Can’t hurt, but please spoiler that text it’s so long lmao
Might as well. Would at least give it some IR variety like the export versions
I have tested that with an AIM 9Lx2 with less than 27 minutes of fuel remaining, a simple side turn at IAS 850km/h at sea level will damage the wing.
The in-game warning message in that case is 11G.
If it is really 1.5 times more durable than 9G, shouldn’t it be able to withstand up to about 13G?
3 Likes
Correct, I am saying improve it to 13.5G limit, but don’t give it some stupid limiter because RB players don’t know how to control themselves. The F-15 has no system to prevent overloading the aircraft, only warnings as the limit is approached and exceeded. The plane will let the pilot pull as much as they want until they pass out or the wings fall off. Also if you want to have more definitive testing you need to do it in full real controls. Mouse aim and the instructor can cause roll inputs which throw off results.
1 Like
If F16s are eliminated from restrictions for gaming reasons, I have no problem with restrictions for gaming reasons
It’s not that RB players don’t know how to control it, it’s that there is no way to control it
Strictly speaking, it is possible to do so by hitting the pitch down key in small increments, but it is impractical to do so in the middle of a fight.
Ideally, there should be some effort on the part of the game to allow arbitrary control of maximum G and AOA, but this does not currently exist.
5 Likes
The F-15A Has an operational limit of 7.33G
But it doesn’t
1 Like
Is there an extract from the manual?
Yes, it is 9G
3 Likes
9*1.5=13.5
2 Likes
Update on the progress of a potential F-15 HMD suggestion, found more supporting evidence if people want to follow along or help out.
Found more data on the D-1 Type Captive Test Unit, (AIM-95 surrogate), I think i should have enough to prove that Honeywell HMS was tested with the F-15.
Excerpt is from *in progress* DM's with Gunjob.
Did find this on the AIM-95 surrogate (D1 type Captive Test Unit) that was used during the testing
But I think it’s a bit ambiguous as it only directly mentions the AN/AVG-8 w/ F-14A directly[PDF page #8], though would theoretically be supported by the above excerpt.
Though there is detailed schematics for an F-15[PDF page #15 &-24] (and A-7, of which a have another primary source that confirms that the A-7 was HMS certified; the F-16 HMS study [PDF page #18]) to be fitted with the CTU, so it would follow that similar capability ?may? have been fitted to support the D-1 type seeker trials on the F-15, though as both the F-14A and A-7E are USN airframes, and the F-15 a USAF there is still some doubt, at least in my mind.
6 Likes
Do you want the overload increased or not? I’m confused now
1 Like
Here’s something from AIMVAL stating F15 (&F14) pilots used VTAS
https://web.archive.org/web/20120224090901/http://combatace.com/blog/5/entry-33-acevalaimval-lessons-learned/
3 Likes
Well looks like random numbers were just thrown at the code and named the file APG-63 for the DEV lmao.
- Ranges
-
Ingame
-
RWS HPRF - 60km for a 3m^2 target with a 160km detection limit.
-
VS HPRF - 70km for a 3m^2 target with 150km detection limit
-
MPRF- 50km for 5m^2 target with a 75km limit (Same range as F16 APG66 ingame)
-
-
In real life
-
RWS HPRF - 142km for 2m^2 target
-
VS HPRF - Higher than RWS due to less processing required to declare a hit
-
MPRF - This is where it gets tricky but I’d say 1/2 of RWS HPRF at most.
-
Hell even 1974 tests of a Pre IOC PRE-PSP APG63 TF-15A showed higher ranges than ingame LMFAO. 60km =~32Nautical miles.
I know many here dont know how this translates graphically so see it yourself, the black line is ingame max locking range which there isn’t one till 160nautical miles.
Horizontal line is Radar Cross Section in m^2 and vertical is Distance in Kilometers
-
Beamwidth
In game - 3°
In Real life - 2.5°
-
MODES
The 6°x6° ACM mode ingame is not a real thing, it doesn’t exist IRL.The 4 acm modes are
-
SuperSearch - 20°x20° automatic lock on 6 bar in MED PRF with not range limit for lock on.
-
Boresight - 500ft to 10N.M, boresights the antenna to the front. 4° circle diameter zone
-
Vertical Scan - in a 2 bar azimuth scan 7.5° in azimuth and from +5° to +45° from the fuselage reference line. Later APG-63s added 10° in verrtical, therefore upgraded to +5° to 55°
-
Gun Scan - 60° x 20° 6bar MED PRF scan.
-
-
Floodmode
This is a special thing of this plane. ITs a antenna thats just behind the main antenna, shaped as horn.
When you fire a sparrow, it guides on the main PD signal, but as the Beam Width is small, if the missile goes leads too much it will no longer be able to receive the main signal which it uses to compare the receiving signal from the target for DOPPLER and RANGING purposes. So a small antenna(Null Filling Horn) with a much lower gain( higher azimuth and elevation coverage) repeats the signal so the sparrow can follow the target.
If Track is lost or extrapoliating position(coasting) while guiding a missile ( or you fire while tracking in MPRF and the radar isn’t able to fully switch to HPRF track after 0.5s ) the Flood Horn activates and radiates the same HPRF signal to provide illumination TILL the last Time-To-Impact counter goes to 0 . Due to the lower gain, the power output/m^2 is degraded as range is effective around 8 nautical miles depending on target size.
- AIM-7F/M sparrow
It guides on the same HPRF waveform used for tracking NOT in CW. Therefore it gives the seeker the ability to lock at higher ranges**<<more power(5kW peak - 2.5kW at 50% duty ratio) output and lower beamwidth that a separate CW illuminator(200 watt)>>** and NO RWR warning. Signal is not range gated but coarse range to target is known, signal is linearly frequency modulated.
This is the CW transmitter of the APG-63 ingame
The radar switches to HPRF when launch is executed to give track information
More seeker range using PD, almost 40 nautical miles for a m^2 target. Probably a M sparrow which switched lots of solid state with just Digital signal processing reducing the signal loss.
I rose this issue a while ago, and you’ve got 2 planes in several nations now that just use this method.
Et voilà @k_stepanovich, vous avez presque tout maintenant
18 Likes
No I couldn’t find anything about it on what I have atm
1 Like
Unfortunate. Worth the try though. Thanks.
No, that was just the TF-15A. 1974 preproduction for testing
I already have an article, I was just looking for stronger supporting evidence of it since I’m yet to find any direct evidence that F-15 mounted the HMS, only circumstantial though with two primary and two secondary that support its at least a non-Zero change since they are practically a paired system for worthwhile HOBS tests.
2 Likes
It’s probably based off the 1974 TF-15A SAC, [PDF page #5] which claims 7.33G is the Design Limit Load Factor, not the Structural Limit.
1 Like