Damn so its flight is gonna stay brick-like. That’s disappointing.
Was there anything about the drag though because between 1250 to 1350 kmph, it seems like the engines stop outputting enough power and IAS just comes to a stop and refuses to budge without staying in a straight line for at least 5 seconds whereas the F16 comfortably accelerates past 1400 and can reach rip speed in the same time it would take the F15 to break 1380 IAS
The acceleration charts are available on google if you want to test.
Looks like it got passed as a suggestion so that’s neat.
Honestly, that’s not too bad, but I expected it to be worse than the AJ, let alone the F-16C.
It’s interesting because in the RRD thread I was told the F-15 was very competitive against the F-16 and I found that kinda surprising because I was expecting the F-15 to be more of a way better phantom, aka missile bus that uses it’s range/payload advantage to avoid close dogfights. It’s not that it can’t dogfight but it’s not supposed to beat planes designed for dogfighting?
For what it’s worth, I think it will still be competitive in both ground RB and air RB, just won’t be the best of the best when it comes to dogfighting. The J variant with the better (?) radar and AAM-3 fully modeled (dunno if it’s still placeholder) will probably be better off than the other variants even if its heavier.
Ladies and gentlemen, Bank-to-turn has passed as a suggestion.
Also just noticed Nagisei said it got passed right above me lol, got so excited seeing it I didn’t read lol.
doesn’t it have a better sustained by about 3 degrees irl?
When the F-14’s wings are in auto, in-game you can put them full forward… which you could also do irl but we don’t care about airframe fatigue.
even with forward wings i swear the 15 has a better sustained
The sustained turn rate charts are also available for the F-15.
These are the in-game values for the mentioned loads and conditions.
All of these values courtesy of tests done by @RideR2
i’ll have to check these properly later since i’m too tired, but these are relatively similar em diagrams but i do think the 15 does come out on top
Again, you could even look at the MiG-23’s but they are not with wings full forward. Doesn’t show an accurate assessment of what they can do sustained in-game.
The G limits are ignored, the performance is above what is shown in the charts for this reason. You also can’t deploy full flaps on the F-14 in real life without worrying about other issues. Also note that the F-14 chart you pulled up is for nearly 15,000 more pounds weight and ordnance than a CLEAN F-15… Even in the last chart it’s comparing a 38,500 pound F-15 to a 55,000 pound F-14A
My question is why channel loss ratio is so different and it does no follow logic bigger intake=less loss.
Spaded F-15 have almost 20% loss of thrust by this nerf while su-27 stock have only about 8%. That looks like a fraud to me and I wan’t to see exact math behind it to be sure it is not
just rise the g pull for missile which can be done in 5 minutes and missile becaomes more accurate?
Nah lets mark it as suggestion of the completely new mechanic and won’t add it for years unless any russian missile get this tech too
Okay, read about the intake losses between the two here;
Someone attached an image from an unknown powerpoint in this thread indicating installed thrust for F100. Saudi F-15C - Peace Sun VI | Key Aero
For 0 airspeed around 8 tons thrust installed (17,636 lbf, 8,000kgf)…
In-game thrust is a bit higher at ~8500kgf. It looks accurate.
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.
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
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
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
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.
