Starboard side roundel is too high and now you can’t unsee it. Have a nice day!
Correct me if I’m stupid. But the F15J is based on the F15C and had the PW F100 PW 220 engines. so why does the F15J have the PW100s and not the domestic made PW 100 - 220 IHI 220s?
I cant find other official sources talking about the engines before the 2005 MSIP upgrades.
1 Like
Someone already suggested raising the G pull to simulate it and and they denied it, so this is the best we’re gonna get.
You can probably guesstimate the installed thrust here as well, looks to be 8000 - 8500 kgf.
Su-27 intake also have sharp leading edges but it’s loss is almost nothing. 8% for unspaded su-27 against more then 20% for spaded f15.
Why?
Pre-msips F-15Js used the -100 engines so this is correct
4 Likes
If you don’t want to do the math or look at the sources I can do it here for you. Sure.
There is an outlier, which is the Su-27. The F-15’s is on the higher end but in-line with the performance of other aircraft.
Teen series
Spoiler
F-14
Static (SAC): 26,950 lb-f
Installed (in-game): 22,553.289 lb-f
Difference: ~16.3%
F-15
Static (SAC): 23,840 lb-f
Installed (in-game): 18,761.34 lb-f
Difference: ~21%
F-16
Static (SAC): 23,770 lb-f
Installed (in-game): 19,841.6 lb-f
Difference: ~16.5%
vs
Soviet Fighters
Spoiler
MiG-23MLD
Static (Source): 13,000 kgf
Installed (in-game): 10,320 kgf
Difference: ~20.6%
MiG-29
Static (Source): 8,300 kgf
Installed (in-game): 6,820 kgf
Difference: ~17.8%
Su-27
Static (Source): 12,500 kgf
Installed (in-game): 12,130 kgf
Difference: ~2.9%
It is worth noting that there are other aircraft with low channel losses such as the Viggen which are similar in loss to the Su-27. The F-14A with the TF-30 had less channel losses than the later model at just ~15.4%…
The book I linked earlier describes the complex intake of the F-15 and why these losses are expected in comparison to a simpler intake like the F-16’s.
What is interesting is that the Su-27 might even be missing thrust at the top end but that requires further investigation. Thanks to @_Fantom2451 for doing some tests.
They’d have to be renamed still right, when it finally goes live?
A small correction but yes
1 Like
I still don’t get it. What lets su-27 have such small difference?
You can take a look into the intake losses charts but unless you read Russian it is very hard to read and understand the engine documentation and research books. (Something I have been trying to do to fix the MiG-29’s low end thrust). Although I am learning that it seems to be accurate, Gaijin just thinks for some reason the intakes should be more or less closed at low speed even in flight and not during takeoff.
The F-15 seems fine, though.
If you are talking about chart above it does not explain how it was achieved.
If you have anything about it I would like to read it. I can read russian.
https://handoutset.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Jet-Propulsion-A-Simple-Guide-to-the-Aerodynamic-and-Thermodynamic-Design-and-Performance-of-Jet-Engines-Nicholas-Cumpsty.pdf
@asd072
If I am not completely blind that’s just general information about engines and info about f-15\f-16. I don’t see there anything about how Saturn AL-31F engine of Su-27 achieved such efficiency of only 2.9% difference with very similar to f-15 intake.
You’re free to read the Su-27 manual describing the intake losses, in-game it is performing according to the manuals and so is the F-15. If there is a performance loss from the lack of thrust it is something we can point to, I believe someone showed the F-15 had less sustained turn rate at low speed than it should so if that’s due to a lack of installed thrust we can buff it in that way.
Without thrust charts or intake losses charts we can’t really do anything. IMO, it’s mostly accurate but needs a very small low speed buff.
@Giovanex05 @DracoMindC Either of y’all free to do testing for the F-15 sustained turn rate between 0.2 and 0.4 mach? I can just forward the materials you’re looking for right here.
So it is supposed to be only barely more maneuverable then phantom without eagle upgrade?
If 5 deg/s sustained turn rate higher than a 20 minute fuel load F-4E Phantom is “barely more maneuverable”… and with having nearly double the sustained AoA and acceleration… sure?
I am not an expert obviously but that just feels wrong
Thx for all info though
It might actually be missing thrust at low speeds, not sure how they will adjust the FM but it is missing approximately 0.5 - 1G sustained turn rate and cannot do a sustained turn at less than 0.22 mach.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/xywUJ4tRxUDO
It’s been reported, again with the help of @RideR2 and his sustained turn rate testing.
Also, a fun fact… the F-15J is 440kg heavier than the F-15A in US tech tree.
2 Likes
Also, a fun fact… the F-15J is 440kg heavier than the F-15A in US tech tree.
Is this because it’s based on the F-15C? Or is this exclusive to the F-15J?