F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion

The only values I know of are from the suggestion post (at least for F-15J, 63.9 kN dry and 104.3 kN afterburner, each) and if those are accurate, as well as the values shown in game, then it would seem there is about ~20 kN of afterburner thrust missing from each engine as you’ve said.

Thrust data is not available to my knowledge. It was removed from appendix data.
2023-12-08 (23)

Closest thing you may get is View topic - F-15 performance changes due to engine differences • F-16.net. You have the F16C HAF perf manual which has 229 engines and you have the F15E perf manual section equipped with both PW220 and PW229s. Gotta do the math as guy did above

I believe the values from the suggestions were for the F100-PW/IHI-220(E), while the F-15J in game uses the F100-PW-100 like the F-15As.

Not quite sure if that is correct, but with -220Es mounted in some F-15Js it does mean they started out life as -100s, so I’d be surprised if it was completely wrong.

Then again the -100 values I used are from Wikipedia, which can be pretty iffy when it comes to accuracy sometimes. I hope someone with better sources can either back me up or correct me.

Also interestingly enough the Israeli F-15A has F100-PW-100 too, but with higher thrust. I wonder what that is about and if that is actually a feature of the Israeli variant.

1 Like

are you looking for this?

gaijin pls i beg

The engines on all F-15s in game are -100s, not -220s. But if you have anything about thrust of the -100 that would be really helpful.

this is from TF-15A manual

Thanks, this helps a lot!

That would be military power of 65.3kN and afterburner thrust of 106.04kN (afterburner thust I used was off by .36kN). So according to this the F-15s are really severely underperforming in engine thrust.

Maybe it will be fixed, but if not this might be worth a bug report.

note SAC manuals use uninstalled thrust

I have it. It’s PART 2 B2-1 that doesn’t show

I would probably report it anyway just so they’re aware, as we have no idea if they know. Best case they already knew and just acknowledge it, worst case they didn’t and they’ll acknowledge it or request more info.

I made a bug report here:

With just info from this post:

If others can add more documentation, that would be greatly appreciated!

EDIT: Rip, got closed as not a bug. Sounds like the numbers are intended.


Yep, usually installed thrust is around 15% less.

Not usually the case with gen4s, but for example the MiG-29 has 0.92x bench thrust static… 0.85x intake fully shut.


Sustained G is ~0.3 lower than it should be at low speeds from my testing.

Make sure you test the correct weights, looks fine to me.

Half fuel clean is what I tested.
At mach 0.32 it was only at LDF of 2.9 - 3.1, most of the time 3.0.
However, at mach 0.32 it should have 3.4G according to the chart posted by MaMoran.

Half fuel is 33,550 pounds, you’re short a significant amount of weight.
Yes, should be 3.4G at 35,000 pounds clean.

Missing 1500 pounds there, still short on G forces. Go ahead and record it so a report can be made.
We can also make a suggestion to increase thrust to 102% RPM from 97.7%.

I haven’t found where to find empty weight of vehicles in the datamined files.
I’m stuck on estimates based on known stuff.
Which on half fuel is close to 34630 pounds based on empty weight + 3040kg of fuel.

Basic weight is 27,700
Full fuel is 39,400

39,400 - 27,700 = 11,700 pounds of fuel

11,700 / 2 = 50% (5,850 pounds)
+27,700 basic weight = 33,550 pounds

Should enhance performance above 3.4G

“Half” fuel in WT is 3040kg cause there is no half fuel option, it’s 20 minutes.