A-143 Buzzard Far too Slow / Weak

[UltimateBawb 1]

http://www.milavia.net/aircraft/l-159/l-159_specifications.htm

As seen in the link above the A-143 (a renamed L-159 Alca) should be able to reach a top speed of 936 Km/h while at sea level. Instead it struggles to maintain 300Km/h when maneuvering and can only reach 750Km/h in a high altitude dive with maximum thrust. This is ridiculous; biplanes can fly at 300Km/h. The extremely low speed makes it impossible to not get shot down by any high caliber ground fire.

[Beagle 684]

Default Aircraft never had any real life speeds in the series.

[chortles 263]

You're specifying maximum speed, but what are the real-life performance characteristics when it's also toting a gun pod, two SRAAMs, two GBU-12s and two ATGMs on top of full fuel, or the gun pod, two SRAAMs and four LRAAMs on top of full fuel?

[Beagle 684]

You do not use full fuel with such a loadout, either you put less stuf on it and send two aircraft or you dotn use full fuel.

Not that such consideratons would count in ArmA series where neither fuel nor LOadout change the handling or performance in any way.

But: even with maximum payload an aircraft of that class can't be considered operational if it can't even reach 600 km/h level.

[UltimateBawb 1]

Default Aircraft never had any real life speeds in the series.

It would still be nice to see an attempt. BIS seems to like balancing in A3 and the 'balancing' the speed of the A-143 just makes it worthless as a CAS or CAP aircraft. Of course I think balancing all together is BS.

You're specifying maximum speed, but what are the real-life performance characteristics when it's also toting a gun pod, two SRAAMs, two GBU-12s and two ATGMs on top of full fuel, or the gun pod, two SRAAMs and four LRAAMs on top of full fuel?

As far as I know about physics weight would only affect acceleration, not top speed. It would simply take longer to reach top speed with a full load. Also, I'd have no problem with a top speed of even 800Km/h in A3, but the current speed is terribly impossible.

[chortles 263]

Fair enough, although that would mean that "full fuel" in Arma would evidently not mean "real-world technical definition of full fuel".

[progamer 14]

It would still be nice to see an attempt. BIS seems to like balancing in A3 and the 'balancing' the speed of the A-143 just makes it worthless as a CAS or CAP aircraft. Of course I think balancing all together is BS.

As far as I know about physics weight would only affect acceleration, not top speed. It would simply take longer to reach top speed with a full load. Also, I'd have no problem with a top speed of even 800Km/h in A3, but the current speed is terribly impossible.

Go back and test in Arma 2... The unarmed version goes like 630km/h and the Armed version goes 712km/h approximately.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:25 ----------

If anything you should be complaining how the weapons on aircraft in arma 2 are insanely more powerful then Arma 3. Arma 3's aircraft weapon loadouts are a joke.

[Beagle 684]

Top speed is affected by payload drag and the induced drag by a higher alpha angle to maintain level flight. 200km/h less at full combat practical payload (that is usually only 75% of the theoretical maximum payload) is a quite normal reduction value.

Practically that's it whan makes the A-10 fly only 330kn in combat instead of 405kn.

In addition the permanent operation of a engine at 100% is neither recommended nor fuel efficient.

But thats just another computer game problem...everyon only knows full throttle because the engine does not need to last longer than 20 minutes.

[UltimateBawb 1]

Top speed is affected by payload drag and the induced drag by a higher alpha angle to maintain level flight. 200km/h less at full combat practical payload (that is usually only 75% of the theoretical maximum payload) is a quite normal reduction value.

Practically that's it whan makes the A-10 fly only 330kn in combat instead of 405kn.

In addition the permanent operation of a engine at 100% is neither recommended nor fuel efficient.

But thats just another computer game problem...everyon only knows full throttle because the engine does not need to last longer than 20 minutes.

Ah, well that makes sense then. Still, the Buzzard seems unnecessarily slow.

[7mary3 10]

Top speed is affected by payload drag and the induced drag by a higher alpha angle to maintain level flight. 200km/h less at full combat practical payload (that is usually only 75% of the theoretical maximum payload) is a quite normal reduction value.

Practically that's it whan makes the A-10 fly only 330kn in combat instead of 405kn.

In addition the permanent operation of a engine at 100% is neither recommended nor fuel efficient.

But thats just another computer game problem...everyon only knows full throttle because the engine does not need to last longer than 20 minutes.

Bingo.

As for people saying its slow, its faster than the A-10. If you want real fighters, you need F-15, F-16, F-18,Su-27,Mig-29. I know people don't want to learn how to fly the real planes in DCS:X, but flaming cliffs 3 like planes would be interesting in Arma 3. The ones we have now feel like they're dangled from a string.

Edited November 24, 2013 by 7mary3

[lev 21]

The reason why jets aren't modeled realistically is because the island is too small to support realistic jet operations.

[progamer 14]

The reason why jets aren't modeled realistically is because the island is too small to support realistic jet operations.

It's because BI needs to work on plane physics.

[merc591 10]

It's because BI needs to work on plane physics.

Why the buzzard is so slow is simple the main problem is it is a training airplane not a maximum efficiency aircraft meant to be used as a killing machine on the battlefield while it sometimes can fill this role it wasnt designed for it it was designed to as the name implicates train pilots in flight in a relatively low cost easy to use aircraft on top of that it is a single engine fighter and dont get me wrong some single engine fighters are fast but the buzzard or l-159 was a cold war era plane when it was first built and it hasnt been upgraded much at all since then besides weapons loadout.

in short this is a childs toy compared to modernday fighters and ground attack aircraft its going to be slow and outdated

Edited November 25, 2013 by merc591

[7mary3 10]

Why the buzzard is so slow is simple the main problem is it is a training airplane not a maximum efficiency aircraft meant to be used as a killing machine on the battlefield while it sometimes can fill this role it wasnt designed for it it was designed to as the name implicates train pilots in flight in a relatively low cost easy to use aircraft on top of that it is a single engine fighter and dont get me wrong some single engine fighters are fast but the buzzard or l-159 was a cold war era plane when it was first built and it hasnt been upgraded much at all since then besides weapons loadout.

in short this is a childs toy compared to modernday fighters and ground attack aircraft its going to be slow and outdated

Ka-ching! Yeah, go on the DCS forums, and I bet no ones ever heard of it. Why the hell would it be around in 2035?

[progamer 14]

Ka-ching! Yeah, go on the DCS forums, and I bet no ones ever heard of it. Why the hell would it be around in 2035?

Look at Arma 2, it had tons of weapons and was a flying death machine. In Arma 3 it has slow firing weapons and two weak loadouts.

[merc591 10]

Ka-ching! Yeah, go on the DCS forums, and I bet no ones ever heard of it. Why the hell would it be around in 2035?

The independent faction of ARMA 3 or "Greenbacks" as so affectionally refferred to by the nato troops on altis/straits are supposed to be a militia that buy old outdated equipment but what i dont understand is why the l-159 if i was BI i wouldnt have chosen a 60 year old training aircraft i would have chosen something along the line of a old fighter that was either put out of production or just decomissioned all together maybe an old russian training fighter or something along that lines personally i would like to see the mig-21 bison be used as it is used by several middle eastern countries and most of them are being decomissioned in 2017

[lev 21]

It's because BI needs to work on plane physics.

The aeronautical modeling of the plane is one thing, I'm talking about simple changes like increasing the top speed and acceleration. As is, jet planes take about 5 minutes to fly across the map right now. If we increased the top speed to their real life values, planes would cross the island in about 1.5 minutes. Planes would be able to zip over km sized AO's in a few seconds. This will either result in planes that are incredibly difficult to handle or incredibly overpowered in the hands of a skilled pilot. Most players probably don't even have their view distance past 1.6km and with a realistically modelled plane, most people wouldn't even be able to see the plane before they get blown up. Realistic values for things like top speed would just lead to bad gameplay experiences.

Till BIS implements maps that are at least 3 times bigger than what we currently have, I don't think any realism improvements on the plane makes sense.

[merc591 10]

Look at Arma 2, it had tons of weapons and was a flying death machine. In Arma 3 it has slow firing weapons and two weak loadouts.

arma 2 aircraft loadouts were no where close to the real thing on some of them such as the a-10 cannon could take out a MBT from 2 hits every time and i can understand that if you hit the gas tank but im callin BS on BI on that one in real life a burst of maybe 8-10 would be need to knock it out of commission

[progamer 14]

The aeronautical modeling of the plane is one thing, I'm talking about simple changes like increasing the top speed and acceleration. As is, jet planes take about 5 minutes to fly across the map right now. If we increased the top speed to their real life values, planes would cross the island in about 1.5 minutes. Planes would be able to zip over km sized AO's in a few seconds. This will either result in planes that are incredibly difficult to handle or incredibly overpowered in the hands of a skilled pilot. Most players probably don't even have their view distance past 1.6km and with a realistically modelled plane, most people wouldn't even be able to see the plane before they get blown up. Realistic values for things like top speed would just lead to bad gameplay experiences.

Till BIS implements maps that are at least 3 times bigger than what we currently have, I don't think any realism improvements on the plane makes sense.

Why would someone care about something being "overpowered" in Arma? Its max speed would be related to real life factors like weight of fuel and weapons. Right now would be like a fully fueled and full armed plane.

BI needs to take the time to work and aircraft to bring them up to standards. They don't even have proper hit points setup!

---------- Post added at 05:00 ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 ----------

arma 2 aircraft loadouts were no where close to the real thing on some of them such as the a-10 cannon could take out a MBT from 2 hits every time and i can understand that if you hit the gas tank but im callin BS on BI on that one in real life a burst of maybe 8-10 would be need to knock it out of commission

Those were damage issues caused by incorrect values or the awful hp system.

[merc591 10]

The aeronautical modeling of the plane is one thing, I'm talking about simple changes like increasing the top speed and acceleration. As is, jet planes take about 5 minutes to fly across the map right now. If we increased the top speed to their real life values, planes would cross the island in about 1.5 minutes. Planes would be able to zip over km sized AO's in a few seconds. This will either result in planes that are incredibly difficult to handle or incredibly overpowered in the hands of a skilled pilot. Most players probably don't even have their view distance past 1.6km and with a realistically modelled plane, most people wouldn't even be able to see the plane before they get blown up. Realistic values for things like top speed would just lead to bad gameplay experiences.

Till BIS implements maps that are at least 3 times bigger than what we currently have, I don't think any realism improvements on the plane makes sense.

making the speed of the buzzard any faster would be highly unrealistic since its using a very old engine i have no problem getting it up to 750km/h i dont see why other people are having problems with it

---------- Post added at 03:03 ---------- Previous post was at 03:01 ----------

Why would someone care about something being "overpowered" in Arma? Its max speed would be related to real life factors like weight of fuel and weapons. Right now would be like a fully fueled and full armed plane.

BI needs to take the time to work and aircraft to bring them up to standards. They don't even have proper hit points setup!

---------- Post added at 05:00 ---------- Previous post was at 04:59 ----------

Those were damage issues caused by incorrect values or the awful hp system.

if the balues were incorrect we shouldnt be using the arma 2 jets to reference anything

[Tacti-Cool 10]

I think the reason its slow is so it can reasonably travel the terrain, If it flew at real world speed it would traverse altis in seconds

[merc591 10]

kinda random buy anybody tired of doing cas and getting a mbt round shoved up their ass or in their face wether they were doing manuevers to evade or not ??

---------- Post added at 03:06 ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 ----------

I think the reason its slow is so it can reasonably travel the terrain, If it flew at real world speed it would traverse altis in seconds

agreed also in real life the l-159 would probably clock out at 880km/h going level as well

[7mary3 10]

arma 2 aircraft loadouts were no where close to the real thing on some of them such as the a-10 cannon could take out a MBT from 2 hits every time and i can understand that if you hit the gas tank but im callin BS on BI on that one in real life a burst of maybe 8-10 would be need to knock it out of commission

Well, the A-10 fires at something like 80 rounds a second, and puts down a "cloud" of bullets about 20 feet in radius. Most MBT's have weak top armor of a little over 100mm RHA. So you've got definite engine kill, messed up tracks, dead periscopes, main gun, external machine guns, and usually penetration of the tank in multiple places. Its been talked to death on the DCS forums and I'm still not sure if there is crew kill or not. The people who know have been kind of vague on it. Probably dead driver. Maybe back turret penetration. I would think the side would be too strong. The round is like a "magnum" version of the 30mm, having more power than most 30mm's due to longer casing and longer gun barrels. At least, that's what I can see.

---------- Post added at 03:20 ---------- Previous post was at 03:17 ----------

making the speed of the buzzard any faster would be highly unrealistic since its using a very old engine i have no problem getting it up to 750km/h i dont see why other people are having problems with it[/Quote]

The A-10 only has a top speed of like 450km/hr and it has two powerful turbofan engines.

[UltimateBawb 1]

kinda random buy anybody tired of doing cas and getting a mbt round shoved up their ass or in their face wether they were doing manuevers to evade or not ??

---------- Post added at 03:06 ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 ----------

agreed also in real life the l-159 would probably clock out at 880km/h going level as well

I don't know why you all think that an increase in speed from 650Km/h max level to 800-900Km/h max level would make the plane warp over the island. Also, balancing has no place in Arma.

[7mary3 10]

kinda random buy anybody tired of doing cas and getting a mbt round shoved up their ass or in their face wether they were doing manuevers to evade or not ??[/Quote]

Probably once again the tank drivers went to elite sniper school. :j: