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.
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
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.
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.
I’ve only reported M2000, M4000 (for a buff), Rafale, and EF. There is much more in-depth, publicly available data for the rest of the 4th gens (F-16, F-15, F-18 etc etc etc), and those planes are modeled much more accurately in-game. Rest assured if the F-16 or w/e was performing 2 deg/s higher than it’s charts or videos or w/e, I would report it too
Lmao using airshow videos as proof 🤣 you cannot use videos like that as proof as you do not know the fuel loads the amount of thrust and how hard they are pulling.
Roll rate for most top tier aircraft is significantly worse than they should. That’s because the instructor tends to break the wings off during high roll rate pulling maneuvers
again you can’t use Air show videos as proof of performance since there is variable information about anything from fuel to ammo pylons temperature altitude if the pilot feels like pulling fully or not and many more.
i hope Videos that you send don’t convince Gijin with such unconventional evidence of performance this is one of the worst ways to find out performance unless it acceeds in-game performances
Just to clarify airshow displays are not accepted by the Devs as any form of meaningful evidence on the limits or performance of an aircraft.
Not only is there a multitude of unknowns just from camera perspective/speed, fuel loads, stores etc but also operational limits placed on public displays which can differ between different nations even operating the same type of aircraft.
Displays are also constructed based on geographical limitations (airspace, display area, weather limits, visibility etc) and the operational stress tolerances (to prolong airfeame life and reduce the risk of fatigue on operational frontline aircraft) permitted by that respective nations air force.
As such, videos of that nature are not used to create or judge the real performance of an aircraft.
yep, I wasn’t intending on reporting a specific performance setpoint based off clips from an airshow.
Can you explain why this video was used? There is no provided fuel load as well, and the report just assumes a random fuel %. Community Bug Reporting System
And do you know what happened with this? Community Bug Reporting System or if I can add new clips from after the FM change?
Yes 82 kN is 8,361.7 kg which is a total of 16,723.3 kg for two engines.
However ~82 kN is static thrust used for the estimates and does not include channel losses (or whatever you want to call it).
IIRC Gaijin use ~5.5% as the channel loss for Eurofighter, so if you apply that same channel loss to the 82 kN static thrust you get 77.9 kN (7,944 kgf) per engine as thrust to test with in game.
