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.
7 Likes
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
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
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”