Su flight model please
-
In first step better HP and rack config is required to at least got a better drag by weapons….
Weapon drag will be a fair peice of work. Looking at clean skin for now.
Do you have any thrust char data about AL-31 engine…?
Still havent found any well documented &/or comparitive tables.
Cheers……Shad
Edit, the more I study Artys link/chart the more confident I am as to the changes I have allready tested.
-
I will try to find who is able to translate this.
google: Height velocity characteristics of AL-31F on the maximum mode and full afterburner
-
The left side shows the max. mil thrust depending on Mach number and altitude. (upped part) Thrust is in kN. Bottom part shows the specific fuel consumtion, but I cannot recognize the unit. I had a contact but it taks a time to get a reply. Right side is the same, but it shows the max. AB thrust.
One aspect. You can use the same scaling factor for RPM-thrust char. that you can see for F-15 or F-16. If you do not have data you have to use something similar…
The problem for modeling the effect of RPM on specific fuel consumption. In dat files you can see some data.
_nEngines 2
typeAC 3
typeEngine 2fuelGaugeMultiplier 10
fuelFlowFactorNormal 0.69
fuelFlowFactorAb 2.17
minFuelFlow 860_I do not know how is defined the RPM - consumption char. (linear by which factor…?)
I do not now how calculated the effect of altitude on fuel flow.Does type of engine have effect on characteristics…? Does Falcon use inbuilt, pre defined spec. consumption curves which can be weighted with factors?
I do not know what defines the flow factor. In DB you can find also a fuel flow modifier value. Which one is used?
Quite a dark area for me the whole fuel flow-thurst-RPM-speed area. As I can judge most of AC fuel flow is far from RL values. Most of AC can fly very far at very high altitude comparing with RL ferry or combat range.
It seems to me harder to set a correct fuel flow than thrust curves. It is not easy to transform curves…
-
Yes Thrust values are easy to work with, but have not yet been able to find fule flow characteristics.
In flight testing against F-16, F15 & EF2000.
Cheers…away for a week…Shad
-
Don’t want to digress too much from the technical data side of this thread…
Raphael, Coco and Shad took up the Typhoon, F15 and Su-30Mkk respectively. We did some very basic testing at different altitudes… angels 10,20 and 30.
Now keep in mind this is with Shad’s latest tweek of thrust to weight ratio for the Su-30Mkk and the FM for the F15 may not be as accurate as in RL. ( very rough testing )
Takeoff at full burn was fairly equal between the three jets. At 10,000ft the F15 had better acceleration than the Su-30Mkk from mach .99 to 1.38 and continuing to aprox. 1.5 mach.
At 20,000ft the F15 out performed the Su30 but not as radically as at 10,000ft. At 30,000 and higher, the Su30 came into it’s own and was out accelerating and out climbing the F15.Shad’s current .dat tweek has the Su30 out performed at lower levels but above angels 30 the Su30 starts to show its true potential.
We look forward to an accurate and “fair” FM for the Su30Mkk and I’m sure it will prove a worthy adversary to the NATO forces in BMS.As for Raphael and the Typhoon testing… as Shad and I would fly level and at a certain speed, Raphael would zoom past us and go vetical, then pull in behind us and lock us up… All in good fun!
It was a blast testing and having some fun at the same time. Let me know when you want to go up again Shad! -
At 30,000 and higher, the Su30 came into it’s own and was out accelerating and out climbing the F15.
Are we speaking about TVC equipped Su-30’s? Because performance of P-42 vs. Steak Eagle suggest opposite behavior. Russians never tried to set up new climb record above 15 km that has required an additional acceleation phase at 32-36 k alt, if you check the filghts of SE. This suggest me supersonic drag / supersonic thrust char. of F100-PW-100 + F-15 was better even the modified AL-31 with increased thrust + Su-27 airframe.
(The P-42 inlet was fixed and removed the controls, it was optimized to “power climb”.)
-
Yes Thrust values are easy to work with, but have not yet been able to find fule flow characteristics.
In flight testing against F-16, F15 & EF2000.
Cheers…away for a week…Shad
Even you find exact data only a very few people know how is defined the fuel consumption in Falcon. I can see data but I do not know how they are used.
As you can see the data that you have shown is not engouh for even for thrust char, you have to use simplified aspect and some assumptions…
-
Even you find exact data only a very few people know how is defined the fuel consumption in Falcon. I can see data but I do not know how they are used…
As it will never be a AFM fuel flow is not a big issue yet.
As you can see the data that you have shown is not engouh for even for thrust char, you have to use simplified aspect and some assumptions…
Have not yet had the time to intergrate/use the above thrust tables. I think it will be more then enough.
Moving house today, back in a week.
Cheers–----Shad -
Have not yet had the time to intergrate/use the above thrust tables. I think it will be more then enough.
Will you do it?
-
Moving house today, back in a week.
Your back must hurt unless you live in one of these:
:rofl:
RAM22
-
molnibalage,
Don’t think Shad is after a precise modeling of the SU, just something that will be a bit closer to a flying adversary against the NATO jets as the SU30Mkk was limited to mach 1.07 at any altitude.
Also, to compare the SU30 to the F15 in BMS is futile for the F15 modeling is also “bunk” so there is no true “yardstick” to measure by. We can only go with the resources we have.
-
Will you do it?
Yes I will !!! That was why I was thankfull for the charts in the first place.
-
Just a quick comparsion. It is an interesting issues how you extrapolate the thurst curves at low speed where data is not available and how many breakpoint is applied. The altitude breakpoint are not the same, but not a big thing to change.
Excel table, if you wish to use.
http://www.mediafire.com/?loc8nc03jef0e1dWhen the new thrust is done it is possible to examine the fuel flow with different thrust and speed and compare with RL data.
I have never tweaked engine data but maybe I will try if I found time. Do you plan to make a comparsion in different situations? -
Great stuff molnibalage… should help immensely with getting the data right and as close to RL as possible.
-
With some hour of work I can apply with some extrapolation the RL data on AL-31 concerning Mil and ful AB thrust. Only problem the RPM 70 thrust curves… AB characteristics and full mil. thurst are not similar therefore it is hard to judge what sould be set at 70 RPM. If we do not have data we cannot do anything just assuming or copy a the char. (not values just basic behvior) or s similar engine. The 70 RPM curve erquired to define the thrust between 70-100 RPM.
The specific fuel consumtion is a more harder issue because 70-100 RPM has effect on it and we have only the full mil. data.
-
well all those boys from ED forums and the perfect family of SU-xx none can help on this? I’m sure they are out there somewhere but as the real f-16 manuals they circulate under the table… So we must go to the dark side…
-
Final back online, f*ing ISPs, long story with no happy ending yet :dhorse:
Finished reworking thrust tables, CMS programs now working.
Currently looking at the drag tables which seem to be shared with many other FMs.
There are no radical changes but I’m enjoying flying the SU-30 a bit more now.
……Shad
-
Shadow looking briefly at the .dat file you provided can you point me to your source for your power figures I think I see an issue but to be sure I’ll test myself before questioning the data
Cheers
-
Shadow looking briefly at the .dat file you provided can you point me to your source for your power figures I think I see an issue but to be sure I’ll test myself before questioning the data
Cheers
I used the thrust tables supplied by Arty with reference to improvements/current specs for the Su-30mkk/mki.
Then extraplated curves for 10/20/30/36/50k ft.I did think about just changing the ALTITUDE BREAKPOINTS, but decided to stick with converting as it was easy then to reference against other similar FMs eg F-15, F14, EF-2000 etc.
Current fuel flow is directly related to thrust developed. My only concern is the large step in fuel consumtion at low AB noze settings that provide not thrust benifit. Need better info for that.
…Shad
Edit If you see any radical errors let us know.
-
Just a quick comparsion. It is an interesting issues how you extrapolate the thurst curves at low speed where data is not available and how many breakpoint is applied. The altitude breakpoint are not the same, but not a big thing to change.
Excel table, if you wish to use.
http://www.mediafire.com/?loc8nc03jef0e1dWhen the new thrust is done it is possible to examine the fuel flow with different thrust and speed and compare with RL data.
I have never tweaked engine data but maybe I will try if I found time. Do you plan to make a comparsion in different situations?Have done so and operational range seem to be reasonable, 1600 miles (3000km) at above 33kft.
And less the 500 miles with full AB…Shad