7 Likes
Save some for the rest of us
5 Likes
For the lord knows how many times, Supercruise just means being supersonic capable from dry thrust in level flight.
End of discussion on this, any more is just a pisstake and you know it
4 Likes
Don’t feed the troll
1 Like
Also
4 Likes
I have not found any information on what Eurofighter’s specific definition of “supercruise” is.
If we assume the bare minimum of “able to maintain flight at this speed, for some undefined length of time, without using afterburner” then that still leaves us with two possibilities:
- Eurofighter is underperforming in game (it is impossible to maintain Mach 1.5 for any length of time at 100% throttle).
- Eurofighter GmbH is outright lying and any form of sustained flight at Mach 1.5 is not possible without afterburner.
The exact definition of supercruise is irrelevant to either point. If option 1 is true then the Eurofighter is underperforming however you define supercruise; and if you want to make the case that it can fly at Mach 1.5 without afterburner but inefficiently then that’s fine but it is still going to be more efficient than flying with afterburner so would be a net improvement compared to what we currently have. If you believe option 2 is true then it doesn’t matter how you define supercruise because it’s all a lie anyway.
So as I said arguing pedantics on the meaning of the word is a pointless discussion.
11 Likes
As I said before my post was removed, a specific definition from Eurofighter could provide us more insight and data that could be used to verify the in-game model with what is being said.
Example, they say 1.5 is the speed with the throttle on a cruise setting. If that is the case we would know the maximum dry thrust speed is higher than 1.5 and that it would need an increase in performance in the game.
If 1.5 is the maximum thrust top speed we know the thrust or drag is incorrect in the game and needs modified for whatever condition that is in.
Either way, the propaganda claims are not being taken at face value by Gaijin for the Eurofighter and so they should not be taken at face value for other fighters either.
and if that is what they are assuming, it just muddies bug reporting for all future, because if Primary sources can be rejected because the developers dont beleive that certain sources are true without any solid evidence then how can we trust anything will be modeled correctly in the future and how many other aircraft were buffed under similar circumstances
4 Likes
Again why do you believe the claims made by Lockheed but not Eurofighter GmbH?
4 Likes
I didn’t say that I didn’t believe Eurofighter
They denied reports for F-5 that were using natops, ultimately not even an unclassified manual would be sufficient in theory if they don’t believe in the source material…
…at a guess - because they don’t fit his narrow worldview? A few observations.
-
References to ‘propaganda’ whenever European aircraft are mentioned.
-
When primary sources are provided that show something he doesn’t agree with - he will argue that ‘obviously they are using a different testing metric’ or someother
-
A PARTICULAR hatred and loathing of the Typhoon in particular.
Maybe he’s got a historic reason to hate it so.
Actually I’m going with that theory. One day this gentleman is minding his own business somewhere in the Middle East.
The next - Woof - his tent gets smacked by a Paveway.
As he looks up he sees a familiar, delta-winged canard jet arcing up into the sky. Flying it is the reincarnation of Biggles with scarf and everything. He waves in a slightly condescending manner as he RTBs.*
He there and then decide that he will take vengeance upon this machine of evil - by… erm …trying to get it nerfed on the War Thunder forums… okay the narrative might need a little work.
Some of the above post might contain satire. Use responsibly.
6 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Quiet ironic as hell
3 Likes
This is simply not going anywhere… as per usual.
Please clarify your doubts/issues in PMs and keep on discussing thread-related contents. Thanks.
9 Likes
I’d offer you some popcorn, but I just ran out.
3 Likes
Sharing been illegal now remember lol
I mean you guys are really enjoying piling on the guy. But he does make a point. If BAE or Eurofighter (insert company here) has a set definition for that preformance then we know if the aircraft is underpreforming or not. If BAE or Eurofighter (insert company here)definition is 1.5+ the typhoon is under preforming. If BAE
or Eurofighter (insert company here) definition is 1.0+ then the typhoon might not be underperforming.
Might be best to make some enquiries in the UK weaponry thread - it’s a bit less anarchic…sort of.
Although I would imagine that non-classified sources on the innards of a RAF Typhoon are thin on the ground. Every documentary I’ve seen has had some very specific editing to blur out a lot of the functionality…