the WT Rafales high speed SEP is accurate to reality, M2.0+ flight is not just probable, its rather likely seeing as the jet is claimed to supercruise at M1.4. In fact, I just tested it, and took ~41s to accelerate from M1.4 to M1.8 with full AB at 10km alt with the earlier stated weapon/fuel load, and 1min 8sec to go from M1.4 to wingrip, with a Rafale missing almost all its acceleration related mods.
Itd be silly for the designers of the jet not to take advantage of this incredible high speed SEP if they did indeed have it irl. There’s a big difference between “having the SEP to reach structural limits in a reasonable amount of time” and “having enough SEP to make all other jets ever made barring a select few ultra high altitude spy-planes/interceptors or 5th gens look like jokes”, and atm, the in-game Rafale is firmly in that second camp.
Dassault states they have variable geometry intakes that adjust to speed and AOA, I believe it has something to do with the cutout at the bottom of the intake ramp, tho how it works exactly, I’m not sure. I figured maybe it has a boundary layer blowing device or something on the bottom of its intakes, but thats not really “variable geometry”.
Newer does not equal better at altitude. F-15 born and bred to perform well at high speed and altitude. Look at SR-71/A-12 family, the typhoon and rafale cannot come close to it and it’s from the 60’s
I apologize, I should have clarified. France had determined that Mach 2+ flight in combat or in real life scenarios were improbable to do. Most sorties did not call for such scenarios.
France had undergone their own sorts of energy-maneuverability theory crisis in where they had realized Mach 2.2+ flight like that achieved on the Mirage 2000’s were wasted potential. What mattered far more were combat range, acceleration, energy retention, supercruise performances.
These performance requirements still called for exceptional engines and a certain airframe design at the expense of an unrealistic scenario (Mach 2 performance in combat sorties).
