probably but no one can find it i wanna know why ? as the planes effected by this variable are all not the best FM wise which is weird as you assume rafale ETC would get artificially
nerfed since there the dominant ones
I would really like to know what affects it too, but im not experienced with any sort of datamining
1 Like
Where is your source that it’s supposed to be 29,000lbf of static thrust?
Every citation I see it’s at-speed thrust.
F-15E dry and wet thrust matches the values.
And we know F-15A’s engines are correct, and they’re producing their thrust at speed as well:
It doesn’t. It operates in standard mode.
BTW, if F-15E’s thrust was incorrect, then that’d make its drag over-performing, which would make F-15C’s drag over-performing.
This “buff” to F-15E would be a nerf to F-15C.
3 Likes
neither am i and gaijins math doesnt add up
Do you have graphs for trim mode?)
1 Like
Has it ever really?
1 Like
no :(
Free my boy chi-ri
1 Like
I do, but I haven’t confirmed their distribution status.
You have to look into thrust claims.
Uninstalled?
Simulated at what speed?
Installed?
Which aircraft?
Static?
At-speed? What speed?
The fact F-15E’s dry thrust matches the dry thrust claims around mach 0.9 suggests installed at-speed.
That’s not how drag, and thus channel loss, works. The shorter the run, the less channel loss below the designed peak speeds of the intake.
Everything capable of going supersonic has channel loss, and the faster it’s designed to go, the more channel loss it will have.
1 Like
At 45000 ft, the F-15E should be at mach 2.55
This is at 30% fuel which equates to 37831 lbs which is way less than the graph
5 Likes
Yes, it should, but in the words of Gaijin: “We don’t care if aircraft are slower at that altitude than they should be.”
Most jets are under-performing at and above that altitude for that reason.
The high altitude drag nerfs, and the high altitude thrust nerfs changed it, but Gaijin has no interest in modeling those altitudes correctly at least for now.
Buffs at those altitudes won’t buff the engine thrust at sea level, by the by.
7 Likes
Not really, that’s due to different temperature.
Non-ab thrusr underperforms for sure.
Where have Gaijin confirmed this? They outright refuse to model the combat mode for the Tornado’s engines (because apparently the game does not model such modes). So if they are modelling the equivalent mode for the Su-30 that would be a blatant double standard.
Gaijin always does it “case by case”. For Su-30 it required some sort of performance buff because at top tier everything would molest it. So Gaijin picked something they could do without it being artificial. Gather fellas, throw a bunch of games in Tornado so it will be at the bottom of the gaijin statistics then post a bug report about combat mode and see what’s gonna happen.
1 Like
Last I checked, the Su-30SM’s thrust is the cited thrust, and I haven’t found any “emergency mode” thrust of those engines.
1 Like
It’s not an “emergency mode” it’s just a regime that increases engine RPM when it’s above Mach 0.8 to get it to the top speed faster. It’s limited to 7 minutes and results in approximately 5% thrust increase during this time.
1 Like
F-15A’s engines are “limited” to 15 minutes on full burn as well, it lasts longer in-game because these limits aren’t hard limits, and Gaijin only models hard limits, not training suggestions for improved life between overhauls/replacements.
Training manual suggests time limits at top speeds to improve lifespan of the airframe across multiple years of use, so not modeled in War Thunder as lower wing rip speeds either.
It’s different when F-15A/Su-30SM have normal thrust amounts that are suggested to be used in a limited manner in training.
Vs engines that have emergency modes with lock-out functionality.
1 Like
Isn’t MiG-21SMT and Su-33 got their emergency mode thrust values?
I’d have to check Su-33 again, and check if its a suggestion or a hard limit.
Mig-21SMT’s is definitely a suggestion, there’s no way to lock that feature off. Whether the over-heat timer is correct or not, dunno. I’d wager it’s supposed to be 2x to unknown above the manual’s training limit for all these aircraft.
In comparison to Tornado where the ECU is programmable and has lock-out functionality, because for some reason the engine manufacturer added that as a feature.
USSR loves “suggestions”. Like with later flogger models that could pull up to 25 degrees of AoA but command literally forbid to pull more than 15 like early models.