One question, if the devs determined the austrain source to be useless, then why did the og sustained buff report with the video even go thorugh in the first place? Or, at least why didn’t they revert it if they found the source to be inadequate later on? Because, if the documentation was useless, that technically means they only went through the report with the video
Lack of research ig
The Austrian source was removed after the report was implemented.
Because the truth is that there were other documentations in the report, and a tech mod can confirm that.
Grand claims such as the Austrian report being the only written documentation shouldn’t be taken as truth.
Of the other two documents, one has no cover and no testing conditions (unusable), and the other has Rafale with 30% less SEP than is present in the game (990ft/s ingame vs 700ft/s, similar to f16/mig29 in the doc). If that document is accurate the Rafale should be modeled using its values, no? If it isn’t, there is no valid documentation to support the video.
Either way it isn’t a primary source, and they require at least two secondary sources.
2 Likes
Here’s another source for uninstalled thrust if anyone’s curious
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ashley-Tellis-2/publication/321596995_Dogfight_India’s_Medium_Multi-Role_Combat_Aircraft_Decision/links/5a284df9aca2727dd886ff64/Dogfight-Indias-Medium-Multi-Role-Combat-Aircraft-Decision.pdf
3 Likes
Eurofighter has a higher thrust to weight ratio while it’s canards are not close coupled as seen on the Rafale but placed further outwards which makes quite the difference.
Rafale might be less unstable.
It is said that Eurofighter is quite impressive because maneuver at 9G beyond speeds at mach 1 which in game is nothing special at all.
Keep in mind that this is a game. Vortices generated by Canards or strakes or LERX are not even modelled if I am not mistaken.
Not to mention accuracy.
Only if you round to 1 decimal place. The actual conversation is more like 1N = 0.101971621 kg on earth. A small difference but it adds up when you’re dealing with 10s of thousands of Newtowns.
Jet engine thrust is always measured in lbf / kgf / N (units of force) because thrust is by definition a measure of how much force the engine produces. Sometimes data sheets etc. incorrectly drop the f from lbf because people are used to hearing people say “pounds of thrust” and lb / lbf can be used somewhat interchangeably on earth (1 lbf is the force exerted by a mass of 1 lb under standard gravity).
1 Like
The usual weight=/=mass discussion.
But yeah removing the f from lbf and kgf is a misuse of language, and often times is a head scratcher
1 Like
Are you mentioning the 85kN figures sometimes stated by SNECMA for the m88 ?
This is simply because they were also prototyping a 85kN m88, under the m88-3 name (not the same m88-3 that entered service which was just a minor upgrade of the m88-2), but was cancelled in the late 1990s.
If I understood your point correctly, you just are massively misunderstanding the m88 project
4 Likes
I don’t have the context of your excerpt, but I would say M88 ECO refers to the upgrade program leading to the m88-4, improving availability, fuel efficiency and ease of maintenance.
The question was why was it accepted in the first place
1 Like
What is your definition of similar?
Just using this as something to reply to:
As you can see here, two different lbf values are given. Yet the same value in kN, so it seems it’s consistently dodgy calculations. I would probably expect the 75kN to be the most accurate value.
Though I always see 75kN as the thrust class. So ideally we need something very specific to clarify.
2 Likes
I dont want to be critical as a guess they are just swamped skimmed it and it looked good so allowed it.
Lol, lmao even.
1 Like
It pulls more Gs and has the shortest guidance delay. Its the best off-boresight ARH by far and cannot be kinematically defeated at shorter ranges.
that doesnt mean it has the best kinematic performance.
You’re completely ignoring long range performance.
2 Likes