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.
1 Like
@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.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
So was it flight data or based on foreign literature / calculation?
Can’t know more than written. Probably both.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
Y’all making me want to buy the f20
2 Likes
I think its performing fine. Though I do not have it. I did like and appreciate interfleet’s note of the following I am glad the devs are on it.
F-20 has improved leading edge root extensions and increased wing area + higher TWR, these all should make more lift than F-5E and achieve almost same turn performance even with increased weight, but FWS data shows that it should be even worse that f-5e (lower Cl), this doesn’t make sense. It was decided to not use FWS as reference, f-20 wing lift was tuned closer to F-5E with ~7% higher lift value for clean wing due effect of increased LERX and wing area.’
They integrated aerodynamically integral design in the nose as well as a wider fuselage tail section for improved lift. Of course, to top off its higher TTW & larger elevators.
I really want to get this jet now. Have to see for myself.
1 Like
I am home briefly, I checked the sources. They do not reference any sources for the flight performance post-1975… which means that none of the data is real test data. It is all assumed performance given by TsAGI. The source should be entirely discarded and they should go with the NATOPS data only… which is in line with what I suggested earlier. Their Mirage F1 / Mirage 2000 data is similarly erroneous.
I’ll correct myself, it is not even assumed flight performance. It is less. The TsAGI documents referenced are data obtained from foreign press materials only. This makes the USSR descriptions book a tertiary source that is taking precedence over primary country-of-origin sources…
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/eeBuF0R63vma?comment=P4rYQRPLolpZscHMKhUeO4h8
The USSR source should be discarded, aircraft performance aligned with NATOPS. Additionally, the UK documentations for Tornado have comparative analysis of other fighters sustained turns… of which one was the F-5E… and it matches the expected performance from NATOPS.
As Gaijin stated, their F-20 flight model is extrapolated from the in-game F-5E’s… and this is completely erroneous.
2 Likes
With the recent update adding at least 150 gallon drop tanks to the F-20, I ended up doing quite a bit of bug-reporting in regards in inaccuracies of the cockpit (primarily SMS/MFDs).
I also bug-reported the F-20 missing an option for 1x Sidewinder on stations 2 and 6 each (outermost underwing hardpoints), seeing as it cannot carry the dual 'winder racks with underwing drop tanks. I also reported it missing additional external tank options (for both 275 and 330 gallon). All have been acknowledged, and/or passed to the devs, so now we just wait…
Edit: there are at least two other reports that have been passed and should cause changes, one regarding incorrect cannon ammo and another regarding missing TWS mode. Hopefully soon…
2 Likes
That’s awesome. Hopefully it gets Aim-120s as well. Or maybe an event vehicle version comes out with Aim-120s. Because it is literally advertised that it gets them. If you watch the advertisement for the F-20 it clearly states that it is capable of carrying 4 Aim-120s. So that would be very cool to see in the future.
F-20 is overtiered and borderline useless at 12.7 compared to what it faces, it should be moved down to 12.3 with the Mirage 2ks which have in my opinion superior weapons load out. I honestly fail to see how this vehicle got moved to 12.7.
Still waiting for the missing TWS radar mode, id also like for them to implement the missing AN/ALE countermeasures dispenser on the wing pylons .
45 countermeasures at 12.7 is a joke, that is barely enough to dodge a single 9m being launched at you in matches where you face planes that get 4-6 aim9m’s /equivalent missiles.
1 Like
F-20A was never to get AIM-120s.
It wasn’t advertised with them either.
Future F-20s would’ve, but they’re not made nor in War Thunder.
1 Like
