What is “AMIndCoeff” supposed to be?
Care to post the page in the manual where it says that?
2 Likes
Sure gimmie a minute
Airframe drag, someone correct me if I’m wrong. The engine had a similar broken curve in the early devserver and that was later fixed.
Interesting. Though then again, I imagine the F-15E had CFT in these tests. The result would probably be different without them. Ignoring the drag of the CFT, they are quite heavy even without fuel.
All in all, this seems like more of an issue that the CFTs are not producing enough drag at high mach speed.
That drag curve is weird, drag coefficient should increase sharply around mach 1 and then gradually decrease. Are you sure it’s plotted correctly?
Engines are still (dunno about last fix, but situation seems to have changed little) overperforming especially at high altitude. F-15E as I said only accelerates faster and is slightly faster at low altitude.
Refers to post just above. You can’t use a speed chart of a F-15E with CFT then apply it on a F-15E without CFT, especially at these higher mach speed.
Maybe although clean I would believe refers to no CFTs
When they have CFTs they seem to list it:
.
Also 43600 pounds with CFT is like 6-7min fuel which would be stupidly low
There are two different configuration names in the papers you gave though. Not knowledgeable enough to know exactly what they mean but yeah.
43’600 pounds with “airplane configuration - clean airplane”
and
40’000 pounds with “airplane configuration - F-15E clean”
Something certainly is different there.
Yeah the configuration names are definitely not clear. Weight difference can be just fuel, but the whole thing is confusing. Still sustained turns (aka energy retention) wise 15E is definitely clean and is not better than the 15C, so at least in that aspect it’s definitely overperforming.
I agree. The F-15E does feel slightly overtuned right now. Not by too much but still. Staying at mach ~2.2 in 7-8G turns at 10’000 meters just seems too much.
I do believe that in WT, it’s going to be the better airframe at the end of the day though. While the F-15C turns slightly better and would have a slightly higher top speed, the F-15E engines just give it the acceleration needed to reach those speeds and stay at those speeds, especially with CFT off. And honestly, in the current meta, dogfighting abilities is nowhere near as important as it was before. With 9M and R73 everywhere, yeah…
It’s overperforming by a lot:
It can sustain 7Gs only between mach 0.78 and mach 1.4 at 10000ft, above that it just can’t (and this is for everything clean minimum fuel).
At 40K feet it should never sustain more than 4Gs without losing speed.
The rocketship we have in game has nothing to do with this.
I don’t know about that, F-15C can enter a notch quicker and lose less speed doing so, much of the extra acceleration of the F-15E would be used to counter speed loss.
Imho it would probably be an F-16ADF vs F-16C situation FM wise.
2 Likes
(sidenote: I don’t like mattawg and their takes).
It’s DEFYN or bust.
1 Like
DEFYN is alright, but I watch content from mainly content creators like Willie Walrus.
1 Like
no one gonna mention how oppressive the su34 is or is it just nerf everything else again ?
Please dont cry another nation mains. Just go for it, I think we dont needed that unrealistic nerf. I have american, russian, italian, german, sweeden top tier fighter jets, but if currently 1 top tier nation is stronger then i dont cry.
The F15E has better acceleration and energy retention than the F15C in real life due to the better engines at high altitude with the same loadout/fuel.
1 Like