I am betting they will say you are using 4×R-73, instead of 2xR-73 and 2x-27.
Sukhoi Su-27/30/33/35/37 Flanker series & Su-34 Fullback - History, Design, Performance & Dissection
6 Likes
At least in the second video (the one at 100% throttle no AB) they can’t :D.
Also luckily the flanker is quite stable in a sustained turn, so it doesn’t take too long to get an acceptable run if I need to do it again.
4 Likes
thanks for quality report good job mate
5 Likes
The weight is is still weird to me.
The devs say that the referense weight is with 4 missiles and 5200 kg fuel totaling at 22800, and that at 50% of that fuel load it should be 20200.
But the manual gives the reference weight at 23250 with fuel weight at 5090, so half of that should be 20705.
What total weight did you do the test with?
@BBCRF, do you know if “расчётная взлётная масса” refers to the same fuel load as “нормальная заправка?”
3 Likes
20200kg, just to be safe without going against the devs.
This whole weight thing seems strange to me as well, especially considering that the 0.3G I reported, while very much noticeable, would bring the Su-27 to about the level of MiG-29As in low speed STR (which is still a huge jump considering the flanker current state), and the Su-27 doesn’t have the massive increase in rate that the MiG-29s have at higher speeds.
Considering that the flanker, being aerodynamically unstable, should outperform the 29As in low speed STR there might still be something left on the table
3 Likes
I’m wondering, what’s the best sustain turn rate of the Su-27 right now ?
If I remember correctly in Ride2R sustain turn rate tests with 30 min of fuel the Su-27 could out rate the 29 by a small margin, and from the tests at 200knts it already outrate the 29 at low speed. Here is the doc just in case Sustained turn rate tests - War Thunder - Google Spreadsheets
I hope your bug report work, Su-27 would be amazing tbf !
Thanks for your work ;)
The sustained rate of the Su-27 isn’t relevant because every foe it faces forces it to “tighten down” continuously or they simply climb in the rate. Trying to rate fight in the aircraft is only possible with full real and careful control / maintaining a higher airspeed.
2 Likes
I know rating at low speed is a bit of an imaginary thing an may happens really only with full controls like in SIM, but if I’m not mistaken the fact it doesn’t rate as well as it should be means it has less energy retention ? And from what giovanex said it may have too much energy generation if I understood it correctly
It says there. That this is the estimated take-off weight. This is a normal refueling of 5090 kg and 4 rockets 2 R-27 and 2 R-73
Yeah, the aircraft doesn’t perform that well with max fuel at sea level, it’s pretty bad at rate fighting when you have fuel overall…
As long as it’s accurate to its IRL counterparts I’m fine with it.
Such indicators are at an altitude of 1500m, but not at sea level
Moreover, the MiG-29 at a speed of 800 + km / h is already impossible to keep from accelerating
1 Like
The issue with the Su-27 is not necessarily the sustained turn rate but rather it’s energy retention while turning harder than the sustained rate speeds. Basically the drag increases much too quickly which causes the plane to slow down faster than its real life counterpart.
This can be seen by comparing real life HUD footage and trying to replicate it in game. It can also be seen by comparing CD/CL diagrams that are generated from in-game files and comparing them to wind tunnel tests.
Energy retention is something that WarThunder does a pretty lackluster job of modeling. For instance, if you use WTRTI and compare the Ps (specific excess power) values in-game to publicly available diagrams and you’ll see some huge discrepancies.
For instance the way the Mirage 2000 retains energy at high speeds and sheds it at low speeds has very significant deviations from its diagram. It retains 20-30 percent too much speed Mach .7 - Mach.8, matches the Ps values at Mach .6 - Mach .5, and then loses around 40 percent more speed than it should around Mach .4.
Basically it means the whole “curve” you could imagine how the plane bleeds speed is wrong. It retains too much speed when you start the turn at high speeds and then bleeds too much when you get to slow speeds. In reality it should bleed a lot of speed at higher speeds and then retain more at lower speeds.
The F-16s also end up having similar issues when compared to their EM diagram but kind of reversed. It’s accurate at higher speeds, retains too much at medium-high speeds by a large margin, and then is accurate at low speeds until it starts to exceed its IRL AoA limits.
The Su-27 on the other hand just seems to be under performing its IRL counterpart at all speeds. So it’s not only inaccurate to the IRL version…but also skewed in the opposite direction of “war thunder-isms”.
7 Likes
I know they are some huge issues when it comes to FM and Modeling flight performance.
Those discrepancies feels a bit like an unsolvable issue unless gaijin rework their own game.
I have no idea if they are ways gaijin could improve many of the FM we currently have without the whole community having to Bug Report every single plane that is Heavily overperforming like the F-16 or underperforming like the Su-27 or the SMT.
Hopefully the community will find some ways to fix the Su-27 ;)
4 Likes
Yes, thrust curves are insane, it is however worse when it comes to the SMT which feels 3 tons heavier
1 Like
It depends what you consider “solved”.
I think ideally everyone would want a 1:1 representation of flight performance with the added benefit of Gaijins 1.5x g-limit allowance and none of the real life oddities like deep stalls, compressor stalls, etc.
Barring that I think that most people would be okay with planes having similar instances of over-performance and under-performance and be understanding of the limits of the modeling system they use.
But the problem right now is that there isn’t really any across-the-board consistency. NATO vs NATO dogfights feel relatively balanced because all of the planes over-perform in turns to a similar degree even if they are at different speed ranges. RU vs NATO dogfights end up being incredibly unbalanced because the plane underperforms the real life counterpart in important ways…which makes NATO over-performance in the same regions even more decisive.
This leads to weird situations where the most faithful representation of the F-16 vs MiG-29 match-up was probably with the earlier flight models that were both over-performing by similar margins. Now that whole entire match-up is entirely skewed to the point that top tier 1v1 tournaments are limited to basically F-16ADF and F-15A only…and that is with R-73 being in play.
5 Likes
Top tier tournaments are pretty sad when it comes to diversity indeed.
I still struggle to understand why there would be such discrepancies between NATO aircraft compared to USSR ones.
Especially when you see aircraft like the MiG-23 MLD who over performed for a loooong time until it got fixed.
This is not true, if an aircraft has the right thrust curve, follows his sustained turn rate chart for all speeds at certain altitude and at the different speeds it will pull AoA values beteeen “A” and “B”, then the maneuvering energy retention of the plane at that altitude
with AoA values between A and B will be correct.
1 Like
At low speed yes, at higher speeds (600kph+) the MiG-29As when under 20min fuel are very good in rate.
MiG-29smt instead is just a boat
Btw where is that table from?
1 Like
1 Like