It doesn’t matter how many sources you find if you don’t actually understand the testing method.
102% engine trim =/= 100% War Thunder Thrust…
It IS a maximum thrust test…
You also seem to evade my question: Where did you see the Mach 0.54?!
Here… https://youtu.be/h7qwTmiUabY another test run, this time in reference mode, still with weaponry, still not perfect, but less harsh pulling up and as you can see the Aircraft keeps Mach 0.8 at 40K feet.
It also reaches the 39K feet from your earlier source in 1:06 seconds which is absolutely within margin of error for a plane that is nowhere near as light as the test plane…
Why are you so aggressively trying to misuse source material to make the F-15 ingame look bad? It’s nowhere near as bad and is within a 15% margin of error to a HEAVILY modified trial aircraft…
Your opening post implied the F-15 is missing “more than 50%” of it’s thrust, yet the ingame model pretty much matches the charts you posted…
It’s starting to feel a bit like that, but I am hopeful that it will click in a minute =)
He seems to be genuinely misinformed on the testing method so I see why he is so annoyed back at us, because both sides think they are right, as per usual.
I just hope the confusion get’s cleared and we get to see that either the F-15 is performing pretty close to real life or we find some areas that need some tweaking. But it’s nowhere near as drastic as OP implies…
Perfect, I see so many people come on the forums to post bug reports and their often ignored,
I hope the f15 gets more thurst, but rn its probably the best top tier aircraft
Anyone can change under the right circumstances. Maybe his day will come as well. Let’s not get to personal in this matter and instead try to bring the topic closer to him so in the future he can make better estmimates on how these things work.
If we just bash people and kick them down, they won’t have a chance of getting up and contributing like the rest. Let’s help them and give them a chance.
It’s my first conversation with OP so I am still hoping for the best and that we all end up learning something in the end =)
In my experience with internet trolls, he’ll just move on to another topic and stop responding if it looks like he can’t win the argument. Not really a you win or he wins sorta deal just an either he wins or he leaves.
I know what you mean, but he doesn’t seem to fit standard internet troll behaviour. He seems to do spend time testing, looking for sources etc.
It’s just that he seems to misinterpret what he finds and is convinced he is right. Nothing wrong with that. But at some point you need to realize you MIGHT be wrong and once you can accept that… I see light at the end of the tunnel :D
Second graph is for non afterburner. I made it easier to read, its the same test standards but not afterburner. Mach 0.9 is at 30 seconds. I did the test at 100% throttle with the correct loadout and ran 48 seconds. Mind you, this is without the CFTs because I cannot run them empty, but the graph is actually with CFTs installed.
It says +1234lbs to ad the CFTs. Then the fuel of 750 gallons so 5,025lbs. x 2. Weight for the test is 52,000lbs. Weight of the arms is 4,000lbs. = 16,518lbs. +29,960 Aircraft weight. +6,000lbs fuel (minimum load). Should get close enough.
510lbs (using the lighter Aim-120s in game). Weight is good for Aim-9M
Going to run the test with Aim-7Ms for proper weight. CFTs, and give it 110% throttle. Go full out.
Test 1 = 110% Maximum throttle. 250 KCAS to Mach 1.2 = 61 Seconds. Target Time = 40 Seconds.
Test 2 = 100% Throttle. 250KCAS to Mach 0.9 = 1:06. target Time = 30 Seconds.
Given the benefit of the doubt to throttle settings in the game, still doesn’t hit the marks. Without AB the engine is severely underpowered. Keep in mind, these target rates are for the old engine, and again we allegedly have the 2000s variant so we should be seeing MUCH better, not worse than old stock.
The test is to pull 5G straight vertical and hit Mach 0.9 at 40,000ft or its a fail. And 59 seconds is the time to match for the old aircraft. We are supposed to have the upgraded variant, not the 1970s engines. Which had as much as 25% improvement. So we should be closer to 50 seconds.
I think you might be struggling to put 2 and 2 together, so I will break this down Barney style for you.
I am also going off the flight manual. For the F15C, with CFTs, With combat missile load, With Center Pylon. At 52,000lbs. With the Non-Improved Engines.
I went ahead and ran the test at 110% in game throttle with the exact correct loadout and it missed the mark by 21 seconds.
I ran the non maximum power test with the actual correct loadout and it missed the mark by 36 seconds.
These numbers are for the old engine. We are supposed to have the new upgrade program systems. Which NASA states, showed a 25% improvement. So think of these numbers as a minimum stock aircraft number.
Lastly, the test is that you need to climb at 80 degrees, and hit 40,000ft at Mach 0.9 bare minimum, after pulling 5G straight up. If you hit that number with upgrades, its a fail because that original test was done without the future improvements we should see in the F15C.
This is your own test which says it’s at 80° at 5G’s which I tried to do, according to localhost I was in between 4.5G’s and 6.3G’s during my pull to 80°. The source doesn’t state 90°…
We are also not supposed to have the upgraded version anywhere. Because you seem to forget that the plane you are comparing it to, doesn’t carry any weapons or weapon systems and is a special test version of the plane.
We have a fully combat ready aircraft in WT.
I tested it with the F-15A in the US tree which doesn’t have all those engine improvements to my knowledge so I don’t know what you are getting at.
And you STILL evade the question of where your magic 0.54M comes from. The videos I showed you from a COMBAT aircraft, get within 15% of the time it took a SPECIALLY MODIFIED plane that is LIGHTER to reach those data points…
How is the test failed when I can get within 10-15% of a plane that is much lighter? How is the test failed when the time to climb is practically spot on?
And how exactly do you think that the plane has a pretty much matching time to climb and thrust to weight but apparently fails the acceleration test in your eyes?
So you mean to tell me, that the ingame F-15A matches the time to climb almost spot on, yet falls behind the acceleration times by 50%? How is that supposed to work given that climb almost entirely depends on the thrust of the plane?
I don’t understand your problem with the upgrades… I am using the F-15A in the tests, not the C variant. There are no engine upgrades that the A variant should have over the one in your sources.
510lbs (using the lighter Aim-120s in game).
Weight is good for Aim-9M