from Tornado / Re: About Tornado : Discussion
May 21, 2016
some heights:
Power Lines at about 155 ft
trees ~ 50 ft
SAM top range upwards 16 500 ft
AAA top range upwards 10 000 ft (or just little bit less)
missiles already shot when having been below 16 500 ft will follow higher beyond 16 500 ft
---------------------------
addition just now:
staying above 30 000 ft grants extra bonus-accuracy against enemy CAP
getting close to 50 000 ft and around you'll make your enemy companion go haywire (loss of lock again and again, missiles fired will miss by 50:50 even not dropping chaffs or flares)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from Tornado / Re: About Tornado : Discussion
May 24, 2016
bridges and power Lines (and aircraft shelters) are fully solid
engine - fuel - cosumption
(a) 100 % +afterburner usage, 10720 lbs = 5 min 25 sec .23 (325 seconds)
--> 33 Lbs per second or 1000 Lbs used up within 30.2 seconds
(b) only 100 % engine without afterburners, 10720 Lbs = 48 min 51 secs . 35 (2931.3 seconds)
--> 3.657 Lbs per second or 1,000 lbs used up within 273.44 seconds
(c) using 63 % idle engines (but there only for using up 20 Units of fuel) 20 Lbs = 1 min 26 sec .99
--> approximately 1000 Lbs used up within 4350 seconds (72 min and 30 seconds)
from May 25, 2017 - Tornado / Re: How realistic is Tornado's aerodynamics? Very.
This time prolongs in 35 000 feet to about 157 minutes if you would have started there with those 10720 LBs of full fuel, so the gain would be somewhere near of 2 hours still, I guess.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from today (youtube, February 4, 2019) as a comment to Frankie's uploaded video "Toying with SAM"
3:23 - 4:55 7 missiles launched by SAM while ECM is active (Ratio: 4.565 Msl/min)
5:01 ECM deactivated
5:09 - 8:07 19 missiles launched, ECM off (Ratio: 6.405 Msl/min)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from speedwagon and me since yesterday (February 3, 2019)
"me": In a video flying a 12minute simulated campaign (DI's Tornado - Op: Desert Storm) struggling with 3 enemy CAP interceptors, there is this situation at 6:08 --> an enemy fighter accelerates from 510 kts (that's already mach 1.0 !!! ) to 650 kts at an average height of 15000ft in just 10 seconds
(615kts is the brim for reaching 1.3 mach; 675kts is the threshold to 1.4 mach in that height, roundabout -- that aforementioned leaping from a cozy speed of 500 kts to over 800 kts might be displayed in lower heights for IAS "behavior" is that way, higher numbers (just IAS, not mach or true airspeed) to reach nearer to the ground)
The Tornado ADV (10 missiles, 11000 lbs of fuel) under same circumstances starting with mach 1.0 / 510 kts at 15000ft speeding up for 10 seconds ends at barely 560 kts.
Same condition (510 kts, 15000ft height, 10 seconds aceleration) but jettisoned everything except 1000 lbs of fuel gets the Tornado to a speed of 570 kts with roughly 250 lbs fuel left ;-) .
Are the engines of the Tornado really that weak compared to MiG-31s, Su-27s?
Data:
Su-27 thrust power 2x 122.5 kN, at average weight of ca. 25000 kg
MiG-31 thrust power 2x 152 kN at average weight of maybe 30000kg
-- Tornado ADV thrust power 2x 73kN at an average weight of maybe 20000kg --
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tom,
I watched your video and see what you mean about the acceleration rates shown by the RASH readouts on the HUD. You're asking some very interesting performance questions. Since DI has always done a sterling job with flight modelling I'm really curious about the accuracy of those used for enemy aircraft in Tornado.
Obviously many factors influence acceleration rates but a good place to start is a comparison of thrust-to-weight ratios (that is, engine thrust / aircraft weight). Here are some references I've been exploring:
Short primer from NASA:
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/fwrat.htmlList of thrust-to-weight ratios:
https://world-defense.com/threads/thrust-to-weight-ratios-of-all-fighter-planes.1316/Higher thrust-to-weight ratios equal higher acceleration and climb rates. Ratios greater than 1.0 allow vertical climbs. Here is a comparison of fighter/interceptors modeled in the game (number in parentheses is percentage above F3 ADV value):
Mig-31M 1.30 (+56%)
Su-27S 1.26 (+52%)
Mig-29M 1.19 (+43%)
F3 ADV 0.83
Clearly the F3 is at a serious disadvantage right out of the gate. This has always been acknowledged by the designers and overcome by aircrews using good tactics with multiple aircraft. Unfortunately in the game we are always fighting solo in the ADV so our tactics are somewhat limited.
In addition to this ratio the aerodynamic design of each aircraft is a major factor as to how quickly it can be maneuvered to an advantage. Maximum speeds, G-loads, rate-of-climb, turn rates, and service ceiling are just some of the items to consider. Some good info here (use Search button for aircraft thumbnails):
Aircraft info:
https://www.fighter-planes.com/I realize this doesn't directly answer your questions, such as "can any of these aircraft accelerate in straight-and-level flight from 510 KIAS to 650 KIAS in 10 seconds at 15,000 feet"? We'll most likely need some math for that. I'm going to see what I can find along those lines next.
Cheers,
SW
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Tom,
OK, here's my attempt at a rudimentary start with help from Sir Newton:
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Acceleration1. First we'll calculate average acceleration of the aircraft you had locked up on the radar:
∆v / ∆t = a
2. Next we'll calculate the acceleration capability of each aircraft using the data you provided in your post:
F / m = a
Thrust Weight
Su-27 245 kN / 25000 kg = 9.8 m/s/s
Mig-31 304 kN / 30000 kg = 10.1 m/s/s
F3 ADV 146 kN / 20000 kg = 7.3 m/s/s
3. ∆v / ∆t = a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much, Speedwagon!
You provided the basic formulas, very well, very good!
But for v/t we need SI-units
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units--> sorry, I realized too late, that you already did the right thing about using m/s values, just used IAS instead of TAS.
factor for mach 1 = 1235km/h = 343m/s (I used the google search line for those calculations)
and i used (just now EDIT 3rd and last ^^) a true airspeed calculator
(
http://www.csgnetwork.com/tasinfocalc.html )
to calculate 650 kts IAS into 845 kts TAS and 510 kts IAS into 663 kts TAS
so it is not 650 knots - 510 knots, rather (1565km/h[435m/s] - 1228km/h[341m/s]) / 10s
= 94/10 (m/(s*s)) = ~ 9,4 m/(s^2) [2nd EDIT: that's nearly the value of earth's gravitational acceleration, holy s#&§ !]
and 304'000N for the Mig-31 with 30000kg ==> 304000 kg*m(/s^2) / 30000kg (result is correct)