Challenger 2 MBT - Technical data and Discussion This thread has been dicussing it a lot recently. For the TES at least its about 1/4 the strength it should be I think
Does anybody here know anything about the quite big nerf to the explosive mass of the Tornados APHE? On the dev it now only has 8g of explosive mass
yeah well i know off the top of my head that challenger armour arrays shouldve been able to survive impact from rounds current in 1994. so that sounds about right.
explosive mass got decreased, but the penetration gets increased , so depends might be an actual bugg since it gets less effected by realshatter
Has anyone actually reported that? IIRC it was pretty close to the manual after it got it’s FM overhaul a few months after being added.
could you send me more info on that lightning one? ive never heard that before
The APHE round is designated DM13 in real life (not to be confused with the DM13 APFSDS round). I can’t find the specs for it though, maybe someone else can?
6.1g seems to check out
1 Like
The official ceiling of the Lightning was kept secret. Low security RAF documents often stated “in excess of 60,000 ft (18,000 m)”.
If you can demonstrate the lightning being able to effectively fly at those kinds of altitudes (the in-game “flight ceiling” is 52480… unless I forgot year 1 maths i’m pretty sure that 52 is still less than 60)
The Lightning’s optimum climb profile required the use of afterburners during takeoff. Immediately after takeoff, the nose would be lowered for rapid acceleration to 430 knots (800 km/h; 490 mph) IAS before initiating a climb, stabilising at 450 knots (830 km/h; 520 mph). This would yield a constant climb rate of approximately 20,000 ft/min (100 m/s). Around 13,000 ft (4,000 m) the Lightning would reach Mach 0.87 (1,009 km/h; 627 mph) and maintain this speed until reaching the tropopause, 36,000 ft (11,000 m) on a standard day. If climbing further, pilots would accelerate to supersonic speed at the tropopause before resuming the climb. A Lightning flying at optimum climb profile would reach 36,000 ft (11,000 m) in under three minutes.
Or replicate this climb. (I should note that it states the CONSTANT climb rate is 20000ft/min. The aircraft actually had an initial rate exceeding 50000ft/min, compared to the MiG-21 which had ~36000)
Don’t forget that the in-game lightning can’t even reach mach 2 within the map, even though one aircraft exceeded mach 2.3 on occasion before sustaining damage.
1 Like
According to the Lightning Operating Data Manual acceleration from Mach 1 to Mach 2 took 90 nautical miles. So that is accurate.
Isnt the lightning suppose to be able to hit Mach 1 in a vertical climb? or is that just one of those myths? Because in game you cant
I don’t believe it could actually do that, but the climb performance is much better than the game appears to demonstrate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC8CsVpg64o here you can see an unrestricted climb to 9km in 102 seconds.
Just tested following the exact flight profile of the video in tandem. It appears to behave very similarly until I begin the climb (on minimum fuel!!!) at which point in the video the aircraft is accelerating, and I am decelerating in game.
In other words - the time to altitude is the same or remarkably similar, but what it appears to be is the in-game lightning accelerates faster down low, before struggling in the climb.
With further testing, I can exceed mach 2 (barely!!) at ~52000 (the in game “flight ceiling”) but cannot sustain my speed “in excess of 60000” as all publications stated.
3 Likes
Here is a photo of the Lightning during that record setting climb. You may notice the lack of a whopping big fuel tank under the fuselage:
2 Likes
And yet it carried fuel for 10 minutes of flight, which is above the six I am carrying. The presence of the fuel tank isn’t particularly relevant if it’s not loaded with that fuel.
Ever heard of drag?
7 Likes
I cannot prove whether it would have had that large of an effect or not - but then it comes to performance in level flight. How come the aircraft that can fly at altitudes “in excess of FL600” cannot effectively maintain level flight at FL600 (let alone above it)?
1 Like
If it’s losing speed in a climb, whereas in reality it accelerates in a climb, then the issue is most likely thrust. If it were drag then it would be accelerating slower/maintaining constant speed in a climb, because it would have enough excess specific energy to meet the max velocity.
disclaimer: I have no idea if the claim about it accelerating in climbs is accurate or not.
1 Like
Intake ramps help with a speed range. If that range is exceeded either too slow or too fast, they can become less efficient.
As shown in your post, the speed range for Mig-29 is 700 - 980MPH.
Speed range for F-14B is somewhere between 400 & 800MPH.
F-16A, somewhere between 500 & 900MPH.
Tornado F3 600 - 910MPH.
FGR2 700 - 907.
Mig-23 800 - 920.
F-4S probably around 700 - 835.
As you can see, different aircraft have different start points where their intake systems become most efficient for thrust generation. Some start FAR later than others such as Mig-23 & Mig-29, some start far earlier than others such as F-16 & F-14.
The proof you have to supply then is how the variable air intakes can account for a larger range of speeds; and prove they can in exceeding certain speeds.
Yes, however intake ramps are designed to function at supersonic speeds on most of these aircraft - on the Tornado for example they should be most effective between Mach 1.2-2 (this is consistent for most aircraft). Don’t forget that the primary purpose of intake ramps is to break the shockwave and compress+decelerate the air before it reaches the engine - they would serve no functional purpose below Mach 1.
It makes no logical sense in any regard for the engines to suddenly lose effectiveness as the aircraft passes Mach 1, before Mach 1.2-1.3 where they actually begin to deploy intake ramps on most aircraft.
The purpose of intake ramps is to retain (and in most cases increase) the power of the engines at high speed and/or allow the engines to function at high speed by compressing the air optimally for the engine’s function. They do not have an “optimal” speed, but they do have a minimum (where they are not deployed) and a maximum (which is often far beyond the limitations of the aircraft, and will simply result in a compressor stall due to the engine ingesting supersonic air)
If you would like, I have some excellent information on both Concorde and the F-14A (early variants) which both use variable intake ramps. I can demonstrate my point.
4 Likes
I took a second look at this image and realised that the aircraft used for the record climb is actually a trainer variant, which, while it may be missing the fuel tank underneath, is still similarly draggy due to the side by side cockpit seating. Not entirely sure why they chose such a variant for a record but I suppose it’s for the sake of the video?