Problem with the SEP graph is it’s estimated data. Here is the F.3 SEP graph;
Yes, that would be a problem. but I think it will be within the margin of error.
because that was for military use, if the difference between data and actual performance was large, it could not have been used.
However gaijin seems to have an aversion to taking into account the fact that a lot of these manuals are usually very conservative, and will state that the limits of the aircraft are below what it can actually achieve. I have learned on many occasions that the manuals exist to do two things - get the aircraft in the air, and keep the airframe in one piece. They rarely teach the pilot what the true limits of the aircraft are and this is consistent for all manuals I own.
What I am saying is, sure, the manual may say that the maximum authorised speed is lower than the claims I’ve presented, but if thrust kept increasing instead of having an unexplained and entirely illogical decrease those claims may actually end up surprisingly accurate.
Mach 1.4 would be 933kts though, which is well past the 800kts limit where bits start falling off the airframe. And we have at least got anecdotal information from pilot interviews, that going past 800kts does cause damage.
Although it should be noted that this was with an entirely clean aircraft, and all damage was to the recessed pylons (I believe this would be prevented if the aircraft was carrying a weapon load - iirc the Phantom had a similar issue where it would be more draggy when not loaded with sparrows.)
The interviews I’ve watched for exceeding 800kts lead to fuselage damage and warping etc, even the interview you posted had fuselage damage at 802kts.
I don’t doubt there are some figures set to conserve the airframe, but those are normally the NO figures and not the NE figures.
The pilot in the video I sent specifically stated that the damage was the loss (or damage) of the lining of the recessed pylons. Not fuselage warping or wing damage.
Either way this is not usually a consideration in war thunder - don’t forget the Harrier GR.7 can still pull 18.4G without permanent damage somehow.
1 Like
Which started at a speed of 802kts, going to 933kts when the NE speed is 800kts would absolutely lead to damage or even loss of the airframe.
That entirely depends. It is entirely possible the aircraft was simply never expected to fly that fast when not loaded with sparrows - I seriously doubt the recessed pylon lining is the same strength as the actual aircraft body.
933 is pushing it though - I have never claimed or seen claims of such a high speed. I have however seen 870 and 900.
Mach 1.4 is only achievable at -800 ft/sec SEP, which means that you would need to be in a dive to reach that speed. The SEP graph is just showing the SEP under different conditions, not which speeds can be safely reached.
SEP = 0 is level flight speed, which looks to be a bit of Mach 1.1 at sea level, which is what you would expect.
1 Like
Sure but I was saying the PA-200 SEP graph has estimated data up to m1.4 @ SL, which is 933kts. Which is why I doubt those estimates would at all be useful when we know damage starts to happen at any speed over 800kts.
Yes, I’m just making the point that bits would be coming off at those speeds.
Bits would certainly be coming off at Mach 1.4 at sea level, but that doesn’t mean that the graph should be doubted. It’s job is just to show the SEP curves for the airframe, not indicative whether flight under those conditions is safe / possible.
Yes, I just worry when the players see a line at 1.4M they will be wondering why their Tornado isn’t doing 1.4M @ SL.
1 Like
This can make them quiet, maybe?
It shows level flight can reach up to mach 1.12 @ SL.
Graph is not that much wrong I think
Yeah that’s pretty much what I’d expect.
1 Like
This graph is stated to be for mk.101 at minimum standard - is there any such graph for the F.3 (which reportedly had vastly improved flight performance due to the mk.104s and lengthened fuselage)?
How come according to this image it cannot sustain flight above mach 2, when the aircraft was fully capable of 2.2?
Light combat load is probably why.