#1405674 - 12/06/05 01:27 PM
Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st
Lifer
|
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
Lifer
|
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
Lifer
|
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
Lifer
|
Lifer
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
Vienna, 2nd rock left.
|
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.
|
|
#1405679 - 12/09/05 01:14 AM
Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,138
RSColonel_131st
Lifer
|
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.
|
|
#1405681 - 12/09/05 03:09 AM
Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,227
-E
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 1,227
|
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.
|
|
#1405683 - 12/10/05 02:45 AM
Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II
|
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal
Lifer
|
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
Lifer
|
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!
|
|
#1405686 - 12/11/05 06:35 PM
Re: DSB Design F-5E Tiger II
|
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 22,854
Rick.50cal
Lifer
|
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!
|
|
|
|