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?
Initially it was made for additional ECM pods. There is even photo from trials.
But thise pylons caused instability and other problems so wasn’t used.
New FbW and harder wing allow to reactivate them and use.
3 Likes
The pylon was not used mainly because of the observed problems with lateral stability and, to a lesser extent, because of the high wingtip stresses. The first meant great sensitivity to the aircraft’s lateral balance which the pylon made very bad with armament. Second, the F-15 does not have a movable leading edge, instead using a variable camber fixed leading edge. The wingtip is very curved and there was rapid damage and wear in this area that was worsening the pylon.
4 Likes
good thing we can sort of get this if we get F-15E 85-183 or any advanced eagle
1 Like
Yeah, i know.
F-15E 86-0183 possibly will be only with PW-220.
yeah ik but it has a bunch of cool test stuff, it has the outer pylons
@GeneralLee2000
The faster a jet goes the more channel loss at low subsonic speeds it has.
Static thrust doesn’t matter that much anyway.
@Lolman345
Gaijin’s drag is currently correct for clean aircraft. It was correct 3 years before DCS corrected their’s with the introduction of the jet Lightning.
What’s incorrect is pylons don’t have mass or drag.
Of clean loadouts.*
@BBCRF
Su-27’s flight models were changed, engine thrust has not been changed and is currently accurate to known data.
Gaijin does not change engine thrust unless it’s proven.
Su-27s don’t have low channel losses.
@kitsune_qq
F-15E can and does supercruise at its designated speed on dry thrust.
The thrust is accurate.
@quartas121
The F-15s are currently accurate in sustained, climb, and top speeds below 14000 meters.
Should be better than in game at high alt
Although the flight model has been changed, it is still far from what is needed, the thrust of the Su-27 engine is overestimated like all the others to compensate for the excessive drag.
If you think the Su-27 needs to be better than the Gripen in flight performance, I have a bridge to sell you.
The Su-27s are already meta flight models and currently don’t have “excessive drag”.
The Su-27’s engine also isn’t over-estimated.
The Su-27 is the most maneuverable aircraft of the 4th generation in the STR.