isnt HMD on f4j from an experimental one like that?
Maybe, but less experimental than Agile Eye afaik
I think you mean overpreforming inlets as gaijin chose to give it functionally no channel loss.
Reminder as well that channel loss to gaijin is fully arbitrary with engines that lack a channel full stop like the TF34 having channel loss for some ungodly reason.
Not just all planes, anything that flies, missiles, helos, bullets planes etc, gaijin’s drag simulation is horrible and needs a refactor.
Such came to light with the AIM-54 being unable to ever reach it’s designed max speed even if fired from orbit straight down.
It is presented in manual for F-4J and in SAC sheet for F-4S.
It depends which HMS specifically you are referring to VTAS-I ( baseline AN/APG-8, system produced by McDonnell-Douglas mounted to the AN/HGU-30/P, Ersatz modified APH-6 with COTS liner, Later the -30A/P which uses a Molded liner (Pilot comfort and improved fit) was introduced) and saw frontline service starting with the Block 46 & -47 F-4J airframes, though not available in quantity until 1972.
The VTAS -II ( AN/APG-8A uses an improved Display and was produced by Honeywell, mounted to the HGU-37, which uses a PRK-42/P shell)
Further Select F-15A & -15B airframes, alongside F-14As & A-7s (mass simulators were also flown on the F-5E) that were used during ACE/AIMVAL, to help provide feedback to the Seeker trials that were undertaken, and so were fitted with revised VTAS II & prototype VTAS -III sets for comparison and testing purposes.
Studies were performed for mounting it to the F-16 as well
The VTAS was never fitted in service to any Teen series aircraft due to not being able to loose the weight needed to be deemed safe for (sustained) use at the higher 7.5~9G’s that the Teen Series were rated for vs the F-4’s 7.5G, without causing strain issues or injury to pilots, while still meeting Ballistic Protection requirements of a flight helmet so was not procured, and canceled due to delays and not being able to satisfactorily meet the design requirements or goals.
5 Likes
When it comes to channel loss ingame, unless Gaijin specifically has data for it they just… make it up. Then they change the drag to match acceleration charts and turn etc. Really, the channel loss doesn’t matter. So the F-15A/C having 22 percent percent channel loss and the E like 19 percent doesn’t matter, it’s just a funny stat
4 Likes
Also on another note the F-15 HUDs have some major issues, so I have several bug reports out to fix them and will be making more.
To start off with, the F-15E/I have incorrect HUD symbology for A2A missiles and this has already been accepted: Community Bug Reporting System
F-15A/C/J family of planes have the same issue: Community Bug Reporting System
The F-15E/I have the wrong symbol for alpha: Community Bug Reporting System
The F-15A/C/J family of planes are missing numerous hud symbology, including the shoot queue, radar range to target, steering point for missiles (lead indicator) and the breakaway symbol: Community Bug Reporting System
So if y’all wouldn’t mind upvoting and sharing these, I’d appreciate it. Hoping to get these fixed by next major update. More on the way too :)
5 Likes
To illustrate how much thrust is lost to drive the generators, hydraulic pumps, air cooling, pressurization, etc. The installed thrust of the F-15A was approximately 18,808 pounds and that of the more modern F-15C was approximately 19,300 pounds.
Can the outer wing stations on EX handle the dual GBU-53 racks used by Super Hornets? And does USAF have any of these dual racks?
im pretty sure right now they are only rated for air to air missile racks
Well they can take HARM as well, so I think it’s a possibility
Super hornets are using BRU-55, havent seen any on F-15
1 Like
USAF have dual racks for F-16, but for F-15 i cant remember such.
They meet the weight restrictions, but the ability to carry anything other than 88 or 120 was not stated.
1 Like
Probably. They do have racks that can accommodate up to 4 GBU-39/53s or JAGM-Fs
I know, but you said that the F-15 does not have a dual pylon for the GBU-53 like the Hornet does.
In theory it should be able to carry some small bombs pylons 1 and 9 too. The limit for those should be at least 500 (1100 lbs) kilos if you take the HARM that is approx. 360 kilos (800 pounds) and add the pylon too. The Dual AMRAAM rack should weight about the same.
One Stormbreaker is 200 lbs or 100 kilos, so, in theory, you would be able to equip the 53 on those stations
Although they were already on the first F-15, their use was only made possible by the new control system on modern F-15s.
so before, it was just built with the extra pylon in mind? and it took them like 40 years to actually use it?