look at the post above this exact one lmfao
Will it even fit inside?
they did by slightly modifying the engine bays but nothing irreversible
Do you have any proofs? Only thing I saw about -229 in F-15C was description of the igniter on dla.mil.
here’s where i picked it up originally, i need to find the actual article again though
Then they may have gotten them, I only know of ANG platforms which are commonly given better systems than their active counterparts.
F100-200 was the reliability upgrade to the -100, while the -220 is an overhaul of the platform itself. The -220E is a redesign of -100/-200 systems to the newer -220 standard.
The performance change from 100/200 to 220 is quite noticeable, especially at higher speeds as mentioned before. Overall it increased low-speed performance and consistency in thrust while also resolving issues in lifetime of the engine. It had a lot of dimensional changes for airflow passages, as well as an intricate DEECS that could mostly negate issues that would cause overheating.
They’re all interchangeable for the most part, though the -229 is different in many ways. Our F-16 Block 42s had to undergo major overhauls in 2006-2007 to allow for the 229s, and it’s a standard upgrade that’s done with dozens of other units.
3 Likes
Frankly after looking around the 200 seems to be identical thrust rating wise to the 100, and the 220 / 220E seem to have just the smallest rated thrust load reduction but a listed dynamic improvement in the total range of thrust.
In the context of WT I cant really see this having a noticeable impact gameplay wise given such intricacies don’t seem to make it into the game in most situations, that and I’m not sure the 220’s total thrust curves are even public record at this point either.
Remember too that this line of questioning was originally because the 220E was claimed as superior to the 220, which I think we can all agree is not the case.
2 Likes
What about it?
i already recognised my mistake
1 Like
Well the 200 is effectively a 100. The only notable changes were to general wear/tear parts to increased longevity, and it pretty much only changed the manufacturing process and standard as to which the parts were produced.
I can’t really be bothered to find a public figure on the 220, and god knows I don’t even want to look at it anymore after the shit I had to go through with them xD
I do indeed remember that. I also remember the claim of the F100-229 being put into F-15Cs xD
No. It requires more than just engine bay modifications. It affects the ECS system as well
1 Like
but the f15c only gets 4+4 right now, instead of the classic 6+2
how has this become an engine argument lmao
1 Like
Have you tried taking them off? Turns out ANY aircraft not carrying fuel will do better than its counterpart carrying a shitload in pods.
Yes, as part of the JHMCS program
1 Like
Of course, but there is no point in using those anyway. Still, it is the FM with the weakest engines
Then don’t use them? If you feel as if they’re useless, you can continue to use it without them. I’ll be flying around in sim with burner on for 15 minutes straight.
How is it “the FM with the weakest engines”?
In AirRB they are useless yes, that’s why I think OP’s suggestion would make them more useful and interesting, even in SIM which I don’t play, I can’t imagine why you would take those instead of grabbing some bags which you can ditch early if needed.
Because it is? It’s been bug-reported, so hopefully that gets fixed.
Then don’t use them in ARB, as said before. The only thing that I think can be used in that image would be the gun pod or additional pylons, whereas things like the rocket pod are useless as well as recon, spray tanks, buddy tanks, or cargo.
Even then, would you justify bringing the gun pod into ARB for the added weight? All of the weapon options still include the fuel tank itself at its fullest, so what do they present that is different?
Again, what has been bug reported.