isn’t the 25g value for dual plane?
WT forum on hard mode
1 Like
Yes. The problem is when you make a missile you can’t cherry pick. It uses that method to turn. The 17G limit is for single plane… but that is used when the missile only needs to use that mode. If for any reason needs to pull more, or its pathing to the target needs to pull more it will pull more because it can do in dual plane.
It’s a way of how missiles turn.
An example… you have electric power steering in your car. You don’t break it to make it mechanical, just because it can be used as mechanical as a failsafe.
Here we have a dual plane, that uses single plane… If anything, it’s a game …just give it 25 and fix the modeling afterwards. It’s not that it can’t pull them…but with different method.
1 Like
wasted time
reports using videos for FM stuff arent accepted
2 Likes
yeah, sometimes the quote function doesn’t work on ios so I just screenshot… lol.
And light mode is much easier on the eyes as well.
The doc I have for evidence of those capabilities iirc mentions the C and C+ ECCM separately and was made before the ECCM was tested.
F-14 doesn’t have a limiter.
There’s nothing saying the Aim-54C has it exclusive but the only evidence we have that it’s even 25G at all have been from the C model (the BTT video and Grumman Ad). As a balancing measure Gaijin could and probably will take the liberty of making that decision.
3 Likes
That sucks :/
2 Likes
Seems even the F-14A was limited to Mach 2.1 without the correct scheduling. So it’s not an engine limit…
1 Like
It is an engine limit, the airflow must be at a very low speed and compression high to produce the necessary thrust to overcome drag at 2.1 mach. The inlet scheduling is the limiting factor here, not the engine temps or other things such as RPM. The air inlet on a gas engine is still part of the engine, it is just that cars do not use ram intake effects like supersonic fighter jets.
Well yes I agree but clearly with correctly configured engine inlet scheduling the F-14 is physically capable of going faster. I mainly directed the assertion to the Devs that said the F-14B has an engine limit of 2.1M, when clearly with intended inlet scheduling the Tomcat can go faster.
The F-14B uses an entirely different engine, how is that at all comparable? The F-14A docs do not claim it is an engine limitation iirc whereas the F-14B ones do.
Will the F-14’s radar ever get fixed where the radar can’t TWS soft lock targets under 20 degree elevation of the nose?
If we ever get the IRSTS, TCS or AAS-42 implemented, Yes.
So there is a fair chance that the F-14D may see the counterpart systems added for the other F-14s too.
1 Like
Where do the F-14B docs show a Mach 2.1 engine limit??
And they’re comparable because it doesn’t really matter how much an engine is upgraded if the engine doesn’t have configured inlet scheduling. There aren’t any fighters I know of that don’t have variable geometry inlets that are capable of speeds over Mach 2.
The English Electric lightning, F-104 and Saab Draken come to mind
a few more:
F-22
Rafale
Mig-23
F-4
are you sure that the cone in the airintake on those isnt moving forward and backwards?
1 Like
I did not say a 2.1 mach limit existed for the F-14B, I said the stated reason for the limit is engine related on the documents in question.
Regardless, you have to convince the devs and not anyone here on the forum;
https://community.gaijin.net/p/warthunder/i/Oq53GpCxZsRJ?comment=H82UniIfT331kefArYZHGKF9
1 Like
F-22, J-10C, J-20, Mirage 2000, Saab J-35, F-104?
The 22 does boundary layer stuff via the same little panel method as the YF-23.
Such is far less obvious inside compared to the YF-23’s tiles.
Dunno if those would be quantified as variably geometry since they do actuate but are controlled by the computer and aren’t like moving panels, just holes that open and close.
2 Likes
thats just boundry layer seperation tho
and not a full variable geometry air intake
well then the geometry dosent change
ergo its not a variable geometry intake