[FIXED] F-22 ceiling altitude is actually over 60k

[sshepard06]

Hi there,

With this in mind could we please make a change to the F-22 max altitude/ect?

"Although the F-22's high altitude capabilities, partially a product of its thrust vectoring capabilities, are known, Gordon notes the aircraft flies at altitudes from 60,000-65,000 feet."

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... is-bonkers

[thewood1]

So your only three posts are asking for changes. And for this one its the second time around. So you know there is a db change request thread.

[Dimitris]

This request is already there: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#4887073

He asked on FB how long it would take to implement this request, and I invited him to post here on Tech Support if the altitude discrepancy was causing a serious simulation/gameplay issue.

[sshepard06]

As I was instructed to do if I believed something needed to be corrected?

I appreciate that programming is often long hours and little reward. It's unfortunately shifted more towards the gig economy so please don't infer a tone.

There's a reason I dump the hours I do into this game, because it's the most realistic thing on the block. I like the authenticity of the weapons systems. I only want to try and help make it even better, and I'll continue to buy the products/scenarios (even if I don't play them) to support this team.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/4002255 ... nt_mention

[thewood1]

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4990910

I assume this one as well.

[thewood1]

Its a fair piece of info on FB. I never use facebook and think I'll have to look at the page more often.

[Pygmalion]

I've gone ahead and implemented this change. It'll be in 489. [:)]

[boogabooga]

There are two words in that hyperlink that caught my attention- "test pilot"...

I think that we need to have a more nuanced conversation about aircraft performance beyond 'this number I saw on the internet should be the same one that I see in the C:MO database', if we are to have one at all.

In the meantime, here is a little exercise:

If you are doing the Command standard loiter speed of 350 KTAS at 60,000 ft, what would your IAS be?

[cmanouser1]

My understanding is that CMO database stats are based on operational values, not designer limits. So indeed, this 60k number probably shouldn't be taken at face value.

See e.g. in the FAQ Why won’t my fighter jets fly faster than 925kt (Mach 1.6)?

[thewood1]

"nuanced conversation"

There's not much of that in the db thread. Its turned into thread of people repeating the OEM's claims in marketing literature. Its left to the devs to sort it out.

[sshepard06]

Thanks, Pygmalion,

I've gone ahead and implemented this change. It'll be in 489.

I've been searching flight tracking software for logs to bolster my assertion. Looks like you have to have a paid service to find anything other than current. I'm all ears if there's another way to find this?

Ceiling: above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)

[Pygmalion]

ORIGINAL: sshepard06

I've been searching flight tracking software for logs to bolster my assertion. Looks like you have to have a paid service to find anything other than current. I'm all ears if there's another way to find this?

Your dedication to hunting down data is noted and appreciated! Checking the logs are a great idea, though (as you've discovered) good trackers are usually locked behind a paywall -- and military aircraft usually don't like to be tracked when they're pushing their limits, anyway.

That said, it's been noted by other commenters -- and rightfully so! -- that it's not enough to take a manufacturer (or a test pilot, for that matter) at their word. With things like this, where hairs are being split over a couple thousand feet of altitude, I look to see if the numbers are being repeated anywhere else.

A cursory few minutes of searching revealed the 60,000-65,000ft number repeated in numerous sources, even when I ignored those that were simply regurgitating the test pilot's words.

For example, this article in Aviation Week, which reports that "Pentagon officials have put [the flight ceiling] at 65,000 ft", and GlobalSecurity (which can be of questionable reliability but is right more often than not) which puts the ceiling for "tactical maneuvers" at 60,000 ft; these coupled with the official Air Force website and numerous articles (such as, for example, this one from Popular Mechanics) which both state that the F-22 is capable of operating well above 50,000 ft, make me confident enough to bump up the max altitude to 60,000 ft.

You'll note I said 60,000, not 65,000: I do see that 65,000 number, but far less frequently, and while I don't doubt that the F-22 can get up there I'm not nearly as confident in its ability to maneuver there. (Few of the sources that cite the 65,000 ft number claim it can: they just say that's its ceiling.)

In the end, with active-duty, top-of-the-line aircraft like the F-22 for which many details remain classified, all we can do is make informed guesses based on the information available to us. There's enough info out there claiming 60-65,000 ft that I feel confident using that lower number. Those sources I listed, plus many more which I omitted for readability, are all respected defense/defense adjacent institutions with reputations to uphold and a strong incentive not to get things wrong. Journalists are hardly infallible, but if enough reporters have dug up (and editors have greenlit) the same number, that usually means something.

Hopefully this helps shine some light on how I approach DB adjustments. Rest assured to those concerned, we're not just regurgitating manufacturer numbers...or taking random forum commenters at face value, much as I love you guys. [;)]

[BDukes]

I'm thankful we've got a db guru now!

Mike

[boogabooga]

ORIGINAL: cmanouser1

My understanding is that CMO database stats are based on operational values, not designer limits. So indeed, this 60k number probably shouldn't be taken at face value.

See e.g. in the FAQ Why won’t my fighter jets fly faster than 925kt (Mach 1.6)?

Bingo.

Also, CMO does not really model the "coffin corner" effects that you get at extreme altitude. Up there, you have to be going very fast to generate lift...at 60 kft the 350 kt CMO "loiter" comes out to about 110 kt IAS- well below any reasonable estimate of stall speed. Not to mention that you would need a U-2 type pressure suit to survive depressurization, etc.

If anything, I think the opposite- I am very skeptical that even the fifth generation fighters would be doing routine CAPs at the 50 kft+ default altitude that is depicted in CMO. I'm curious if the developers have information to the contrary?

On the subject of the F-22, I see a much more serious issue in the performance modeling, but that is really the topic for another thread.