Every plane suffers from it, though some more than others (Looking at you, P-61)
Overall, it’s something that should take relatively minimal effort to put a band-aid fix on (I expect nothing more from Gaijin)
Just take the control line models, separate every line, make the damage code represent that, done.
Getting shot in the right aileron no longer nukes your left one.
To begin with, aren’t the wires back-up in modern fighters? They should model hydraulic and electric controllers, and only have the lines there as another module that’s a back-up.
The F-14 may be huge, but in real life that would actually make it redundant, instead of a “oh you’re on fire on one specific side, you die now”
Basically. The change that allows radars to pick up missiles make the AWG-9 so much worse with ghost targets and finding targets in the first place. You can actually lock missiles from like 85km away over an entire Flanker airframe. It’s by far the most miserable experience at 13.0.
Yet that defeats the point of putting the term “Cruise” in supercruise.
If you can’t pull the throttle back to save fuel and it’s only slightly better than afterburner, you really don’t have much of an advantage over aircraft with proper supercruise.
Arguably, with aircraft like the Eurocanards which are small and lack the fuel reserves of something like an F-15 or Su-27, a proper supercruise capability would be far more beneficial. It is surprising they have not made that a higher priority, especially given that it is easier to achieve with a delta aircraft due to lower preponderance of wave drag after mach. Whereas the F-22 must go 1.5 mach to overcome wave drag and then pull the throttle back, the Eurofighter may only need to do 1.4 or so.
Of course, if ordnance penalizes the top speed as much as it does for something like the Gripen it makes sense why that would only be a focus on something with recessed weapons or an internal bay.
In regards to the F-14, being capable of doing 1.1 mach without afterburner is pretty useless as the aircraft has sufficiently long range ordnance and acceleration to make use of the quick-dash style launches, especially against the intended targets and use-cases.
What is the real definition?? From what I found, it’s this: “the ability of a combat-loaded aircraft to maintain supersonic flight (Mach 1 or higher) without using afterburners”.
Afterburner uses over 2x the fuel as dry power, per unit of thrust produced. So cruising at 100% throttle is still going to be a significant (50%) fuel saving compared to using afterburner.
That implies double the range but it’s less than half the speed in the case of F-14B, it’s not particularly useful given the lack of a payload.
The Eurofighter is only marginally better and once again, isn’t cruising.
There is no official definition, it’s a marketing ploy.
The F-22 meets the real world use case of the term, where it can actually set the cruise throttle setting while traveling supersonic and massively increase the effective combat range and speeds (up to 1.8 mach on mil thrust) or 1.5 on cruise setting.
Supercruise, supersonic cruising, this is by the very name not what the Eurofighter does. It is supersonic at mil thrust. Dry supersonic. Not cruising.
There is more to this than just saving a little bit of gas as opposed to afterburning, it means you can cruise above the wave drag boundary without afterburner, which allows you to reduce throttle in the envelope of airspeed where drag is reduced. The drag wall incurred by going supersonic is not overcome until surpassing the majority of aftershocks created through what is known as wave drag.
Of course none of this needs explaining here, the F-14 can’t supercruise and was never said to be capable of it by the American terminology unlike the F-22.
I don’t really think that evidence is conclusive on the matter, and no it is not regional or biased. If you can’t let go of the fact that the Typhoon is mostly marketing lies, then perhaps you should whine about it in the correct thread.
Let’s see it that way.
Many planes can possibly cruise without AB over 1 mach …without combat load , which is effective is not supercruise.
For F-14B/D , maybe it was possible …without any AIM-54 , without using the wing/glove pylons and maybe 2 Sparrows in the underbelly that won’t produce enough drag. However , that’s not combat load… even if it was possible.
Yes naked the plane could go over mach without A/B .
It’s very difficult for a plane without any capability to carry a combat load configuration internally , to have “supercruise” . Also most planes that are said to achieve supercruise break sound barrier with afterburner and then maintain with military…that’s not real supercruise. You can say it’s a work around for fuel economy.
