A-143 Buzzard Far too Slow / Weak

[spanishsurfer 58]

I think a lot of people are failing to take into account the effect that atmosphere has on airspeed and ground speed.

The atmosphere close to the ground is THICK and hence you will not be able to achieve anywhere near the aircraft's top speed at a couple of thousand feet- The top speed for an aircraft, especially a jet, are achieved at much higher altitudes where the atmosphere is thinner and drag is less. In the case of the CR42 above, the top speed is achieved at 20 000 feet! True, the L-159 has a max speed of 936 km/h (505 knots, 581 mph) at sea level in a clean config but that would at least be a bit slower loaded up.

Furthermore, turning an aircraft at high G consumes a LOT of energy, hence the saying 'turn and burn'- throttling up after turning is needed to recover energy/speed lost in a high G turn and there are G limits when carrying a combat load too.

The "thickness" of the atmosphere has LITTLE to do with any aircrafts top speed. Jets are faster in higher altitudes because the ENGINES perform better. When you're talking about aircraft speed it has everything to do with the power in your engines and how the outside world affects those engines (Also how much payload/cargo you're carrying). For example, if you're flying a turbo prop (as I do) climbing to 20,000 actually has a negative impact on engine performance (the propeller begins to loose AOA as you go higher) and thus degrades airspeed, which is why turboprop aircraft like to stay below 18,000.

So in short, "thickness" is not a concern on airspeed.

[timmo1982 10]

The "thickness" of the atmosphere has LITTLE to do with any aircrafts top speed.

So in short, "thickness" is not a concern on airspeed.

You've simultaneously agreed and disagreed with me.

A slight error in my post before which referred to 'airspeed'- IAS isn't affected by air density (or at least, it effects the aircraft and instruments equally- the aircraft is affected by the same dynamic pressure). The speed of the aircraft across the ground (which is what I suspect ARMA shows as its 'airspeed' hence my use of the term) does increase as altitude increases (and density decreases) assuming IAS is constant.

Jets are faster in higher altitudes because the ENGINES perform better

...so conversely, a jet is slower at lower altitudes because the engine is performing worse.

[progamer 14]

You guys realize that BI has given us a scripting command for atmosphere thickness?

[UltimateBawb 1]

You guys realize that BI has given us a scripting command for atmosphere thickness?

I really hope you're not talking about fog. If you are, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[progamer 14]

I really hope you're not talking about fog. If you are, you have no idea what you're talking about.

simulSetAtmosphereThickness SCALAR

[UltimateBawb 1]

simulSetAtmosphereThickness SCALAR

Whelp I stand completely corrected, sorry for sounding so rude.

[merc591 10]

food for thought are these planes hte same or two entirely different ones and if so which one is the buzzard XD

l-39 check republic

l-159 russian

EDIT keep in mind these are the actual name for hte aircraft in not fucking with you XD

[derk yall 0]

merc591:

L-39 Albatros was made by Aero Vodochody in Czechoslovakia (and after the "split" in Czech Republic). L-159 ALCA (Advanced Light Combat Aircraft) was made by Aero Vodochody in Czech Republic. The L-159 is an evolution of the L-39 (but before there was the L-59 Super Albatros.

I don't know where did you find your source to write "l-159 russian" as the L-159 was never delivered to the airforce of the Russian Federation, neither it was ever made there under any license. The L-39 Albatros on the other hand was used by a large number of Warsaw pact countries.

Edited November 27, 2013 by Derk Yall

[merc591 10]

merc591:

L-39 Albatros was made by Aero Vodochody in Czechoslovakia (and after the "split" in Czech Republic). L-159 ALCA (Advanced Light Combat Aircraft) was made by Aero Vodochody in Czech Republic. The L-159 is an evolution of the L-39 (but before there was the L-59 Super Albatros.

I don't know where did you find your source to write "l-159 russian" as the L-159 was never delivered to the airforce of the Russian Federation, neither it was ever made there under any license. The L-39 Albatros on the other hand was used by a large number of Warsaw pact countries.

yea sorry about that i wasnt thinking straight ive been playing wargame airland battle and the checks are paired with russia poland and east germany got em confused ;)

---------- Post added at 09:01 ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 ----------

in case you dont know about them just some stuff to hold you guys over until they change the buzzard or the official nato and pact jets come out

Hellinic armed forces mod

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=20288 (http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=23630 bug fix for the aircraft)

typhoon all in one aircraft pack

http://www.rkslstudios.info/downloads/file/4-eurofighter-typhoon-fgr4-v2-601-all-in-one

fa-18 mod

http://www.armaholic.com/page.php?id=22594

I in no way claim these mods as my own or have worked on them all respective credit goes to the authors of the mods and their incredible teams

i am simply doing this to spread the mods publicity/reknown

[chortles 263]

I'll point to the Typhoon being an Arma 2 mod... though hopefully its 'official' (read: RKSL-produced) Arma 3 incarnation is on its way here soon!

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

If some players aren't able to get the jet above 400kph in level flight then you MUST be doing something wrong. I can take off, fly straight and be at 600+ in a very very short period of time. As for bleeding off speed in turns, well the tighter you turn the more you bleed so take it easy and keep up the speed!

[b00tsy 28]

I really don't have any problems with the handling of the Buzzards. Is the speed and manoeuvrability realistic? No idea, I never have flown a real jet (like all of us). I do not have the problems others report here that you loose so much speed with every turn (though it happens sometimes with repeated turning) and the weapons loadout is okay too for light CAS and AA missions (and you can change the default loadout!). My guess is that a lot of people are not using the tail flaps for steering and don't drop altitude as compensation when doing a sharp turn, thus loose a lot of speed with every manoeuvre they do. I think a better discussion would have been why we are flying a jet with a design from the late '60s in the first place. I am still not getting the littlebirds and buzzards in the futuristic 2035 setting. It's like the army of now would use spitfires from WW2 for air combat. I hope BI will release the other jets soon so that we can do some more diverse air combat. I don't care much for infantry so I am patiently waiting for new air toys the whole time since the release.

[jgbtl292 0]

ohmygodd fuck ..... the speed is limitet -the island has to many objekts for - to many to stream with over 900kmh for what this discussion ? for what ?

Edited November 27, 2013 by R0adki11

[merc591 10]

I'll point to the Typhoon being an Arma 2 mod... though hopefully its 'official' (read: RKSL-produced) Arma 3 incarnation is on its way here soon!

it works for arma 3 though thats wha i put it in there

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

I really don't have any problems with the handling of the Buzzards. Is the speed and manoeuvrability realistic? No idea, I never have flown a real jet (like all of us). I do not have the problems others report here that you loose so much speed with every turn (though it happens sometimes with repeated turning) and the weapons loadout is okay too for light CAS and AA missions (and you can change the default loadout!). My guess is that a lot of people are not using the tail flaps for steering and don't drop altitude as compensation when doing a sharp turn, thus loose a lot of speed with every manoeuvre they do. I think a better discussion would have been why we are flying a jet with a design from the late '60s in the first place. I am still not getting the littlebirds and buzzards in the futuristic 2035 setting. It's like the army of now would use spitfires from WW2 for air combat. I hope BI will release the other jets soon so that we can do some more diverse air combat. I don't care much for infantry so I am patiently waiting for new air toys the whole time since the release.

you have ot take into account which faction hte plane belongs the the AAF or (greenbacks) are more a militia than a dedicated military thus they dont have as much money to spend as a modern military would that is the reason the are using a 1960s jet i agree it should have been a different jet maybe a little newer (as i have said multiple times the mig-21 bison would do the trick)but keep in mind they cant afford jets like the f-22 f-35 su-34 mig-29 mig-31 or aircraft like that

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

ohmygodd fuck ..... the speed is limitet -the island has to many objekts for - to many to stream with over 900kmh for what this discussion ? for what ?

please spell check your typing first so people like me who cant understand your post dont have to be the dicks who bring it up

[UltimateBawb 1]

it works for arma 3 though thats wha i put it in there

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

you have ot take into account which faction hte plane belongs the the AAF or (greenbacks) are more a militia than a dedicated military thus they dont have as much money to spend as a modern military would that is the reason the are using a 1960s jet i agree it should have been a different jet maybe a little newer (as i have said multiple times the mig-21 bison would do the trick)but keep in mind they cant afford jets like the f-22 f-35 su-34 mig-29 mig-31 or aircraft like that

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:55 ----------

please spell check your typing first so people like me who cant understand your post dont have to be the dicks who bring it up

Holy shit, way to talk about spelling and being able to be understood. Can you please attempt to use grammar? I can't read anything you write.

[merc591 10]

Holy shit, way to talk about spelling and being able to be understood. Can you please attempt to use grammar? I can't read anything you write.

1.my words are missing single letters you can understand them perfectly fine you are just being a dick

2. why so defensive i asked him nicely to correct his grammar at least i have my words in order and dont put random periods to finish half sentences

EDIT through this entire thread ive had very few but still present small mistakes in my grammar (letter missing or forgot a word because i was typing to fast) yet everyone else could understand me perfectly fine capitalizing on the point that your being a dick.

and as for your grammar not all of us perfer to go through every sentence and make sure every comma period and punctuation mark are there for i have no one to impress here im just giving my opinions.

Edited November 27, 2013 by merc591

[jaemn 10]

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.

There are a couple of ways to balance that out, without having to make aircraft unrealistic. One way is to ensure both sides have access to aircraft and air defenses. The second is to add civilians, and make killing them eventually lead to a mission failure.

If only one side has aircraft, and the other side lacks any sort of deterrent, then the side with aircraft should probably win.

It's getting to the point were BI can't put off overhauling fixed wing aircraft anymore...

A fixed-wing flight-model overhaul has been needed for ages. A BMS 4 level of avionics simulation isn't necessary, but at the very least the flight model should be adjusted.

Also the behavior of ground radar should probably be adjusted. Something along the lines of switchable CCIP/CCRP modes, and GM/GMT tracking for CCRP. The current setup makes it trivial to locate, lock, and shoot an enemy vehicle. CAS should usually require assistance from people on the ground.

[UltimateBawb 1]

1.my words are missing single letters you can understand them perfectly fine you are just being a dick

2. why so defensive i asked him nicely to correct his grammar at least i have my words in order and dont put random periods to finish half sentences

EDIT through this entire thread ive had very few but still present small mistakes in my grammar (letter missing or forgot a word because i was typing to fast) yet everyone else could understand me perfectly fine capitalizing on the point that your being a dick.

and as for your grammar not all of us perfer to go through every sentence and make sure every comma period and punctuation mark are there for i have no one to impress here im just giving my opinions.

What? It's literally elementary English. It takes much effort to understand someone who literally uses no periods (or anything else for that matter); it's not being a dick, it's being reasonable. I really don't care if you don't make everything perfect but please at least separate your paragraphs into sentences, it's not that difficult.

Anyways this is off topic.

@jaemn I agree completely, I also don't understand why only the game only simulates "hull" damage. It'd be nice if ailerons, flaps, elevators, fuel tanks, and engines could be disabled.

Edited November 27, 2013 by UltimateBawb

[merc591 10]

What? It's literally elementary English. It takes much effort to understand someone who literally uses no periods (or anything else for that matter); it's not being a dick, it's being reasonable. I really don't care if you don't make everything perfect but please at least separate your paragraphs into sentences, it's not that difficult.

Anyways this is off topic.

i guess i can put periods in if it suits you --->.<--- :D

[[frl]myke 14]

Kids, can we go up to a more mature level please? This would include grammar aswell. Thank you.

[pils 49]

Meh.

The worst about the Buzzard is the useless autocannon. The rate of fire is so unrealistically low, either you won't hit anything when going fast or you'll have to go so slow to hit something anything can shoot you down with ease.

And even if you hit something, the hits are hardly ever effective because of the unrealistic low damage.

Here is the real gun:

http://www.zvi.cz/download/PLAMEN.pdf

It can fire in two modes, slow with 780 and fast with 2600 rounds per minute (or 13 respectively 43 rounds per second!!).

Plus it can carry a variety of different types of ammo, and at the least with the armor piercing type this gun should be easily capable of penetrating and destroying any type of vehicle below the MBTs. Or turn any building into swiss cheese with 1 or 2 bursts.

Remember, the caliber is 20mm! This thing packs a punch in reality.

[merc591 10]

eh i dont want to argue with an admin id rather not get my account banned for speaking ill of one :j:

[UltimateBawb 1]

Meh.

The worst about the Buzzard is the useless autocannon. The rate of fire is so unrealistically low, either you won't hit anything when going fast or you'll have to go so slow to hit something anything can shoot you down with ease.

And even if you hit something, the hits are hardly ever effective because of the unrealistic low damage.

Here is the real gun:

http://www.zvi.cz/download/PLAMEN.pdf

It can fire in two modes, slow with 780 and fast with 2600 rounds per minute (or 13 respectively 43 rounds per second!!).

Plus it can carry a variety of different types of ammo, and at the least with the armor piercing type this gun should be easily capable of penetrating and destroying any type of vehicle below the MBTs. Or turn any building into swiss cheese with 1 or 2 bursts.

Remember, the caliber is 20mm! This thing packs a punch in reality.

I think the low fire rate is due to a bug in Arma where high fire rates can't be simulated, it's present in other IRL fast firing weapons like the M134 and AA vehicles. Also it'd be nice if we could have mixed ammunition loads, e.g. HEI;HEI;API-T.

[merc591 10]

I think the low fire rate is due to a bug in Arma where high fire rates can't be simulated, it's present in other IRL fast firing weapons like the M134 and AA vehicles. Also it'd be nice if we could have mixed ammunition loads, e.g. HEI;HEI;API-T.

indeed

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

There should be mixed ammo load, the Mi-48 Kajman already has MP-T and APFSDS-T options with its 30mm I believe.

20mm is fine, in PvP or TvT its enough to suppress enemy field position or destroy an enemy urban position. Its not OP which means you'll need good aim. Fire rate could use a boost for sure. I guess I want the cannon to behave like an A-10 Warthog. That is the battlefield effect I'd like to have with the A-143.

I'm always confused when people want super overpowered toys in games. ie they want an F-22 on Altis.

just baffles me