Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
#1405668 - 12/05/05 09:03 PM DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Does anyone here use that airplane? I fixed it up with the austrian markings and a cool radar gauge so I can go civi-hunting just like the real thing.

But the plane is too damn slow. I can hardly hold 530 knots WITH burner - it should go well to 900mph according to publically avalable data.

What am I doing wrong? The flight model data, as far as I can see in FSedit, seems to be correct for the plane. I'm using the stock flight model that came from the DSB guys, but whatever way you look at it, 530 knots is too damn slow.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#1405669 - 12/05/05 11:19 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,079
Frodo 13 Offline
Hotshot
Frodo 13  Offline
Hotshot

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,079
USA
900mph exactly at what altitude?

#1405670 - 12/05/05 11:24 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
37.000 feet

While I wasn't that far up, I was at 24.000 or more, and still barely getting 530 knots out of it.

I had real problems catching up with an AI MD-80. Lost it eventually. That can't be correct. The guys here in our Airforce use it for Airspace Surveilance/controlling unautorized civilian traffic etc. and they wouldn't use a plane that can't catch an average widebody jetliner.

#1405671 - 12/06/05 01:05 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 302
vegasbob Offline
Member
vegasbob  Offline
Member

Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 302
Vegas
are you taking into account that indicated decreases with respect to groundspeed as you gain altitude or is that measured ground speed.

#1405672 - 12/06/05 10:29 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
It was indicated, so ground speed was probably higher. Could have been 600 knts CAS or a bit more perhabs.

But it doesn't really matter if it's ground speed or IAS - surely an F-5E Tiger should be able to catch a MD-80 Passenger Liner?

#1405673 - 12/06/05 12:30 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 350
boshar Offline
Member
boshar  Offline
Member

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 350
the Netherlands
How much fuel on board? Maybe your plane has to much weight?

#1405674 - 12/06/05 01:27 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Fully loaded - good point. Should try with less weight I guess.

But even so, after half an hour in the air, running on afterburner, you'd think it could pass 600 mph.

For me, it actually seems that there is something wrong with the afterburner settings on that plane. When you push the throttle fully forward, it has very little effect on fuel consumption, but also very little effect on acceleration.

Compared to, for example, the Captainsim MiG-21 which starts to drink fuel like water if you engage AB.

#1405675 - 12/08/05 04:09 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal Offline
Lifer
Rick.50cal  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but are you engaging the afterburners by using "Shift - F4" right?


POLITICS, WAR, ECONOMY, CONTROVERSY! and other heated discussions and debates in the PWEC sub-forum at the bottom of this forum main page. See you there!
#1405676 - 12/08/05 05:47 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal Offline
Lifer
Rick.50cal  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Hmm, I think you may be right about it being underpowered. I mean, takeoff has plenty of power, but yea, it doesn't have the get-up-and-go speed at altitude...

Oh, it's freeware at Flightsim.com guys...


POLITICS, WAR, ECONOMY, CONTROVERSY! and other heated discussions and debates in the PWEC sub-forum at the bottom of this forum main page. See you there!
#1405677 - 12/08/05 10:44 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rick.50cal:
Forgive me if this sounds stupid, but are you engaging the afterburners by using "Shift - F4" right?
I always thought full throttle was afterburners. Even so, I tried that key combination yesterday and it didn't change a thing. I should mention that the visual effects for AB are there, so it certainly is enganged.

Still tops out at a groundspeed of about 530 knots max, even at alt of 15.000 feet and more.

The MD-80 I was trying to catch flys roughly 530 knots groundspeed themself, so in fact it becomes impossible to operate them in the interceptor role our Air Force does.

If anyone else feels like downloading this plane and giving it a spin, I'd be interested. Right now, thankfully I have my new Draken for the job - and that thing is a speed demon.

#1405678 - 12/08/05 11:22 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,083
Aladar Offline
Senior Member
Aladar  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 3,083
Fremont, CA
Tail Chases are almost always a losing affair anyways.

#1405679 - 12/09/05 01:14 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Not if you're in a Saab Draken ;\)

But yeah, I guess part of the story is the lack of sophisticated radar/ground intercept vectoring.

Even so, even if I could catch up with the MD-80 in my example flight, I couldn't even keep formation with it. Something's definitly not working for a plane that should do 900mph at high alt, and certainly more than 500 at medium.

#1405680 - 12/09/05 01:16 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 55
Low&Slow Offline
Junior Member
Low&Slow  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 55
Retired
Does setting all the sliders to full right in the Settings/Realism/Flight Model screen do anything ?

#1405681 - 12/09/05 03:09 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,227
-E Offline
Member
-E  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,227
Quote:
Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:
I should mention that the visual effects for AB are there, so it certainly is enganged.
Not necessarily. They are two separate items... visual effects are just effects and can often be turned on and off using your light switch(es). The logical afterburner must be toggled in addition to (or in spite of) the visual effect. Very often, the visual effect and the logical afterburner are turned on simultaneously by a controller gauge. But never assume that to be the case (although if you didn't see a noticable increase in fuel flow when you hit Shift-F4, your plane is probably already automated or doesn't even have a logical afterburner in the aircraft.cfg)


Loser is the opposite of winner.
Looser is the opposite of tighter.
#1405682 - 12/09/05 08:15 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
It does have the "has afterburner" flag checked in the config.

But it's still too damn slow.

#1405683 - 12/10/05 02:45 AM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal Offline
Lifer
Rick.50cal  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
>>"I always thought full throttle was afterburners."

Sometimes your statement is correct, other times it requires Shift-F4 for afterburners: it depends on how the aircraft flight dynamics creator decided to make the numbers work...

>>"It does have the "has afterburner" flag checked in the config."

Yep, saw that.

>>"But it's still too damn slow."

Yep, I agree!

I'll compare the .cfg's and see what I may be able to come up with...


POLITICS, WAR, ECONOMY, CONTROVERSY! and other heated discussions and debates in the PWEC sub-forum at the bottom of this forum main page. See you there!
#1405684 - 12/10/05 06:41 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal Offline
Lifer
Rick.50cal  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Temporary fix, NOT a perfect solution:

back up the original and in the current copy, change these lines in the aircraft.cfg:

(under TurbineEngineData)
static_thrust=5000.000000 //4500.0 Rick

(under flight tunning)
parasite_drag_scalar = 0.3 //1.0 Rick note: 0.1 allowed exceeding speed
easily...
induced_drag_scalar = 1.15 //1.0 Rick


Anyway, what this will mean is that to slow down for landing, pull a few sustained G turns, use the airbrakes (spoilers) and drop gear full flaps...

This should allow enough power to exceed design limits, but I'll need more info to properly tweek it to reality.


POLITICS, WAR, ECONOMY, CONTROVERSY! and other heated discussions and debates in the PWEC sub-forum at the bottom of this forum main page. See you there!
#1405685 - 12/11/05 12:40 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st Offline
Lifer
RSColonel_131st  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
Okay, lets see if I understood that:

You added 500 pounds of thrust to each engine. That much is clear. But did you raise or lower the drag?

Gonna try this one later, thanks Rick.

#1405686 - 12/11/05 06:35 PM Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II  
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal Offline
Lifer
Rick.50cal  Offline
Lifer

Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
I actually both raised AND lowered drag: I lowered the "clean" and straight flight drag quite dramatically, and then increased the amount of drag experienced when in high G turns, high alpha states, and when "dirty" meaning gear down, flaps down stuff like that.

I made that combination so that while we'd be able to get to max speed, we'd still be able to haul it down for landing. I also did that because I suspect that the .air file was based off of a larger plane that had a larger frontal cross section...which would have the effect of a large parachute on a lighter less powerful plane like this one.


POLITICS, WAR, ECONOMY, CONTROVERSY! and other heated discussions and debates in the PWEC sub-forum at the bottom of this forum main page. See you there!

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
10 years after 3/8/2014
by NoFlyBoy. 03/17/24 10:25 AM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0