not to discredit what you’re trying to prove here but… nobody is landing at 85kias unless they attach a giant balloon to the top… landing speeds are in the 130-160kias range
For the record I agree with you, generally. Every F-15 driver i’ve talked to, including a test pilot who flew both A’s and C’s of every kind extensively, said a C model with 220’s accelerated, climbed significantly better at any altitude and airspeed than the A models with the 100’s with comparable loadouts.
I don’t know or care to research the specifics of how much its underperforming, or if its just the A models that are overperforming, but what is undeniable is that the 220’s should give the aircraft more SEP than anything fitted with 100’s.
Another interesting thing to note, if we compare thrust curves in game of other aircraft (F-16A) that use the PW-220’s and just double the thrust, and compare it against the f15C you get about a 6% thrust deficit for the eagle. And its hard to make the “channel loss” argument when you can literally see the engine blades on the eagle from the front. And it’s also got variable inlet geometry meant to optimize flow… So best case scenario, if we assume the 220’s on the F-16A are correct, and just simply double it, the eagle comes up 6% short…But it should be producing even more than the f16
1 Like
The red dots are created simply by doubling the F16A thrust… someone wanna explain that?
I didn’t know drag and thrust were the same thing.
Why do you think that the F-15C is underperforming and it’s not just the F-16A overperforming?
4 Likes
Dude
Engines will not simply double equivalent thrust do you put two of them. The F-15 has more drag, so thus it will not perform the same way as it does when you do not account for that excess drag.
2 Likes
i never mentioned comparing drag or acceleration between the f15 and f16… learn to read.
My logic is as follows…
- PW-220 we already have in game
- airplane that has it (f16) has one
- look at its thrust curve
- now double it cause err-derr f15 has two (with likely less channel loss and better pressure recovery, but we wont go there)
- analyze data
- wow, there’s a 6+% difference in THRUST values.
Conclusion. Either A) the f16 is overperforming in the thrust department or B) the f15 is underperforming
in any case… something is wrong here.
And for those that might say “6% is nothing to worry about”
Uninstall your compressor and engine modifications cause that’s about 6% and then try and tell me 6% isnt much… remember, acceleration and climb rate are related not to total power, but EXCESS power… so that 6% could be making as much as 10-15% difference.
could be. in any case, one of them is wrong. if the f16A is the problem, then it would also mean the f15A is wrong too because f15C > f15A yet its not.
Im inclined to think the f15C is being detuned here, possibly for balance.
Never cook again
You cannot say “look muh underperforming” without accounting for atmospheric density, drag, and a whole ton of other factors.
You need to account for fuel temperature too because hotter fuel is less dense.
Numbers on a chart don’t mean anything if you don’t account for everything.
1 Like
Considering that the F-15A and F-16A are documented to be overperforming in-game…I am inclined to believe that it is the opposite.
IRL the F-15A is not considered to be an especially remarkable dogfighter…yet in game the only things that come close to outshining it are basically limited to F-16A, Gripen, and planes with gimmicky low-speed performance.
F-15C flight model is probably much more accurate to IRL handling than the F-15A flight model.
2 Likes
valid point.
Impossible to say which case it is without diving into the weeds of flight manuals, which I have no desire to do. But I think we both agree somethings askew
What am I reading? Someone, please lobotomize me.
“Numbers on a chart don’t mean anything if you don’t account for everything.”
I think I read this…
“What can be, unburdened by what has been”
“My 2km wide metal beam travels at Mach 2 on paper, why doesn’t it do it in real life”.
Lmao
1 Like
We all want a 2km metal beam, it falls out of the sky though because of drag.
Any proof for this? Because the F-15 could have just worse channel losses than the F-16
2 Likes
That’s not how that works.
Engine intakes would have to be identical in order for F-15 or F-16 to be performing incorrectly to the other.
Engine intakes are different.
F-15’s are designed for >2.5 mach.
F-16’s are designed for <2 mach.
So F-15’s engine intakes are going to cause more channel losses than F-16’s.
The faster a jet goes the more channel loss [namely at subsonic speeds] will occur.
This is one of the reasons the F-14B produces less thrust than the F-16C.
So of course the F-16A’s engines should be producing more thrust as the engine intake is better designed for subsonic thrust.
2 Likes
I would like to see how you slap an extra engine onto anything without changing the fuselage.
There will be different channel losses and engine efficiency as well. What exactly is this supposed to show or achieve?
2 Likes
SidewaysCube946 is currently right,… you can’t put a number and spit on everyone if you have no clues of other factors,…
you’re the one blinding yourself, as a chart is made accounting for specifics factors.
this goes through lot of experimentations, and recording any environnemental factors
2 Likes