F-15 Eagle: History, Performance & Discussion

[MiG_23M]

@FeetPics

No plane in the game over-performs it’s sustained turn rate charts by the same margins as the MiG-23 ML series and F-14 series do to my knowledge.

The MiG-23ML and F-14 do not overperform their sustained rate charts though. In all conditions where they were tested in real life - they match (close enough) in-game. Likewise, the F-16 at optimal fuel loads matches in-game… and significantly improves as weight decreases.

@FeetPics

The USSR…famous for the F-14.

If you misread let me explain further; the MiG-23 series could sweep the wings forward to nearly 16 degrees. The F-14 could not sweep its’ wings that far forward. The F-14 in real life was known to maneuver with wings full forward and has additional features that improve yaw stability characteristics over something like the MiG-23. It only makes sense that they allowed them to sweep them forward more to 33 degrees to enhance maneuverability. Even so, the F-14 was operationally limited to less than 8G’s and the MiG-23 was not. It is not unreasonable at all that they can both sweep their wings forward and exceed these limitations.

@FeetPics

And they somehow sacrificed sustained turn rate and specific excess power in the process in spite of much higher thrust to weight ratios.

That’s how swing wings work, they don’t require such high thrust to weights to achieve good sustained turn rates. You need to read into the advantages of swing wings more?

@FeetPics

someone deliberately minimum sweeping the wings at close to Mach 1.

Would you mind doing this in-game and see what sweep is achieved? Last I checked they don’t allow full forward sweep beyond what is listed in the manual.

@FeetPics

The speeds at where it can pull above its AoA limit are far below it’s best instantaneous turn speed.

That’s not true at all, with combined yaw + pitch / roll inputs the aircraft exceeds any reasonable AoA that the aircraft could handle IRL. The roll rates and pitch attitude in-game should result in immediate and severe departure from controlled flight… and yet there is no loss of control or unplanned directional changes.

@FeetPics

And yet they never tested it and limited the use of the 33 degree option to experienced pilots as the plane was harder to control at that sweep position.

This is because they do not do BFM training for all of their pilots in the same manner as the Americans. Only special pilots get this type of training at that time in the Soviet Union. With the addition of the MiG-29 and other aircraft this became more commonplace again.

@FeetPics

Traveling in a straight line is going to subject different levels of force in different areas than trying to pull extremely high G turns with the wings swept fully forward.

What is interesting is that with the MiG-23 the primary concern is not wing strength for straight line speed but the wing tip vibrations. The MiG-25 had this issue - so was operationally limited to subsonic speeds at low altitudes. Loss of roll control or unplanned maneuvers could happen as well as damage to the wing.

@FeetPics

Are we talking about the bug report that you made? As far as I am aware you just interpreted a graph and made the claim that the Gripen turns 1.435 times better than the Viggen.

No, a Gripen fighter squadron released information in regards to the Gripen but without much context. Gaijin has interpreted it as they will - but this is the best available information. They simply stated it was capable of sustaining a turn rate of 20 deg/s.

@FeetPics

The other two sources you cited contradict each other on the relationship between the Mirage 2000 and the Gripen…with one saying it turns better and one saying it turns worse.

There are multiple versions of the Mirage 2000 and the data seems to align itself with one or the other in both cases… so I don’t think there is a contradiction here. All Mirage 2000 variants we have in-game are the higher performance models. (Not the S3 and prior).

@FeetPics

The issue is with performance metrics that don’t have readily available data points that are highly suspect.

How are they suspect? You’ve done a CFD or plotted a graph showing they are an outlier somehow?

@FeetPics

The math for the Me-163 fuel consumption and thrust on low throttle settings works out to making it more efficient than the sun.

So file a bug report, I don’t think there is much of an issue here as the aircraft would hardly be usable at all otherwise. Sometimes (especially with these types of planes - since they are becoming more frequent)… it is okay to bend the rules. Other times… in the case of the F-16 for example… less obvious why it is necessary to make it overperform so badly.

@FeetPics

There is no hard evidence one way or the other.

Don’t backtrack… you are purely speculating and Gaijin is extrapolating data. Do not confuse the two.

I am going to reply once more even though I suspect it is not the correct thing to do… but let us move to the proper thread if we are going to continue this conversation about topics other than the F-15.

@wasa850

Yes, the video is nice, but in the game it is also so ?

Do you mean is the FM adjusted to accurately reflect what it does?

[Ziggy1989]

@MaMoran20

Nop, apg 63 is still based out of incorrect soviet info and intel coming out of his ass.

Sparrow still only guides on a CW signal and limited seeker range.

I see, yeah I figured he would not add any features to guide or at least maintain course when signal loss occurs but only allow additional time to pick the lock back up which is not easy without hmd.

However, I did not expect the radar to be more accurate and able to pick off lower targets with the eagle last model update. So that was a pleasant surprise. I’m sure you noticed it right?

I was thinking if the radar is to remain as is, would allowing the eagle to equip dogfight sparrows be a cool consolation? Didn’t the M have a dogfight variant or F?

[Lolman345]

Not at all my guy, the F/A-18A was the competitor to the F-16A for the light fighter program, and ended up replacing functionally the entire deck inventory of the USNs carrier fleet because the design was refined into being a second to none multirole carrier fighter. It replaced a lot of the deck space of the USN carriers including the F-14.

The US bothered with the F/A-18A because the F-15 cannot land on carriers, the F-16A exists because it is far cheaper to operate and is a major export, and the F-22A was to replace the F-15 and proved too costly to do so, but now the F-35 is replacing both the F-16 and F-15, except for the upgrade kits both of those aircraft are recieving.

So come to think of it, yes the F-15 is just that good because its still in service and still getting another upgrade package, being the F-15EX, not to mention the mudhen is unmatched and still operating without issues.

[FeetPics]

@MiG_23M

The MiG-23ML and F-14 do not overperform their sustained rate charts though. In all conditions where they were tested in real life - they match (close enough) in-game. Likewise, the F-16 at optimal fuel loads matches in-game… and significantly improves as weight decreases.

As soon as you fold the wings out to the full forward position they will over-perform.

The F-14A can maintain around 19-20 degrees per second with wings in the forward position at 5000ft with 30 minutes of fuel and 8 missiles. The EM diagram shows that it can maintain 16 degrees per second under what I understand to be similar testing conditions.

If the testing conditions are similar then the F-14 has a sustained turn rate that is 20% greater than what it was capable of in real life.

@MiG_23M

If you misread let me explain further; the MiG-23 series could sweep the wings forward to nearly 16 degrees. The F-14 could not sweep its’ wings that far forward. The F-14 in real life was known to maneuver with wings full forward and has additional features that improve yaw stability characteristics over something like the MiG-23. It only makes sense that they allowed them to sweep them forward more to 33 degrees to enhance maneuverability. Even so, the F-14 was operationally limited to less than 8G’s and the MiG-23 was not. It is not unreasonable at all that they can both sweep their wings forward and exceed these limitations.

And yet in spite of your insistence that it could sweep to 16 degrees…nobody ever did it…and nobody even considered it. Even the anecdotes about experienced MiG-23MLD pilots holding their own against inexperienced MiG-29 pilots seems to come with the caveat that the MiG-23 was using hit and run tactics…and refusing to dogfight.

@MiG_23M

How are they suspect? You’ve done a CFD or plotted a graph showing they are an outlier somehow?

Do you think the energy retention on the Gripen is accurate?

I have tested it and it out-turns everything that isn’t an F-16A…and even against the F-16A which is probably the most over-performing F-16…it is arguably just as good. I only say arguably because if the F-16 maintains perfect turn rate in SB…the Gripen will still get 2 or 3 shots in the circle before the F-16A can out-rate it.

I am not bothering with the rest of the comments because it is a waste of my time.

[MiG_23M]

@FeetPics

The F-14A can maintain around 19-20 degrees per second with wings in the forward position at 5000ft with 30 minutes of fuel and 8 missiles. The EM diagram shows that it can maintain 16 degrees per second under what I understand to be similar testing conditions.

So you said they lacked data… but if there is data please do me a favor… write a report…? What is the point complaining here if there is substance for a fix.

@FeetPics

And yet in spite of your insistence that it could sweep to 16 degrees…nobody ever did it…

Every MiG-23 pilot would have used it in 16 degree sweep at lower speeds, what are you talking about? Specifically it was set to 45 degrees per manual SOP… doesn’t mean they didn’t sweep it further forward in practice. It’s like saying not to speed on a public road… but everyone goes at least 5 over in practice.

@FeetPics

Even the anecdotes about experienced MiG-23MLD pilots holding their own against inexperienced MiG-29 pilots seems to come with the caveat that the MiG-23 was using hit and run tactics…and refusing to dogfight.

Just as in real life, I’d be using hit and run tactics on the MiG-29 in-game too. There is no winning against someone with R-73 + HMS + vastly superior WVR performances… it is worth noting the specific excess power on the MiG-29 is more than sufficient to climb away from the MiG-23 in the rate and keep him slow.

@FeetPics

Do you think the energy retention on the Gripen is accurate?

Not quite, I think due to the overperforming thrust currently.

@FeetPics

I am not bothering with the rest of the comments because it is a waste of my time.

I agree, your opinions are speculatory in nature and will not change the facts.

[FeetPics]

@MiG_23M

So you said they lacked data… but if there is data please do me a favor… write a report…? What is the point complaining here if there is substance for a fix.

Folding wings forward allows the plane to overperform by 20%…its as simple as that. The Navy never tested the plane in the same configuration as we use in game because it would damage the plane.

@MiG_23M

Every MiG-23 pilot would have used it in 16 degree sweep at lower speeds, what are you talking about? Specifically it was set to 45 degrees per manual SOP… doesn’t mean they didn’t sweep it further forward in practice. It’s like saying not to speed on a public road… but everyone goes at least 5 over in practice.

Do you have any evidence of this? Why was 45 degrees the manual SOP if going all the way down to 16 degrees is so much better? Why was it never tested at all? Where is the data?

@MiG_23M

Not quite, I think due to the overperforming thrust currently.

Lol

@MiG_23M

Just as in real life, I’d be using hit and run tactics on the MiG-29 in-game too. There is no winning against someone with R-73 + HMS + vastly superior WVR performances… it is worth noting the specific excess power on the MiG-29 is more than sufficient to climb away from the MiG-23 in the rate and keep him slow.

It really is not. Current FM 29 has to just more or less immediately go vertical and stop turning. The only place 29 ends up being better is at low speeds due to AoA which 23 just negates by forcing rate.

@MiG_23M

I agree, your opinions are speculatory in nature and will not change the facts.

Yours are also speculatory. There is no data one way or the other. I just maintain that the 23 ML variants should not be able to easily out-rate the 27 and 29.

[Mytho-GR1]

@Lolman345

The US bothered with the F/A-18A because the F-15 cannot land on carriers,

You know they could make it land on carriers if they wanted the navy were never gonna get the F15 their is reason why the F14 and F15 existed which is the air force and navy argue

[MiG_23M]

@FeetPics

Folding wings forward allows the plane to overperform by 20%…its as simple as that. The Navy never tested the plane in the same configuration as we use in game because it would damage the plane.

I don’t see any data supporting the claim of overperformance of the F-14 or F-15, they’re both some of our better ‘new’ FM’s.

@FeetPics

Yours are also speculatory. There is no data one way or the other. I just maintain that the 23 ML variants should not be able to easily out-rate the 27 and 29.

I don’t have a stance. Gaijin extrapolated data… which you merely speculate is wrong. Just your unfounded opinion.1

[wasa850]

@MiG_23M

Do you mean is the FM adjusted to accurately reflect what it does?

I was mainly referring to the visual model of the F-15 in the game.
Without moving air inlets the F-15 would not be as efficient, it’s not just the engines, it’s also the trim drag. They also have an effect on AoA, with the angled air inlets keeping the airflow over the fuselage. Still, I think the FM in the WT is probably fine. But I don’t know, I don’t have an F-15. I wonder if it can have a stable 36-38 AoA.

[MaMoran20-psn]

@Ziggy1989

I was thinking if the radar is to remain as is, would allowing the eagle to equip dogfight sparrows be a cool consolation? Didn’t the M have a dogfight variant or F?

Don’t worry about that! DEV will say soviet manual states it can fire the AIM-7E therefore the APG-63 can provide a separate CW signal for guidance despite not being able to do in real life.
F/M sparrows have lower Rmin than the E, missile/FCS calculates and sets everything.

[FeetPics]

@MiG_23M

I don’t see any data supporting the claim of overperformance of the F-14 or F-15, they’re both some of our better ‘new’ FM’s.

You can literally just look at the EM diagram and then over-perform it by 20% with wing sweep. That is fine for gameplay purposes but lets not pretend that it’s realistic. Just like we don’t have to pretend that the 45 degree AoA F-16 is realistic either.

[wasa850]

I have a question, I haven’t found the AIM-7E being used on the F-15A. It is not listed in the manuals. I would trace the AIM-7F guidance methods, but not the materials for the AIM-7E on the F-15, where are you drawing from ?

[Ziggy1989]

I know we have had our disagreements, but I do think he listens to you a lot more than it appears.

[MaMoran20-psn]

Can you rephrase the question? “Materials for 7E”?.

The apg 63, 65, and 68 use HPRF waveform to guide the sparrow( the same signal the radar uses to track). The F14 is the only teen series that can do both CW and PD. 7F and up can do both and 7E/below require CW.

[Tr0lski]

I think the E-4 was also capable of being guided with PD

[wasa850]

[quote=“MaMoran20, post:1418, topic:919, full:true”]
Can you rephrase the question? “Materials for 7E”?.

My bad, sorry.
I didn’t find that the AIM-7E was used on the F-15. I wonder where you’re getting your information about use on the F-15.

[MiG_23M]

@FeetPics

You can literally just look at the EM diagram and then over-perform it by 20% with wing sweep. That is fine for gameplay purposes but lets not pretend that it’s realistic.

The EM diagram is with full forward sweep? As I said, if you have primary information showing the performance is not accurate we can easily submit a report and it will be fixed (often within ~2 weeks of the report). I fully encourage you do so.

@FeetPics

Just like we don’t have to pretend that the 45 degree AoA F-16 is realistic either.

“We” is a stretch here as people defended that for eons.

[tripod2008]

@Tr0lski

I think the E-4 was also capable of being guided with PD

Yes the -7E-4 was, but it was only ever used by the F-14’s as training aids, all it is, is an AIM-7F seeker & autopilot mounted to the -7E’s propulsion section. Technically it probably could have been used by the F-15, but was USN only in practice.

[MaMoran20-psn]

I never said it can, could or did. Just that that the soviet manual wrongly states it can. Gotta reread the post

[Lolman345]

Please, go ahead and try to use a plane with a vastly higher approach speed and required landing length and put it onto a carrier. No the F-15 was not put on a carrier because the design was untenable for carriers, in the same vein as the purposed carrier capable F-16.

Neither airframe would be able to even remotely operate off a carrier efficiently without massive design overhauls.