I think you are mis-reading something. According to this graph 250 kts to Mach 0.9 @ 10,000 ft, with 100% throttle should take 80 seconds:
Not sure where you’re getting these numbers from.
1 Like
Yeah target time seems to be almost exactly 80 seconds, or maybe 79 seconds.
At 30 seconds target time at 100% the plane should be flying roughly 0.69M…
I really hate to break it to you. But your own source states it in literal black and white, that you are doing your testing wrong.
Are you unable to look for the target times?
At 30 seconds the plane should only be going 0.69M (roughly) from your own charts. So I don’t know why you think it should be going Mach 0.9 already after 30 seconds…
1 Like
It didn’t hit the mark. Plain and simple. The clean bird should be Mach 0.9 at 40,000ft.
I never said it should be 25% faster. I said it should kill the mark by a small amount of seconds. It absolutely should not be SLOWER than the unimproved engine times. Which it currently is. Every time trial should be noticeably beating the marks. 50 - 52 seconds is reasonable.
The same one quoted in the flight manual:
So in order to pass as working properly, I have already given the loadout, it should be performing these tests at or better than.
The F15C allegedly has the upgraded engines:
And its also underperforming quite poorly. This test I did with EXACTLY the same loadout as the flight manual. Ran the throttle at 100%. It missed the mark by 36 seconds… It only needed to reach speed in 40 seconds, but it took 1 min 6 seconds. Thats 65% slower than it should be.
Meh, made a mistake. But you are still off the mark by over 110mph. That is almost 20%. That is a failed test.
I had to make adjustments because I can’t empty the CFTs. So I computed across different charts. i also ran the test with the Model 200 engines, not the Model 100 engines, and it still failed to meet time.
I don’t know if running the test in sim mode makes a difference. I have been tinkering with maps to see if it does. Running it on different maps from test flight.
In my experience it seems that planes are generally faster in sim. Don’t know it’s that a placebo effect or not but my jh7a can’t hit Mach 1.2 on the deck in realistic.
I couldnt break Mach 1.2 in the F15C just now with CFTs. :(
… “Clean Bird” is a NON possible test in War Thunder. Please tell me how I remove the Cannon, radar and other equipment from my ingame F-15A and how I reduce my fuel below the mininum amount allowed in War Thunder…
the “CLEAN” configuration is NOT available in War Thunder…
So to say it in words you understand: Your charts and sources are worth jack shit and are non-comparable. They are trash and absolutely worthless since we can’t compare it 1 to 1. Understood?
50-52 seconds is reasonable? The time of the “CLEAN” F-15 in those tests is 59 seconds. You took 16% of that time and call it reasonable… You do understand that the F-15A ingame doesn’t have the 25% increased thrust nor does it have the reduced weight?
The achieved 67 seconds is already extremely impressive given the handicaps it has.
sigh… I am 110mph off a modified plane, without weaponry that is much lighter than the one I used in testing… the only one failing here is you my friend. :/
No. You didn’t. You completely fucked up. I don’t know how you messed up this badly, but the “targets times” you set up are nowhere near the actual times in your own chart. You basically pulled random numbers up from your butt and somehow pretend they are the goal…
The target time for your 250KCAS to M0.9 per your own graph is: 80 seconds.
The ingame model with slightly better loadouts needed 66 seconds… if anything the ingame model is performing better than in those charts…
4 Likes
So what you are saying is you completely fabricated fantasy times that you want the ingame model to achieve and ignore the actual charts?
I did a quick and dirty test:
The ingame F-15A accelerates from 250KCAS to M0.9 in 79 seconds. Which is pretty much spot in the time it should from your charts. I was however running full fuel and 3 full drop tanks (non conformal on the A model) which should perform much worse than what you tested at.
Given some of his claims (not necessarily related to this post) and his stubbornness i suggest giving up, you’re losing time buddy, if he’s so convinced about the F-15 missing 50% of its performance just let him rant and create a bug report just to be told that his sources ain’t even valid.
3 Likes
At 3K feet?
Because according to your tests with the loadout that’s shown, the F-15C is unable to break Mach 1.2 at 3K feet at a standard day.
I admire your dedication to prove a troll wrong, but unfortunately, you’ll never win an argument against someone arguing in bad faith with fantasy data.
Still, good job on those tests.
3 Likes
I am sadly inclined to agree. I really hoped he would realize his errors, but I can see he is not actually interested in learning. I will spend some quality time with my dogs and the wife and let him enjoy his make-believe numbers for now.
Maybe one day he will look back and realize it all =)
Cheers man and have a good one!
1 Like
Told ya so
1 Like
My sources are official sources.
The F15A in game actually has less thrust than the reported 27,000lbs the IRL bird had on the original 100 (not 200) engine. 18,000lbs is less than any number from any published source.
Also the difference in weight from the stock F15A to the record setting one is 2800lbs. Or 400 gallons of fuel. Which if you read the record test notes the fuel for the later attempts was increased to as much as 6,000lbs. A clean bird should still hit altitude at Mach 0.9. By the way takeoff weights varied to as much as 32,000lbs for those records. The bird we have in game is 27,400lbs I believe. Putting you within 1400lbs of the record setting bird. Shouldn’t be off by 100+mph over the weight of 2 1/2 missiles.
Failed the test in a clean config. That number isn’t the world record. I said this before. The World Record was set at 98,000ft in 207.8 seconds.
*Failed tests.
All of this completely ignores that we are using old data, from older aircraft and not accounting for the MSIP and Engine update/upgrade systems. It appears that some people cannot grasp that the game fails to meet the minimum standards for old equipment. @Markus752 you are conveniently ignoring the fact that it also failed to meet the thresh holds from the F15C manuals stats with the old engines(F100-PW-100). In game it is labeled as the new engines(F100-PW-200). In game we have according to the snail “Mid 2000s upgrade”. That upgrade includes the ADECS and DEEC upgrades (see the NASA article above) which gives you a 25% improvement over the older F100-PW-200s. So its an improved engine model of an improved engine model. That means the old time slots should be broken, not missed by this aircraft.
Now, if you can explain to me. Why an upgraded version, of a newer generation engine, should be producing less thrust, and not making the performance marks of the F15C flight manual with CFTs, Center Pylon, and Combat load I am all ears?
If you’re so convinced about what you’re saying bug report it, as simple as that.
1 Like
I already did.
Then wait for the answer.
My tests were all using the F-15A and the charts for the A.
You are so far stuck up your own “target values” that you don’t even realize what’s what.
My tests were done after the example of an F-15A. I tested it with an F-15A.
I never tested on an F-15C, never had any engine upgrades and never had the ability to get my test aircraft as light as the one in your chart.
You jump from one chart to another and mix up results.
You park your car with 1000HP you fail to realize that the in-game F-15A has a peak thrust of 28.000Ib and you still completely ignore any correction of YOUR failed tests.
You call my tests failed, yet you are the one absolutely shitting the bin and setting the dumpster on fire trying to push your agenda when it’s pretty much clear to anyone with a brain at this point that you are clearly unable to comprehend your own sources.
I would suggest taking the night to rethink your approach here, it’s usually not a good sign if everyone is collectively telling you that you are wrong.
Static thrust is irrelevant to documents that usually cite at-speed thrust.
2 Likes