Which ends up being a very thin edge to utilize, don’t forget unlike the F-16C & F-4J/S The F-15 has no HMS capability(doesn’t help that Non-Radar slaving SEAM search patterns aren’t implemented), until 2007, and would be anachronic with AIM-120 A/Bs, so aren’t an option until later or a least the implementation clarified.
And so until the Radar’s capabilities (e.g. Interleaved, Super-Scan & Flood modes, etc.) get properly modeled, things may be at least abuseable on the defensive, but it doesn’t solve any issues with BVR at least for now.
The performance delta between Sidewinders & R-73s, and Sparrows / R-27Ex’s provide no area outside gun only duels where said edge will provide to be actually usable, one would probably be better off with the F-16A due to the lower BR in most cases, and so seeing the Su-27 less frequently.
Considering how poorly the F-14A & -B have been handled I don’t have any hope for any sort of accuracy.
What do you mean the F-14 was poorly implemented, you surely don’t mean the engines that would burn themselves if they actually operated at the in-game temperature, the TCS that doesn’t do anything while it should make Sparrows unnotchable, or the radar that has a fraction of its real life capabilities and performances?
I think we can see with this that the F-14s are modeled perfectly.
Well, weaponry wise the F-15 does seem to be behind, but we’ll have to see for the dev server. I was just trying to say that flight performance wise an F-15 is basically a faster F-16A with another pretty good advantage when it comes to AoA.
The Su-27, purely flight performance wise takes away a bit of that speed and sustained turn rate for more AoA, but in the end will still be fairly balanced with the F-15 looking at pure flight performance.
Now the deciding factor for balance will depend on radar performance, HMD capability and weapon loadout, things we won’t be able to really know until the dev stream.
I’ve explained it in detail quite a few times, but essentially it is capable of flying currently at half the airspeeds it would otherwise have been capable of maneuvering. This coupled with the lack of AoA and G limits is allowing it’s flight envelope to be expanded well beyond what otherwise should be possible for the aircraft. There is no instability above 20 degrees AoA maneuvering at airspeeds as low as 90 knots.
The issue with this is that the F-16 was incapable of such things. It wasn’t a limit for safety, it was the edge of the flight envelope to begin with. 7G at 20 degrees AoA was a thing for a reason. Departure is a threat to the F-16. The deep stall or spin conditions were a significant issue even for the IAHT (increased area horizontal tail) models.
In short; The MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and others lose their distinct advantage in the one-circle against the F-16 because it currently pulls far too much AoA and isn’t punished for doing so by instability or stalls / spin conditions. There is no such instability modeled at all to begin with.
I don’t know, I’ll see ince I get home but I don’t think so. F15As were starting to be sent to Nat Guards in the 80s (F15C started production after A stopped in 1979) and were mostly in Nat Guard by the late 80s and the bulk were Cs.
No. Its 9g. There wasn’t a structural change between A and C just to allow it that I can find. It was the preliminary manual(1974)thats limited to 7.3g. F15As equipped with Pw100s could fly to 9g without issue, you can see it on the manual.