Why not? Lot of ppl are exposed to the vehicles by WT nowadays, being the largest military vehicle game out there, and it has a certain degree of infamy at this point. Would be a great opportunity to get us off their backs :p
Way more official (and legal) than sourcing classified docs and posting them online 👀
Could also ask the chinese for info, they paid a bunch of ex-western pilots for info on modern weatern jets and tactics iirc. Most notably a somewhat famous (or now infamous) Rafale jet pilot. (Tho being honest, I doubt the chinese will provide the info they bought on western jets publicly, its just a funny idea)
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).
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)
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
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.
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
