No you’re just picking out random numbers you don’t understand again. It is getting really, really, boring now.
You conveniently ignored this part of my comment:
If I say that what makes you think that you can just ignore those other multpliers? There is a reason I said it.
Also you can’t just multiply thrustMax0 by the afterburner coefficient you need to multiply it by the non-afterburner coefficient, and the various throttle and afterburner multpliers elsewhere in the file.
Nope, still doesn’t work. Still falls short of the graph. If you think it does, show us the numbers that equal out to 27,900 like in the graph for the F15A.
You have the numbers for the graph to equal exactly 27,900. I would like to see how you came to that.
It does underperform, but gaijin doesnt care
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/HGnvdjS5pu9k
In-game the F-15A produces almost 28.000Ib.
Until you know how engines work, you should stop making a fool of yourself.
The jet engine needs ram air to increase pressure and thrust.
You go by the stat card in war thunder which shows static thrust…
Please try to educate yourself, it will help you find actual bugs.
It has been proven to be underperforming. The aircraft is not able to hit the time marks at 10,000feet. If you think you can do it, then show us a video. I have already provided the data charts. If you can’t do it then I expect not to see a video or response until you can.
The only thing that is proven is that you have issues with reading comprehension…
The climb profile and climb data that you are suggesting that the F-15C/F-15A should match is the data from the F-15 Streak Eagle demonstrator. The F-15 Streak Eagle is heavily modified by removing as much weight from the plane as possible. It also carried just barely enough fuel to set climb records and that was it. It never carried weaponry and didn’t even have a radar. It also had a special arrestor device so that it could be held stationary on the runway while the engines completely spooled up so that it could start it’s takeoff role at maximum power.
War Thunder Standards. Test Beds are all you need. Case in point, the flight performance of the Yak-141 is based off an aircraft that didn’t have guns, radar, or pylons. It was a 1 off demonstration engine.
Stop trying to hold NATO to a standard you don’t hold Soviets to.
Secondly. I said 10,000ft. The Aircraft in game, when outfitted identical does not perform properly and the acceleration is half what it should be. Gaijin HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THIS.
Stop attacking forum members, who post with documentation facts. The aircraft cannot hit the time marks in its current condition at 10,000ft with the appropriate payload from the flight manual. Its wrong.
They… Have… Acknowledged… This… Meaning you are wrong.
Where is your acceleration documentation for the F-15A or the F-15C?
You don’t post documented facts. You post documentation for an entirely different airplane and then claim that one that is heavier should meet the same performance metrics.
I have already posted engine thrust graphs for both planes. Both planes have more thrust than you insist that they should.
The Devs acknowledged the engines are underperforming. So I was right.
Where?
Go back and read this thread.
They put it as not a bug 3 months ago???
The only thing they acknowledged is that they do not care about engine performance at 51,000 feet. This is something that effects all engines in the game and not just the F-15C.
This is the chart that you posted for 10,000 feet.
In-game F-15C will accelerate from Mach .4 to Mach to Mach 1.2 in 60 seconds. This is pretty much directly in-line with the chart that you posted for 10,000ft acceleration AGL and consistent with the test map having hotter than standard atmospheric conditions.
If the plane was missing 50% of its thrust it would reach Mach .83 in 60 seconds.
Guys. Hear me out. What if the F-15C’s engines do not underperform. What if it is too heavy.
You can hit 14000 kgf quite often at sea level (used that thingy, tool, WRIT or smth)
They already acknowledged the engines are underperforming. If they are going to fix them or not isn’t the point. I was right, the engines are wrong.
You claimed they are missing half of their thrust. You are straight up dead wrong as per usual. The fact that you are so consistently wrong and confused is actually a skill unto itself.
Pretty sure its this
afaik gaijin used the weight of a F-15C with CFTS mounted as the base and then adds on top of that when you add the CFTS which ends up making the aircraft significantly heavier than it should be
It should be around 12790 kg and it is 13670 kg.
BMS, DCS, multiple manuals mentioned that the empty weight of the Eagle is 12790 kg but gaijin wanted to be different so they’ve put it at 13670
Lol.
You weren’t right about a single thing you wrote in this thread including the opening post…
They didn’t acknowlegde the engines were underperforming but that after a certain altitude their game engine has limits that will affect ALL planes…
The acceleration and time to climb ingame matches your sources almost spot on when calculating for the heavier weight that you can’t take away in WT.
I really tried, but you are just an incredibly stubborn individual that adds nothing to the discussion. Talk to yourself in your own echochamber and tell yourself the F-15 has 50% less thrust if that makes you sleep better.
What an incredible waste of time this was. Have fun having everything you “claim” is correct be shut down and rejected.
