It uses the same dispenser as the F-5E, thus can only get 45 flares total. Technically, it should get less (30), since that’s the actual historical amount for that dispenser.
The only way to add more CMs is via addition of ALE-37 pod, but good luck getting info on that ever being mounted to an F-5.
oh wow look at that!!! its a premium…
@Giovanex05 Would you mind doing sustained turn testing for the F-5E and F-20A in-game?
Last I checked, the F-5E seemed to overperform and exceeded the real life performance of the F-20A in-game, and the F-20A is now even better than the F-5E. Both aircraft seem to be grossly overperforming.
Here is the chart for the F-20 compared to some other fighters at the time.
Source
My previous testing showed this, not sure if it is up to date and don’t have time to test right now. This would be looking at the in-game F-5E vs the real world F-20A performance. I tested at 4 points and then drew lines in between the points for the F-5E.
According to T.O. 1F-5E-1 (1984), the F-5E should be sustaining approximately 11.6 deg/s at 0.5 mach and 13 deg/s at 0.8 mach. This is 4 deg/s lower than what can be seen in-game at 0.5 mach, and 1 deg/s lower than at 0.8 mach.
As you can see, at 0.5 mach it is sustaining ~15.3 - 15.6 deg/s.
And again at 0.8 mach it is sustaining approximately 14 deg/s.
Perhaps @Gunjob and @Metrallaroja would like to provide insight? @SlowHandClap @BBCRF
Why are the Russian documents being used in favor of the F-5E manual? Why was the F-20s performance extrapolated erroneously from the Russian F-5E data?
I have no idea
Genuinely no idea. Both should be configured from the source nation documentation. Where in that isn’t available other sources could be used. But that isn’t the case here.
We will need to conduct testing of turn rate, radius, and for multiple altitudes then. Do you happen to have the alleged Soviet source mentioned in the comment of my report? Basic testing compared to the NATOPS showed a grievous overperformance of the F-5E, and testing of the F-5A shows that it too, is overperforming.
My report; Community Bug Reporting System
I’ll look into it but for now I prioritise reporting fps performance after the last major update… game has become almost unplayable for me
Thank you, no problem. When I am home I’ll do testing but that won’t be until April.
@Giovanex05 This is a serious issue that needs looked at. All F-5 models from F-5A to F-20A are overperforming significantly.
Here is the F-20A, I have some tests performed by @RideR2 plotted on the Lockheed Martin FWS source graph. The F-20 in-game is capable of sustaining 7G’s at 3x the alt it would be capable of doing so in real life… more testing is ongoing for both F-5E and F-20.
@Smin1080p I understand they claim to have used the Russian source to determine the performance of the F-5E at sea level with certain conditions. I believe that there must be some error, as currently the in-game F-5E outperforms the real world F-20A in sustained turns… likewise the F-20, whose flight model seems to be extrapolated from the F-5E’s in-game is also overperforming.
Is this sufficient for a report? I will be plotting more datapoints.
@RideR2 did some testing which can be seen in my report; @Giovanex05 I was unable to record and will be away from my PC for another week or more. Will you or someone else be able to double check and verify the testing / post the videos?
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eeBuF0R63vma
++5,000 feet (1524m) alt, 50% fuel with 2x AIM-9
200 knots (0.31 mach) // 2.76G :: ~2G (0.76G higher than expected)
300 knots (0.46 mach) // 4.73G :: <4G (0.73G higher than expected)
400 knots (0.62 mach) // 6.68G :: ~5.1G (1.58G higher than expected)
500 knots (0.77 mach) // 8.57G :: <6.5G (2.07G higher than expected)
600 knots (0.92 mach)// 9.84G :: <7G (2.84G higher than expected)
++10,000 feet (3048m) alt, 50% fuel with 2x AIM-9
200 knots (0.32 mach) // 2.43G :: ~2G (0.43G higher than expected)
300 knots (0.47 mach) // 4.12G :: ~3G (1.12G higher than expected)
400 knots (0.63 mach) // 5.92G :: <4.5G (1.42G higher than expected)
500 knots (0.78 mach) // 7.55G :: <5G (2.55G higher than expected)
600 knots (0.95 mach)// 8.7G :: ~6G (2.7G higher than expected)
++15,000 feet (4570m) alt, 50% fuel with 2x AIM-9
200 knots (0.32 mach) // 2.06G :: ~2G (near where expected)
300 knots (0.48 mach) // 3.61G :: <3G (>0.61G higher than expected)
400 knots (0.64 mach) // 5.2G :: <4G (>1.2G higher than expected)
500 knots (0.8 mach) // 6.65G :: <5G (>1.65G higher than expected)
600 knots (0.96 mach)// 7.39G :: ~5G (2.39G higher than expected)
As we can see, the F-20A is drastically overperforming. As is the F-5A, and F-5E.
Там значения полученные с испытаний трофея или расчетные?
Can y’all elaborate in English? I’m not on the English forum to translate…
He asked what is this manual based on. In manual it’s written that it’s based on materials from domestic and foreign literature and the results of an analysis of the characteristics of foreign combat aircraft conducted at the Zhukovsky Air Force Academy.
So was it flight data or based on foreign literature / calculation?
Can’t know more than written. Probably both.
The devs are using Russian sources once again in favor of actual NATOPS / primary sources;
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eeBuF0R63vma?comment=ZNyVvXkmsvtf9ldF95xtz6P5
This doesn’t make any sense… and the claimed performance they state doesn’t match my testing @InterFleet …
The Russian source uses foreign materials and public data to calculate the performance of these fighters. It is the same one that published the Mirage F1 / M2K data …which isn’t accurate. The Russian source should not be used when the full NATOPS data is available. Primary source > secondary.
Y’all making me want to buy the f20
