you mean a “great source for intel gathering on the enemies equipment”
not “threat to national security”
4 Likes
But there has never been a classified leak on the forums. Its just marketing lies :P
true
it is all just fabricated so it looks better for export
Your words inspired me to go out there and once more prove that EF in it’s current state is abysmal dogs… Thanks
Me sat in my tornado gr 1 while others fly around in their f16s and mig 29s… ah yes, the “non existent” margin your speaking of.
1 Like
To add a little to the linked comment @Morvran provided, here is an official quote on the subject:
Contrary to the in-game depiction, the CAPTOR-M is likely a tremendously capable radar irl, more than likely very much capable of standing up to the radars of its time, and seemingly enough so for the Eurofighter consortium to delay implementation of an AESA for their primary radar until recently. Its also worth noting that the Gripen also took a similar approach, with the PS-05/A radar also being developed from the Blue Vixen like the CAPTOR-M, and later on the ES-05 Raven being more along the lines of the CAPTOR-E (being a slewable AESA).
1 Like
Hey, just noticed this on the Rafale and figured I should ask the British Typhoon ppl here, since I only have the German one atm, but when you use the TGP, do you lose the ability to use the PIRATEs TV channel?
The location of the TGP sort of makes it unusable to look up at targets without rolling the jet despite the positive vertical angles being pretty much the same.
Spoiler
Also as a sidenote, is it true the PIRATE only has a ±30deg vertical coverage and its only gen 1 thermals? Seems a little odd of it to be gen 1 thermals (im honestly surprised the Rafales IRST only gets gen 2 thermals on its end)
Yeah, but given the limited FoV of the PIRATE and how good the Litening III is, its never been a bother to me. Not that I use it for VID often.
Never really paid attention to the PIRATE IR quality. let me check
Quality is pretty low but I also remember another advantage to just using Litening III. You cant actually lock onto an aircraft with the PIRATE like you can the Tpod, which makes vid and tracking a lot harder
Edit: its been fixed, you can now
1 Like
it was rejected because that person did not do the sea level test correctly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhKDJkez3Hk (this is a different test done correctly) around the 1:30 mark is the sea level test, this shows the plane at a turn rate that is within 3% of the ESR-D requirements.
With 3,571 kg of fuel instead of 4,300 kg of fuel…
Now I would guess he’s doing that to match the mass used in the 1987 estimates, but here’s the thing: he’s not matching the thrust used in those estimates. There are two valid ways I can see of testing the Eurofighter:
-
Use 4,300 kg of fuel and max thrust to see if it reaches the design requirements.
-
Use a reduced fuel load and reduced thrust to match the conditions used in the 1987 estimates, and see if it matches those estimated figures.
He’s used the reduced mass from option 2, but the full thrust from option 1. Therefore his testing doesn’t match the conditions used in either document, and so frankly is not much use. It’s also testing from 2 months ago so doesn’t account for the FM rework in the most recent update.
6 Likes
the fuel load was different because the empty mass of the ef is slightly heavier than the requirements+fuel burn was turned off
but anyways heres a quick statshark calculation of the most recent fm ef at the reference weight at 19.28 deg/s
also can you link the report you were originally referring too? i wasn’t able to find it
A couple things for context:
90kN is an uninstalled thrust value. The installed thrust is 85kN. Thus there is a difference of only 3kN or 3.5%.
The performance estimate was made with an empty mass of 10570kg. The final aircraft weighs between 11200-11700kg (differs by source), for a mass increase of 6-10.6%.
A 3.5% increase of thrust on the same wing area does not even offset the weight increase of the liberal end of the estimate, let alone account for an extra 2deg/s of STR. This is even worse when you consider the extra fuel weight added for those referencing 100% internal.
You can do a fun reality check as an example if you replicate these conditions on other airframes and see what happens if you increase thrust by 3.5% (not just throttle, but thrust) and 6% more mass.
You can also see the real aircraft, clean, with much less than 100% fuel (airshow aircraft cannot use infinite fuel (shocking) and most of the time have a minimum amount for a performance) in full afterburner sustaining:
18.75deg/s (1154 frames, 19.2 seconds for a 360)
(two instances in this video) 2:13: 17.2deg/s (1259 frames 20.9 seconds for a 360)
6:01 17.8deg/s (1213 frames, 20.2 seconds for a 360)
ESR-D requirements are 20 deg/s on 100% internal, and you can can see the actual aircraft fall short of that with your own eyes. If anyone can send me a video of the EF sustaining 25deg/s as it can in-game that would at least substantiate that view point, but at this point it’s pretty obvious.
3 Likes
Ah yes, because pilots at airshows always fly the aircraft at 100% of it’s performance and always pull as hard back on.the stick as they can.
Videos might be usable to prove an aircraft is underperforming (though anything dependent on time is dubious) but to use it to prove it’s over performing is kinda hilarious becuase there is no way of knowing whether it was max performance or not. I’d assume for peace-time and especially airshows. They don’t, if nothing else for the safety of the crowd below
1 Like
Arent u the guy that made a shit ton of bugreports to nerv the EF?
Also its with ur data 3,5%x2 because 2 engines…
Yes, thats him
Air show footage based on that we should nerf the Spitfire…
I havent seen a Spitfire at an airshow exceed 350mph.
Airshows are just that shows, pilots still have to operate the aircraft in a careful measured manner.
If we are going to accept airshow footage as a metric of how an aircraft should fly then we may as well accept pilot testimonies too.
ye I did this 3 months ago at the same time as my bug report
in-game 82kN static is 16723.3kgf
108% throttle is 16539kgf
which gives
~18.9/19.0 deg/s compared to 18.44 @ SL M0.65 +0.5 deg/s over
15.0 deg/s compared to 13.84 @ 3048m M0.7 +1.2 deg/s over
In the current game after the FM changes you get:
(>1 deg/s over)
At higher altitudes the difference gets larger, and off burner it has always met its setpoint (and still does in the live game)
Wasn’t brought up but the accel is still overperforming, I re-ran the test for the 11km setpoint with reduced thrust and it is still 27% over the estimate (and above the requirement as well). Community Bug Reporting System its locked though so I can’t add the updated clip
Watch 11000m | Streamable
59s measured 80.4 given by source, overperforming by 27%
It seems like a stretch to say its underperforming by any measure, but if you can find a data point that it underperforms on compared to EFA MOD PE and send me a clip I’d love to see it.
As an aside, why do people being up the major projects report in an attempt to prove that all conditions of the ESR-D were met? It explicitly compared performance to “key requirements” only, and STR in afterburner was not one of them.
2 Likes
Can i just politely ask if these tests have been done on all of the top tier aircraft because it seems awfully convenient that the eurofighter would be the only one that you’re deeming as “overperforming”, since its the only one you’re constantly bug reporting as such ig all the other aircraft are perfectly fine by your logic
If this was the case, wouldn’t you expect other planes to perform worse too and not just the eurofighter?
16C
20.5 deg/s (1050 frames, 17.5 seconds for a 360)
29 9-12 (with center tank)
17.5 deg/s (1232 frames, 20.5 seconds for a 360)
and one more just for fun:
F-35A
17.1 deg/s (1260 frames, 21 seconds for a 360)
This is starting to get off topic though, the issue at hand is that with 100% internal fuel in the live game, the EF outperforms the actual plane with an unknown amount under 100% by 2 deg/s. These clips also demonstrate performance under the ESR-D requirements. The clips of other aircraft I could find fall within their possible range of internal fuel and don’t have the same issue.
1 Like