KIAS, at an altitude of 400 ft. That should have destroyed the aircraft well before reaching that speed, but fortunately I had my realism settings changed for that test That's a pretty good deal above Mach 4, and is almost considered hypersonic. Better yet, it went from 0-3000 in a matter of about 3 minutes I pulled a massive G+ climb up to 500,000ft. altitude soon after - my poor little jet never came back
Realistic? No (The only hypersonic aircraft that we know about are NASA scramjet prototypes, other than Space Shuttles ! Keep your mind open for conspiracy though )
If you were wondering if near-hypersonic flight is possible in FSX, then yes
Hooked since FS4... now flying:
self-built i7-4790 at 4 GHz; GA-Z97X mobo; GTX 970; 16GB gskill;
Win 7/64: 840 EVO OS; 840 EVO (500G) game drive;
Win10/64: 850 EVO (500G) for OS and games
quiet, fast and cool running.
I want PROOF! Hehe. But it is the limitations 'imposed' by Acceleration that I am looking at and suspecting (but can't prove). I hoped someone had 'evidence' of such. But maybe no one 'noticed'? Seems like it depends on the air file you use. Dumb but true? Need hex edits, I guess. I wish I was smarter (hehe).
I got the MiG-29 Fulcrum from fs-freeware.net and it is freezing FSX with 'msvcr80.dll' error. So no go with that (port over(?) jobbie.
I guess you mean M 3.00 and M7.00. Well, I can't even get M4.60 (yet). Speed of 2000 kts at sea level? Yes. But then I can't land (Concorde) as it only slows to 218 kts! I land, but with lots of smoke and almost rolling over (plus flattened fences at end of runway-ha). I need to reduce static thrust I guess. When I get it right I will put FDE's in Blackbird and let you know. (Mach 4.65 at FL 500? Yeah..that's the ticket..)
Nice part is I get 8 hrs and 6,000 nmi range. How? I could tell you, but..... . (Just kidding. Fuel Flow rate and fuel gain values reversed. Just playing around).
(And how come your post count is so low? You've been here since 199X? Or when?)
Last edited by napamule2; 02-22-2010 at 03:52 AM. Reason: add
isn't is easier to get a high mach speed if you're high? (speed of sound travels slower where the air is thin)
I fly through the valley of death, but I fear no evil,for I am at 80,000 feet and climbing. Let's powerdive and scare that poor soul in that Ultralight there.
Mach number tables in ESP cut-off at Mach 3.2. (I imagine that is the same for FSX). Although the aircraft may go faster than that the realism/accuracy is degraded.
Yesterday went and got the North American XB-70 Valkyrie, by Massimo Altieri ('Bugs'). It flys really smooth, so hand flying is a pleasure. But it only went M1.6. So I tweaked it and now it does Mach 4.00 / 2700 kts, at 20 K ft. Did not take it to 40 K ft. Ran out of time. But it flys MUCH better than the Concorde. Lands 125 kts.
I worked on the Concorde from Feb 3 to Feb 17. So kinda burned out with that model, by Libardo Guzman (Nov 2008). But I got the handling where you can land at 125 to 135 kts. This bird also goes M 4.25 / 2900 kts. Range is 3 hrs and 5,000 nm. So I'm 95% done with both. News at 11.
So I don't care about realism. Fun is the object. Not passing FAA tests (hehe). And FO Jevans: going to look into your trick with the 'negative drag flaps'. Sounds interesting. It's stuff like this that make my day. Thanks for sharing. The sim has a lot of potential for all those creative minds out there. You have to think outside the 'SDK' box. Cheers.