Its a jet man. THATS NORMAL

Maybe for a short Period of time when they are fast enough.

But the Neophrone isn't a Fighter jet its more of a heavy ground jet.

The one issue is fuel consumption is not simulated properly. Takes a lot of jet fuel to fly vertical!

yeah and you need more thrust as your aircraft weights, and if modern fighters like F22 Eurofighter etc come close to this i dont think a quite heavy Attack Jet can

Landing this jet safely is next to impossible on the longer runways.

This jet likely needs the salt flats (or desert flats) for a safe landing.

The physics seem unreal for a safe landing on one the longer runways.

UPDATED: Think I've finally figured it out. Level out at 100m, full flaps and full speed brake. (I was previously landing with half speed brake.) At the runway, switch to 3D view to make sure you descent isn't too fast to the runway and touch down easy. My landings still hurt my health, even though I had an soft landing. Even auto pilot cannot be trusted landing the Neophron!

UPDATED: Watching the Decent Velocity seems to be required for this jet during landings. Still, landings are proving lethal to the health status. Likely landings are being registered erroneously as being too hard, and not taking into account for likely heavier shocks/springs on the landing gear. Something just doesn't seem right with this jet when trying to land! Watching via 3D view during the last moments of landing seems to be a requisite for this jet for performing safe landings.

By the way, twin engine jets are able to act like "rockets". ;-)

@rogerx with a bit of training you can land on every Airport except for the smallest one in the north.

You just need to come in real flat and keep your Airspeed at around 300 +/- km/h

Here's a Video how it's possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU_M32o7AnM
But you are right it seems like that landing which would be a normal for a Wipeout or Buzzard prove to be lethal for the Pilot while the Plane may survive but may also explode, seems a bit strange for me.

Again, just because a jet has a Twin engine does that not mean that the Aircraft is able to fly like a Rocket, dont get me wrong, its possible for a few seconds if there is enough initia speed but flying straigt up and even accelerating should be impossible for the Neoprohne.

There are of cours jets which are able to do this but thoose jets have a thrust/weight Ratio above 1.

The plane needs to be light enough and the Engines must provide enough thrust.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakovlev_Yak-130
"The aircraft's twin engines are mounted under extended wing roots, which reach as far forward as the windscreen. Two Ivchenko Progress AI-222-25 Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) produce a combined total of 49 kilonewtons (11,000 pound-force) of thrust. An upgraded, "-28" engine is also on offer, increasing the thrust to 53 kN (12,000 lbf). At a normal Take-Off Weight of 7,250 kg (15,980 lb), a Thrust-to-Weight ratio of 0.70 is achieved with the "-25", or 0.77 with the "-28" engines."

You see? the Specifications for the Yak-130 or Neophron ingamegive it a 0.70 or a 0.77 with a upgraded engine. this makes flying straight up for a long time impossible.

When every plane with twin engine could fly straight up like for example the F22/ F/A-18 / Eurofighter Typhoon can the A10/Su-25 and also planes like Civil ones could do it.

Edit:
I found a page with Thrust / weight Ratio of almost every plane if you're interested

http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html

Keep in mind that every Aircraft with a ratio of 1 or above is able to fly straight upward.

Well with that stated, I've even landed and taken-off (within the game) from the Altis's small airfield in the north with an A-164. However, this is kind of hit or miss, or a gamble. I was trying to explain airport runway length from a realistic point of view, and landing and departing runways safely with jets. Again, from a realistic point of view. In real life, and within the US. ;-)

You did touch on one topic, heavily loaded aircraft should not be able to go vertical. Likely loaded with a couple of dumb bombs, aircraft would likely have a difficult time even maneuvering.

Another thought, this game was engineered slightly from a futuristic point of view. The enemy were supposedly initially designed as aliens. With that stated, it maybe the authors or engineers wanted a jet with maximum capabilities, for players to demonstrate all possible flight maneuvers, and then maybe a little more?

The Thrust/weight ratio table is extremely interesting!

I think you meant to say, "When the F22, F/A-18, and Eurofighter Typhoon can fly straight-up (ie. vertical), then according to the in-game physics, so can the A-10, Su-25 (bomber?), and civilian planes should be able to fly vertical?" In other words, the in game physics are unrealistic.

I tend to agree, however it would be nice to have at least one or two jets (especially within multi-player servers) that can fly vertical such as the F-15 within the game, but it maybe the game engineers ran short on time and resources, and had to compress aircraft features (or capabilities) into fewer jets, or had to work with what jets they already have within the game.

I must agree, I prefer flying the F-15 within game, but there currently are no F-15's within the vanilla game! I tend to agree the bombers should likely not be able to fly vertical, however on most servers, most map administrators will likely not put more than a couple or few planes on the maps at one time due to system resource requirements. So likely map administrators will only add bombers, and maybe one AA A-164 if you're lucky and pretty much useless unless there are plenty of enemy aircraft. (ie. AA only version of Neophron or A-164, etc)

But with that stated, there's this new virtual ammo vehicle and hanger idea, where players might be able to change load-outs extremely easily within a hanger.

With what is all stated here, it sure adds weight to my argument concerning safe landing of the Neophron! The Neophron acts like the flying weight of a tank, for which is manageable until landing. Landing on such a short runway of even the main airports, is nearly impossible with the Neophron! From my point of view, I think this jet needs double the length for safe landings.

Also, the Neophron should likely not be able to fly vertical with dumb bombs, etc. However, I'm more for waiting until the virtual ammo selection hangers are fully implemented and operational. However, I could always drop all munitions after take-off and then perform my aerobatics. But then there's currently absolutely no possibilities of performing aerobatics immediately after take-off unless I can somehow drop all munitions prior to take-off.

So I think we can all see some of the possible limiting factors here!

@ i was talking about their behaviour in Reallive. But the game physics for Fixed wings is quite broken currently.

Yeah the lack of Air Superiority fighters is quite harming, since only AAF got their Air Sup jet and Nato and Opfor only got Earthstrike planes.

There are many more issues like the performance in curves and the loss of speed in them which are higly unrealistic but thoose are different problems.

The problem i stated is that the Neophrone has this ability and it is the only plane that got this ability while it also has the second largest payload.

This means this jet which also is the fastest (300km/h faster than A10 and buzzard) cannot only Outrun enemy Fighters, it may also easily outturn them or just fly straight up and dive down again engaging the enemy and leave him with no chance. Just try it with a friend, if the Neophron pilot knows how to flight there will not be a single time in which he will loose a 1 on 1 dogfight.

with your last point about the wight and load.

I guess this would need a rework of the flight physics like the Helis got in order to work.

But it seems like we atlest get a new VTOL aircract with Tanoa, which may hopefully come alone with some changes to the Fixed wing Physics

VTOL aircraft were slated for the official release of ARMA 3, but sometime during Alpha and Beta, the VTOL aircraft were silently dropped. I mean, it was like a secret government wiped all publications of the VTOL aircraft! I remember this vividly as one day they were in the line-up, the next day, nothing was present concerning VTOL aircraft. But there are still hooks residing within ARMA 3 (using the editor) for VTOL aircraft.

It maybe, the VTOL are only residing within some builds for the military. (ie. I heard some Countries really use ARMA for training.)

Back to the Neophron, I think we should create a "TODO list" listing each gripe we have for each of the aircraft. This way, the bug/feature gains popularity and the bug provides developers some focus instead of trying to muddle through thousands of individual bug reports. At most, maybe open one bug per aircraft, listing each aircraft faults that need fixing.

Oh and you're right concerning dog fighting with a Neophron. The A-164 only has a few options for evading confrontation with the Neophron.

Yeah i gonna take some spare time and do a list of things that are not mentioned already which is kinda hard since there are many other reports already out there.

Just read the latest Spotrep which mentions VTOL's: http://arma3.com/news/arma-3-roadmap-2015-16

Take a look over to Virtual Battle Space : https://bisimulations.com/

Many European army's and some Forces of the USA use it to train their soldiers it's also done by BI but they devided the Simulation team from the arma 3 team if i'm correct

For a good reason they divide the company. Military is military, and civilian is civilian use; or civilian is suppose to be for good clean fun. It's been awhile since I've viewed the referred to website.

I think we're right on with what we're asking here as far as the flight dynamics. If my cards are right, eventually the flight dynamics will be worked through as future features are implemented. Within the civilian sector, it's no fun if the game or simulation gets too real. In the military, they have all day to lay around and do nothing.

It would appear they have decreased the throttle thrust within version 1.54, to make safer landings according to my Bug #26228, "To-199 Neophrone: Difficult to land or runways too short".

However, this jet (like many other real world jets) can climb vertically.

I will try verifying within my editor that this is fixed, as I'm not sure if the server had any modifications.

I would have to say this issue is now fixed, with apparently reduced throttle/acceleration speeds. Hence with my bug, making safe landings more possible.

You'll notice the jet can still climb vertical, which is normal, however the acceleration rate during vertical climbs are much decreased from prior versions.

@dedmen Maybe close this ticket as resolved?

As I re-read my prior comment, I sounded so negative or anti-rocket like.

Personally I really enjoyed climbing like a rocket with this 3D jet profile.

I think the initial intent for the developer's jet was climbing like a rocket.

Without payloads, or minimal payloads, jets usually can go verticle.