Thirdwires F-104G

[MigBuster]

Probably not new news - but after all these years - decided to give a toss about Thirdwires F-104G - and realised how under powered it is! anyone know if the performance is correct?

 

Its probably the worst of the lot according to this http://www.916-starfighter.de/Zipping%20at%20FL%20730.htm but in game the performance seems way down - The third party A and C get to M2.2 no problem

 

In debug mode I had it sitting at 40,000ft in full burner (with 2 x AIM-9B's) till it ran out of fuel - it reached 686.1KTAS (M1.19)

 

I know it was more of a low level machine but surely wasnt that bad at high alt? The thrust and weight figures in the FM seem okay.

[JediMaster]

I've lost track of how many planes I've run across with inaccurate performance in one area or another. Can't say I've seen anyone talk about the 104G to date, though.

 

However, there's no way the REAL 104G was that much slower. It might have had worse acceleration and a lower top speed, but AFAIK every 104 model did Mach 2+.

[MigBuster]

Thats what I was a thinking - now all those poor people like me having to play with this lame model of F-104 since 2002 - no wonder its taken me so long to care about it :tomato2:

 

I will see what ajunairs G models like and perhaps make the stock one a bit more powerful from that.

 

cheers

[+Dave]

Thats what I was a thinking - now all those poor people like me having to play with this lame model of F-104 since 2002 - no wonder its taken me so long to care about it :tomato2:

 

I will see what ajunairs G models like and perhaps make the stock one a bit more powerful from that.

 

cheers

 

Never fear Fubar is working on it for you guys!

[MigBuster]

Never fear Fubar is working on it for you guys!

 

ahh great - hes a good lad!

[Kirsten]

Funny, my Thirdwire F104G (KLu) with two wingtip AIM 9's does about 545kts at FL 43 /M2.2 , 692kts at FL 36 ,even touching M2.25, both according tothe Machmeter, in both cases taking a long time to reach those speedsand showing the red warning light "slow", but nevertheless reaching the brochure speeds.

Zoom climbs to FL 70 are also possible just like the real thing and are also based on high speeds at FL 36 to FL 40. You never get there from M 1.19.....

At lower level it did about 715 kts or M 1.18 at 2750 ft.

It is supposed to be red lined at 750 kts but has been known tot do 800 kts at low level (even with tiptanks according to Clarence Kelly, very dangerous)

Looks like it could use some minor tweaking low down (raised the SL max. speed to 410 m/s in the mean time, which should do the job) , but high up it looks quite all right to me..... :yes:

Maybe Coolhand misread the Machmeter because the 686 kts at FL 40 is considerably more than M1.19 (probably something like M 2.4)

 

Aju,

 

Derk

[MigBuster]

Funny, my Thirdwire F104G (KLu) with two wingtip AIM 9's does about 545kts at FL 43 /M2.2 , 692kts at FL 36 ,even touching M2.25, both according tothe Machmeter, in both cases taking a long time to reach those speedsand showing the red warning light "slow", but nevertheless reaching the brochure speeds.

Zoom climbs to FL 70 are also possible just like the real thing and are also based on high speeds at FL 36 to FL 40. You never get there from M 1.19.....

At lower level it did about 715 kts or M 1.18 at 2750 ft.

It is supposed to be red lined at 750 kts but has been known tot do 800 kts at low level (even with tiptanks according to Clarence Kelly, very dangerous)

Looks like it could use some minor tweaking low down (raised the SL max. speed to 410 m/s in the mean time, which should do the job) , but high up it looks quite all right to me..... :yes:

Maybe Coolhand misread the Machmeter because the 686 kts at FL 40 is considerably more than M1.19 (probably something like M 2.4)

 

Aju,

 

Derk

 

 

No you are confusing IAS with TAS in your last sentence there:

 

Here is the screenshot - this was the third attempt to get something out of it after testing the F-104A /C /A-19 versions which were more in line from pilot accounts.

 

 

[+Dave]

Fubar just ran a serious of tests and he agrees with Coolhand's assessment. Not that I am a mouth piece for him but we are chatting on Skype so I am typing while he is testing.

[MigBuster]

Of course if what you are sying is tru Derk then I have got a different flippin model - I pulled this model direct from the SP4 WOE Object.cat file (I uninstalled SF ages ago) so Id better check.

 

:close_tema:

[MigBuster]

Fubar just ran a serious of tests and he agrees with Coolhand's assessment. Not that I am a mouth piece for him but we are chatting on Skype so I am typing while he is testing.

 

 

Thats good to know - cheers Dave

[Kirsten]

Hi Coolhand,

 

Check PM,

 

Aju,

 

Derk

[Platinum Rogue]

No you are confusing IAS with TAS in your last sentence there:

 

Here is the screenshot - this was the third attempt to get something out of it after testing the F-104A /C /A-19 versions which were more in line from pilot accounts.

 

 

 

Perhaps my understanding of the physics is a little flawed here, but if (as above) you have more drag than thrust, should you even be able to move forward? Also, is <6000lbs thrust a bit, um, low for this aircraft?

Edited July 24, 2007 by Platinum Rogue

[MigBuster]

Kind of guessed that drag was the issue - but cant do much about that without knowing how the FM is put together. (and no the Flaps were not left down!!)

 

I dont know where that thrust figure comes from on that shot - (almost looks like its been divided by 10) however the data.ini that specifies the FM has a Wet value of 69362.2 (kn) which is about 15600lbs - which is the given thrust value for the J79-GE-11A.

[Fubar512]

I dont know where that thrust figure comes from on that shot - (almost looks like its been divided by 10) however the data.ini that specifies the FM has a Wet value of 69362.2 (kn) which is about 15600lbs - which is the given thrust value for the J79-GE-11A.

 

The question is, how well can you breathe at 38,000 feet?

 

The wet thrust value of 69362.2 is a sea-level value. All powerplants have an altitude table that can be calibrated to match either fact, or fantasy.

 

For reference purposes, I utilize a web-based jet engine simulator provided by NASA, from which one can create fairly accurate engine thrust and fuel consumption graphs based on altitude.

 

You can see it, at this LINK

[MigBuster]

The question is, how well can you breathe at 38,000 feet?

 

The wet thrust value of 69362.2 is a sea-level value. All powerplants have an altitude table that can be calibrated to match either fact, or fantasy.

 

For reference purposes, I utilize a web-based jet engine simulator provided by NASA, from which one can create fairly accurate engine thrust and fuel consumption graphs based on altitude.

 

You can see it, at this LINK

 

Well ive learnt something today many thanks for that info Fubar - that wasnt obvious to me in any way.