I mean, bug or not, it does feel weird that the Tornados can’t really outrun anything newer than the MiG-21
This effect is on turbofan engines, including Yak-141, Mirage 2000, etc.
1 Like
Its why the guy started investigating it. A lot of RAF pilots in interview state speeds and degrees of acceleration that the data sheets dont quite agree with. Which is always a grey area. but yeah, The Tornados probably are misisng some thrust. and actually, maybe most aircraft are missing at least a little.
Fgr2 has different engines to the f4s right so maybe thats why for that
2 Likes
Right
I recall reading about the Phantom thing somewhere
On deck FG.1/FGR.2 had higher thrust but at higher altitudes J79 was superior, right?
FGR2 has the Rolls-Royce Spey engines that produce a lot more thrust. This does already result in a higher top speed.
But there is an unexpected drop in thrust for the FGR2 at 800-900mph
in the F4S the thrust actually increases at 800-900mph
I dont know im afraid
Sounds about right, wasn’t just the different engines, but also the design changes to accomodate for the Spey engines tho
Snippet from the Wikipedia page about the Phantom in UK service
Spoiler
Performance estimates of the British Phantom compared to its American equivalent indicated that the former had a 30% shorter take-off distance, 20% faster climb to altitude, higher top speed, and longer range.[100] The Spey was more efficient at lower altitudes, and had better acceleration at low speed, giving British Phantoms better range and acceleration, which was shown during the deployment of 892 NAS to the Mediterranean aboard USS Saratoga in 1969, when the F-4K was repeatedly quicker off the deck than the F-4J used by the Americans.[102] It was less efficient at higher altitudes, the British Phantoms lacking speed compared to J79-powered versions owing to the increased drag of the re-designed fuselage.[18][100] This discrepancy became apparent when the F-4J was obtained by the UK in 1984; it was regarded as being the best of the three variants to serve in the RAF.[88]
@Smin1080p sorry too keep asking about this, but me and a bunch of other fans of the Chinese tech tree are just really curious if there is a possibility that China might get something for Aviation this update or even this year. If you were able to make a comment that would be much appreciated!
3 Likes
@Smin1080p is the Mig-29G and M109G everything for Germany this patch or is there maybe more in the works?
I’d assume they are the same plane basically, but I’d want to make sure the internal geometry of the intakes are the same, as are the engines. A change for either would explain the difference.
I’m not technically proficient enough to be able to read the diagrams and speak authoritatively, but I know the Su-27 has multiple variable ramps for it’s AL-31F engines, and I’d assume Mikoyan repeated the practice from the MiG-25/33 to the 29.
Why there’s a discrepancy is beyond me, but to chalk it up to conspiracy, which I think is the shadow looming over many of these discussions, is really divisive.
My money is on ramps not being modelled. Across the board. Not on some, and not on others. I think the problem is probably similar to ERA. Instead of modelling a complex process, it’s easier to make everything formulaic. I bet there’s a coefficiency for speed at a certain altitude, temp, and humidity that just overrides speed. Instead of a simulated airflow and the physical extension/retraction of ramps to give you a more realistic experience.
Same thing happens with ERA like I said. They use a formula to allow for things like tandem-warheads to penetrate at an extra efficiency. So tandem warheads have Pen=(1.6) (160% penetration) or something like that.
lastly, don’t forget, the RD-33’s still have an afterburner issue that hasn’t been addressed btw.
The leading theory is either ramps not modeled or some old bit of code that is now causing issues with the speeds we now have in game.
FGR2 and F4S do have different engines, but the same intakes. So in theory they should both exhibit the same engine drop off if it is due to the air intakes and less so the engines. Which is just interesting.
Whether or not the migs have a reason for not experiencing the same problem is very tricky to know. But it is none-the-less, curious. All Migs seems to be unaffected, whilst everything else seems to be randomly affected.
You might be right in thinking CR2 hasn’t been artificially nerfed on purpose, but it’s absolutely not representative of Challenger 2 in any way, shape or form.
The short list of issues is:
- Transmission and as a result, neutral steer currently is worse than CR1
- The Gunner and Commander sit too high, exposing themselves above the strikeface of the turret. This shouldn’t even be possible to be that high.
- The mantlet should have higher KE and CE protection than just being hollow
- The ammunition racks to the left of the driver, and behind the drivers seat have no evidence to justify their existence beyond CR1 having them. They are not physically possible in CR2s driver compartment.
- The ammunition should be stored behind the driver to his left and right shoulder in large metal bins.
- The UFP is too weak currently and needs far higher CE and KE resistence
- The LFP is too weak currently and needs far higher CE and KE resistence
- On Challenger 2F and TES, the turret NERA bricks should have higher protection
- On Challenger 2F and TES, the LFP addon armor should be FAR more protective
- On Challenger TES, The side skirt ERA should be ASPRO-HMT with 84mm KE and 1800 approx CE
- On Challenger 2F, the ERA/NERA side skirts should have far higher protection than 400/30, and should be closer to 650/60
- On Challenger 2, the ammunition charges should be extremely hard to cookoff, as they’re stored in protective lined bins for crew survival
- Challenger 2 should be faster to accelerate
- Challenger 2 should keep its momentum in turns
- Challenger 2’s cheek armor should be practically impenetrable, much like Abrams
Whether or not its intentional, CR2 is mismodelled and it suffers greatly as a result. The tank in game is a terrible representation of one of, if not the most survivable tanks ever produced.
6 Likes
All the issues you listed existed since release, which means they’re not nerfs.
Regenerative steering & superior torque converter simulation are necessary, however neither exist in War Thunder currently.
I’m glad you & Morvran agree with me that CR2 is in a non-ideal state.
It has: Less armor, ERA that can’t even defeat RPGs due to nonsensical nerfs, ammunition in places that are photographed to not exist and create oneshot locations for CR2 in game, reload speed should be 3 seconds, the list goes on. The tank should be insanely formidable, but is perhaps the weakest at top tier
3 Likes
On release, TES had 1800CE. A correct figure for a modern 2008 armor package.
Sometime after its release, it was nerfed to a nonsense number of 400CE and 30KE.
It was a nerf that applied to both TES and 2F and effectively rendered TES the same as 2F
There’s plenty of evidence to support the initial figures chemical protection, and plenty of evidence to provide kinetic protection.
The 400/30 makes literally no sense and is a complete nonsense figure they made up
4 Likes
Again, you’re corroborating what I believe & stated in the past outside your TES claim.
I remember CR2 TES on release and there was no 1800CE, at least not on the cheeks. Could’ve been on overlapping plates, but you can get that on many tanks.
The ERA was always 400 for some reason, at least on dev server. Of course western ERA shouldn’t have much kinetic protection as they care more about infantry safety around armored vehicles.
It was nerfed on two occasions. Once to 600CE, then again to 400. No reason was given.
1 Like
I’m referencing the side skirts. The turret cheeks on all CR2 models remain the same. The NERA elements on the turret sides should be bricks of Dorchester with higher protection.
The side skirt ERA is a sandwhich.
ERA | Composite Screen | Frame | Hull
The ERA alone, ASPROHMT is STANAG 5 rated, meaning it can defeat 25mm APFSDS rounds at 500m and 0 degrees. This gives CR2 a healthy 84mm of kinetic protection, using the 25MM autocannon on the Dardo and its ammo as reference.
The chemical protection should be far, far higher. The PG-7VR, tandem RPG-7 warhead was the standard anti-tank munition since 1988 for the Russian armed forces. According to RBE (the russian export corporation for munitions), the PG-7VR is capable of something like 600mm of penetration, as well as a frontal tandem warhead to detonate ERA.
Right now, our TES has only 400MM of Chemical protection. This isn’t sufficient to stop even the standard single stage RPG-7 munition the PG-7VL
TES’ armor package is from 2008. Obviously the MoD wouldn’t develop an armor package that can’t defeat even its adversaries most basic AT round.
The PG-7VR being a 1988 round, and the TES being 2008 armor package, gives plenty of time for them to have developed with this munition in mind. Thus it should be able to defeat it. My closest guesses were ~1200mm of CE to a maximum of 1800MM of CE.
This is for the ERA alone.
After this ERA, you have the composite screen. The composite screen can stop an additional 100 or so KE, and then theres an airgap and the hull, which stops 60MM if I remember right (i’m not at PC so I may be off. Fact check me).
In total, the TES’ side skirt should have over 250MM of KE protection across its entire length, and be virtually impenetrable by anything chemical based.
3 Likes
Statements I’ve made in the past myself.
Not in disagreement, sir.
3 Likes