F22 specs say F22 should do Mach 2.25.

But my P3D version will only do Mach 1.6, regardless of altitude,even in a dive.

Am I doing something wrong?

Quoting an answer I found;

Quote

During testing f22 apparently achieved mach 2+, with supercruise up to 1.83. Operationally it is apparently limited to mach 1.49 maybe due to ram coating or heat development

 

Very interesting, and thanks. But the specs do say Mach 2.2, and don't specify test conditions..

I wonder if there is a secret switch to unleash the beast in the sim? 🙂

 

Technically, the specs are classified, so actual numbers and testing conditions are an unknown. Plus, I wouldn't really expect a mediocre default plane to have any relation to its real counterpart, regardless if it's in the developer's own platform 😛

6 minutes ago, SledDriver said:

Very interesting, and thanks. But the specs do say Mach 2.2, and don't specify test conditions..

I wonder if there is a secret switch to unleash the beast in the sim? 🙂

 

You can't and thats realistic. No fighter will do the mach numbers they have achived in test conditions.

Pah 🙂

 

2 hours ago, Sethos1988 said:

Technically, the specs are classified, so actual numbers and testing conditions are an unknown. Plus, I wouldn't really expect a mediocre default plane to have any relation to its real counterpart, regardless if it's in the developer's own platform 😛

To be fair it's not just a "mediocre default plane", it's the IRIS Raptor Driver which used to be payware before LM included it in P3D.

1 minute ago, itsjase said:

To be fair it's not just a "mediocre default plane", it's the IRIS Raptor Driver which used to be payware before LM included it in P3D.

Doesn't make it any less mediocre. I certainly wouldn't pay a dime for it.

It's quite often the case that the quoted maximum speeds of aeroplanes, and indeed other specs, especially concerning fighter aeroplanes, are 'brochure figures'. They're invariably very quotable 'wow facts' which look great on a wikipedia page, or in a news or magazine article, but such facts and figures frequently bear little to no relation to what the aeroplane will do operationally most of the time, or even what it actually can do when carrying a realistic amount of fuel and a practical payload.

As an example: The General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon can certainly fly way faster than Mach 1 at low level, however, in order to achieve that, it has to use its afterburner, and in doing so at low level, this means it'll be completely out of internal fuel in less than six minutes. This is not because it is a bad design, it is because afterburners use a massive amount of fuel; imagine turning ten milk bottles upside down and observing the amount of liquid pouring out of them; this is about the same rate of liquid usage as the afterburner of an F-16's engine uses up fuel.

The F-16 is of course not alone in limitations such as these, in fact it remains one of the most capable fighter aeroplane designs even today, despite being a design dating from 1974 - which makes it a 45 year-old aeroplane - but it does at least demonstrate that what an aeroplane can do during a test, and what it is practical for it to do in genuine combat usage, are rarely the same thing.

Thus the impressive performance capabilities quoted in brochures and such, do mean fighter aeroplanes can and frequently do wow crowds at airshows, but such party tricks often are not achievable anywhere other than directly over an airfield whilst at an airshow, where you know you can operate at a light fuel load and then land to refuel (and this for free at most airshows incidentally).

Even if such fighters were capable of these feats when loaded up for war, it invariably wouldn't make any sense to try to do these things in combat. For example, whilst an F-16 can easily pull over 9G in a turn, and effortlessly surpass Mach 1 at sea level, if you flew one like that in combat, you'd be shot down in seconds, because like many fighter aeroplanes, it actually turns best when pulling around 5.5G at a comparatively modest 350 knots, neither of which are anywhere near the wow figures so beloved of journalists and the frequent fodder of fact sheets, so the fact that it can fly way faster than Mach 1, is often of little to no importance whatsoever and would in fact be suicidal in a turning dogfight.

Edited May 27, 20197 yr by Chock

9 hours ago, Chock said:

...

Exactly.

I've (simulated) flown the F16 since 1999 in Falcon 4.0 and all of its derivates (eFalcon, SPx, BMS x) with around 4000 hours. Flying it as close to RL as possible some may get the picture VERY soon that this "brochure figures" are so way off the RL he couldn't imagine first.

Too much damaged made by movies i guess 😉

What altitude are you flying at trying to get Mach 2+? EDIT - sorry - regardless of altitude.. my apologies.

Edited May 28, 20197 yr by HighBypass