heavy bricks

[luckyluca 0]

Hello,

 

Just a little question about flight dynamics in SF2:E and SF2:V

I feel that on average all fighters feel very heavy, almost either too heavy or underpowered. For instance I can hardly turn without stalling when cruising at 250-300Knots.

THis of course with highest realism settings. What are your thoughts about it?

 

Luca

[Fubar512 1,350]

To quote a few RL pilots to whom I've asked the same question: "Accurate, but simplified".

[Gr.Viper 131]

What are you doing flying at 250-300 knots???

How do you move the stick? All the way or keeping wings at optimal angle of attack?

[MigBuster 2,861]

What plane are you talking about here? - this is nothing to do with game dynamics - the jets flight model is determined individually by its data.ini file

 

Also what are you comparing it against? Im guessing you might not be familiar with Jets where you have to utilise energy and the vertical plane - for example the F-4 turns ok over 450kts - but you should NEVER get into a horizontal turning flight in one in reality let alone a low speed turning fight - and that goes for most western jets until the F-16 comes along.

 

Ironically a quote ive seen to describe the F-4 - "proof that if you have enough power you can fly a brick"

Edited July 25, 2009 by MigBuster

[FastCargo 412]

This isn't Ace Combat, where aircraft have stupid amounts of power and turn rates.

 

All aircraft, especially on hard mode, should feel like they have mass...which means they may feel heavy.

 

In addition, flying at 250-300 knots is the low end of manuverability...ESPECIALLY for the bigger 60's era aircraft.

 

Finally, if you have any sort of stores on the aircraft, that will affect your turn rates.

 

FC

[Stingray72 6]

Yep, similar problem here until I understood it.

 

The only jet sim I had flown before tis was the Jane's series, and everything there feels nimble. After playing IL2 for the last 8 years, getting into WOV was difficult because none of the planes felt like they could get out of their own way. It's just what you are used to, coupled with flight models that try to mirrow what the jets felt like, and I have to believe a loaded out F-4 wieghing in around 41,000 lbs just feels heavier than an LA-7 at 7100lbs. When you look at power to weight, the LA-7's almost 2000hp plant is close to 1/3 the weight of the a/c. The F-4's thrust equals up to roughly 13, 300 hp per engine totalling 36,600 hp. When you do the math, which seems like a lot for power to weight, but when you get it out of a straight line gravity starts to weigh in, and with 41,000 pounds gravity is exerting more force than on a 7000 pound airframe.

 

Hope this helps too!

 

~Taxman

[luckyluca 0]

Thanks, It's good to know.

It's just that I found the jets in SFx felt heavier than their counterparts in X-plane FS2004 and LOMAC, albeit with different joystick and loadouts of course.

For instance I've had troubles getting a f-105 with heavy loadout to takeoff unless with full afterburn.

Perhaps it's just the way it is, they just weren't very ecofriendly in the sixties :)

[fallenphoenix1986 603]

Theres a joke somewhere about building a runway that goes all the way round the world and Republic designing a plane to use it all...

 

Craig

[Fubar512 1,350]

I once spoke with a former Thud driver (who had the distiction of ejecting from one over Long Island, NY, during the early 1960s). He transitioned into Phantoms a few years later. He stated that "the Thud flew by sound aerodynamic principles. The Phantom, on the other hand, was so damned ugly, that even gravity was afraid of it."

[FastCargo 412]

For instance I've had troubles getting a f-105 with heavy loadout to takeoff unless with full afterburn.

 

There is song done by Dick Jonas, a former F-4 driver talking about the Thud:

 

She's faster than lightning,

It says on her dials

To get a Thud airborne

Takes only 2 miles

 

All you have to do is look at a Thud to figure out why it takes so much runway and turns like...well, it doesn't.

 

FC

[Gr.Viper 131]

I sometimes think that Thud's elevators are there not for pitch control but to propel it in a dophin-like manner when the juice runs out.

[+daddyairplanes 8,629]

i remember reading a Thud pilot talking about A2A tactics up North

 

if he's dumb enough to fly in front of you shoot otherwise run like hell

[jomni 6]

Thanks, It's good to know.

It's just that I found the jets in SFx felt heavier than their counterparts in X-plane FS2004 and LOMAC, albeit with different joystick and loadouts of course.

For instance I've had troubles getting a f-105 with heavy loadout to takeoff unless with full afterburn.

Perhaps it's just the way it is, they just weren't very ecofriendly in the sixties :)

 

Take note that SFx series jets are old school.

The sims you mentioned are more modern so they are more maneuverable.

Download the EF2000 and try taking it for a spin in the SF world (black and red outs will be common).

[ironroad 218]

There are no digital flight controls (so to speak) to assist in moving these lumbering century series beast around the air. They use a lot of runway, eat up a lot of gas, and go very fast in a straight line.

 

Not like an F-18 where the computer will assist in a stall or departure, not like an F-16 where you can turn so tight and fast your eyes wind up where your bawls are. Each plane has its own strengths and weaknesses. I turn in the F-8, but I climb and dive in the F-4. I lug iron down fast and low in the F-105 and strafe and rocket in the F-100.

 

At low speeds the planes will feel heavy and will drag their butts around the air, especially on landing (hence the high landing speeds and the use of drag chutes in just about every plane from the era.)

 

On take off you have to ease and finesse the airframe into the air, not jam the throttles forward and pull back as hard on the stick as you can.

 

These planes have a lot of power and speed in them, but do not expect to be able to pull 9gs+ or go above 600-700kts at sea level. The only way you can really get max performance out of these birds is having a clean load out and low fuel. Even then just hope the mission you are flying does not throw any migs or sams your way ;-)

Edited July 26, 2009 by ironroad

[Stingray72 6]

Ironroad nailed it!! That's what I was saying, just less technical lol.

 

The F-4 is a sweetheart though, and I won't let anyone trash her on here. Name another plane that was around for as long AND as versatile?? Off topic, sorry....

 

~Tax