HMD HUD from the DCS Eurofighter trailer, with said Eurofighter mod being made by a group of ex-EFT pilots and engineers.
Not sure if this is the right one, but id assume its accurate considering their specific background.
4 Likes
same specific fuel consumption as an F-404 just that it can produce more overall thrust (= higher fuel consumption).
but at the same power its the same consumption.
its actually more efficient than the F414
is good engine yknow
and you also have low supersonic drag so supercruising isnt hard
1 Like
Deltawings go brrrrrr
1 Like
Pilot opinions (while cool) are notoriously unreliable
1 Like
Cant wait for inevitable butchered eurofighter FM because lack of data and no one being able to bug report it. The super cruise speed is going to be one of those that will be big issue point
I found enough things in the archive that I doubt it will be an issue.
There are two manufacturers websites saying Mach 1.5 supercruise. So hopefully that is enough.
6 Likes
You should be able to get at least mach 1.3 in an interceptor configuration, mach 1.5 was mentioned twice at least but ive never seen the loadout specified.
gaijin has to butcher the flight model because they cant model negative stability.
1.5 mach is clean btw, 1.2 - 1.3 is with a2a loadout which includes some fuel tanks
2 Likes
To be fair this is also why the Gripen seemingly overperforms, so in this case it might end up somewhere similar in terms of overperforming.
Apparently they can’t model the negative stability due to the instructor and given that is also part of why flankers are so abysmal, perhaps its time for an instructor overhaul.
1 Like
So basically it will match the performance of an F3 burning through it’s fuel on max reheat without touching the reheat at all 🤣
Gunna make such a difference in terms of range and combat effectiveness not needing to have an insanely hot aircraft all the time
1 Like
yall are also gonna be angry bcs the canards wont move how they should
Mach 1.3 supercruise with full AA loadout?
Where do I sign?
2.5minutes to Mach 1.5 at 35k ft my reason for saying the supercruise is going to be a problem point is well gaijin trying to figure out how it’s possible without creating a completely broken FM. We all know the engine really struggles with trying to FM without it having some trade off somewhere else. Gripen and tornado being a prime example of that.
1 Like
Lmao… there we go then, I honestly wasn’t expecting it to be possible I suppose semi-recessed pylons help with that. Are we considering ‘full’ to be 8 AAM’s or 6?.
This is the same as what’s shown in the background of BAE’s Striker 2 demo as well, albeit alongside the rastered NV overlay, and with coloured symbology that the Striker 2 adds
2 Likes
Is that your standard NVD or like night-time AR display based on the jets sensors?
I’m also really curious to see what the picture-in-picture function is like, particularly the resolution.
We also have plenty of documentation showing Gripen’s significantly underperforming across the board, but that doesn’t stop them killing it. I suspect it will be a fight for any of the Eurodeltas to have a half competent fm.
Eurofighter will be the first jet in WT to supercruse above 1.2 Mach? Do we know what are the kind of altitudes and if it is clean or with missiles?
We do? Id originally heard the gripen was significantly overperforming prior to its multiple minor FM nerfs. Still seems like a strong aircraft but more in-line with what I’d expect.
I could be wrong (I got yelled at by the russian fanboys when I simply asked to see their sources for the “Su-27 is MASSIVELY underperforming” claims because I was curious in what way it was underperforming), but I have a nagging feeling a lot of planes in-game a relatively decent FM-wise, but general perception is skewed by how massively the F-16’s overperform.
Like, the Su-27’s are decent in 2c and stunningly dangerous with nose authority, particularly at low speeds. The delta canards like the J-10 and Gripen both seem very strong in the 1c and very consistent in the 2c, which is (to my understanding) a defining feature of delta canard layouts. The american jets, with their penchant towards the EM theory and BVR combat lean heavily on energy retention (2c) and acceleration.
All that to say, I could be entirely wrong, but the only jet where I “feel” there is something definitively wrong with the FM are the F-16’s and their idiotic nose authority despite their horrendous wing loading and just about every single description of them being that they are pure 2c fighters, which they were in-game as well until CC’s like defyn and the likes whined about “compression” and “lack of nose authority”.
I do also think ppl discussing FM’s in RB is unfair, specifically because those FM’s are a lot more limited to the constraints of the instructor system.