why no 8*3000lb
Well, Gaijin did announce more commonwealth tanks for britain being planned, so it’s either an Aussie Abrams or a Singaporean/Canadian Leopard
Spoiler
I swear to god, if those additional commonwealth tanks turn out to be more Soviet tanks I’m gonna lose it
1 Like
Afaik Aussie only used the aim I think
They did buy more Abrams’, including some M1A2s, which should be delivered by the end of this year
2 Likes
F-111F has F-111A’s flight model performance but with added weight, they cannot nerf F-111F.
You underestimate what 10,000kgf engines do.
1 Like
So, is this a hint towards the incoming Su-24 or will there actually be strategic bombers coming our way?
and lose all your speed in a turn or two and get killed/crash lol.
I was hoping you’d share a video clip showing the sustained turn rate over a period of time with all the relevant stats shown instead of showing a random screenshot with turn rate which can be just instantaneous turn rate for all I know. If you are going to make one, please throw in the Mig-23ML into the comparison as well.
In real matches, stuff like armaments, energy retention throughout the speed curve matters in addition to the turn rate. No one will think: hmm, there’s a enemy F-111, I’ll drop all my better missiles, I’ll take same fuel weight as him and drain all my speed to dogfight him to give him a fair chance.
F-111F is already going to be one of the best 11.7 fighters in the game, even better than Mig-23ML.
lol
Apparently those are SEPv3 and considering that will be the top of US tanks and largely identical to the US version except for DU, it should be a skin for the US sepv3
So you think F-14As lose all their speed in turns, and get killed/crash.
Interesting take.
I did show you the sustained turn rate directly from a captured video.
The reason I screenshot them was cause the videos are too large, and I used video so it would normalize and I wouldn’t have to worry about screenshotting during flight.
As you can see, F-14A and F-111F have similar energy retention, which is what the sustained turn rate shows.
This is due to the F-111F’s engines producing over 2000kgf more thrust each than the F-14A’s engines.
And the F-111F was tested with 500kg more fuel because that’s how much more it needs to have the same flight time as an F-14A.
My comment was about the F-111, this conversation is about F-111 lol.
So, If I make a hard turn in both the planes going at the same speed, the speed loss would be similar?
2 Likes
Thanks to KotA for helping out!
Also appreciate the Edit note under the original post to show what changed from the original post. It would be good to have that on the main website articles as well, to ensure vehicles or things aren’t misrepresented and then changed without people being aware.
Best regards,
Phil
If you make similar turns in the wings forward position, their speed loss is similar.
In the delta-wing position, F-111 might turn notably worse but bleed more speed due to its different wing characteristics in the swept position.
In-fact, here are the results:
~7 seconds before it lost control after turning at 17.5 degrees per second reducing its speed to mach 0.91.
F-111F takes 2 seconds to get from mach 1.07 to mach 0.9:
F-111F has notably higher drag at mach 1 with its wings fully swept after all.
Shouldn’t they have historical loadouts?
1 Like
AIM-9Ls are a historical loadout and allows the F-111F to be a more competitive BR.
these measurements tend to go hand in hand but are not always (but often are) directly connected.
Two craft with the same sustained rate can achieve it differently, one by superior engines and one by superior aerodynamics. they are going to decelerate att different rates during the initial turn from high speed and the engines efficiencies at different speeds will also play a role as one might be more efficient at higher speeds whilst the other is more tailored to slower speeds.
So your conclusion might be right, i don’t know. but its dangerous to claim so outright without testing the retention separately as its not a given that it will result in the same.
That doesn’t answer my question, the lack of aim-9m would make the loadout non-historical.
2 Likes
Drag and wing geometry can change the data a bit of course.
The issue with testing energy retention on swing wing aircraft without a full-manual swing mode is you can’t get the same wing geometry besides the full-forward above a certain speed.
Also the lack of a weapon doesn’t make it non-historical, that’s not how that works.
A weapon it didn’t or wouldn’t have access to in the case of prototypes being added to the vehicle would be non-historical.
AIM-120 on the current F-20A would be non-historical since it wasn’t intended for that completed prototype.
A vehicle having any of its AAM pylons missing weapons would be non-historical [Mirage 20005F until AMR ARHs were added], and that’s usually unintentional.
1 Like
Ok ok, so possibly more advanced jet bombers. Very nice.
1 Like
1 Like
Here’s hoping we get Mirage IV, B-One, and Tu-160 next to pave the way for slower bombers.
2 Likes