my stats in F15GE are significantly worse than my stats in F18C Late
? Literally just flew both and I’m telling you the F-16C is faster to accelerate up to speed. Even bothered to go on that statshark website and compared time-to-speed just for the lulz and it even showed what I suspected… F-16C is still faster to that speed. To put it bluntly… I can casually hit Mach 1.8 in the F-16C meanwhile I struggle to get past Mach 1.5 in a normal game and that should tell you something since 90% of the time you’re being shot at if you’re high
The only way that’s possible is if you’re bringing less fuel for the F-16C.
Because bringing the same afterburning fuel time, the F-16C will always be slower.
You can’t beat TWDR on that front.
I flew the F-16C with full tank, F-15C with 80-83%. Still much faster to accelerate
EDIT: these are all with full load outs btw (6 AMRAAM/4 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders or 6 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinders)
EDIT 2: Just did my own test, the F-16C with full fuel took ~90 seconds from 800 km/h to Mach 1.5 at 7000 meters, from the deck and climbing at 12 degrees until around 6700 meters where I started levelling off to maintain 7km altitude. The F-15C GE took 106 seconds with slightly less pitch at 10 degrees. Notably, however, it plateaus around Mach 1.08-1.10 and then slowly accelerates–a very big difference from the 800 km/h to Mach 1 acceleration which is faster than the fully fuelled F-16C. I reckon if I did this again with similar fuel values it would basically just be the same thing again
1 Like
My stats in the F-15C GE are slightly better than my stats in the 18C late, but then again I have always disliked the Hornet in general so I guess that is not strange.
1 Like
The difference shouldn’t be slightly better, it should be flat better (even considering margin of error), yet for a plane that is supposedly better on RWR, radar and high speed/height performance, the difference in raw stats gets quite thin for a supposed upgrade.
And as I mentioned earlier, I’m comparing their debut numbers, so no spading argument is valid.
While I do somewhat agree, this is also the case for other aircraft at high/top tier. So that point could get really weird.
This radar although AESA, does a lot of ghosting, spazzing and doesn’t guide amraams consistently beyond 23 miles.
2 Likes
That’s every ESA radar currently
Thats one of its only upgrades, so it kinda matters more on the Golden Eagle
4 Likes
whats the difference between it being foldered and unfoldered
Gonna jump on this real quick. Its mainly RP cost and having it not be a needed vehicle to continue the line.
Foldered vehicles have like half the rp needed to grind to unlock them more or less.
ah okay makes sense im assuming that half rp also doesnt apply to the modifications
if they just unnerfed all the f15’s then it really wouldnt be as bad of a addition and may actually be worth 14.3. no f15 ingame can reach mach 2.5 as its rated top speed its current max ingame is mach 2.36? iirc. i think they all also produce too little low end thrust especially the E but i may be wrong for the PW220 f15’s. IIRC wasnt nerfed but supposedly its not accurate and should be better in some aspect
Holy shit this sounded absurd and I thought possibly something went wrong when you were testing, so I tested every other top tier USA jet other than the harrier for obvious reasons, used a similar method, take off using only 100% thrust getting to 100 meters alt when reaching 750km/h activate afterburners and pull nose up to 12° (±1°) then once I reached 6700 regular alt level off to 0° using auto leveling for best accuracy.
all times I’ve given lee way of (±2 seconds) Instead of 1 just to be more honest based on reaction time, and time taken leveling out and going to 12°.
Layout will be jets name, fuel percentage, and armaments followed by time set image then a line break before next jet name.
Results are as follows:
F16c 100% fuel, 6 AMRAAM’s:
F16c 50% fuel, 6 AMRAAM’s:
F15c GE 80% fuel, 8 AMRAAM’s:
F15c GE 60% fuel, 8 AMRAAM’s:
F15c GE 40% fuel, 8 AMRAAM’s:
(Sidenote a Bingo warning plays a few times right before reaching the goal same for the following time.)
F15c GE 30% fuel (min), 8 AMRAAM’s:
F15a 80% fuel, 4 sparrows, and 4 aim9m’s:
F15E 100% fuel, 8 AMRAAM’s:
F15E 50% fuel, 8 AMRAAM’s:
F14B 65% fuel, 4 aim54c, 2 sparrows, and 2 aim9l’s:
(Sidenote, remembered the engines guzzling more fuel so gave it what i though would be just enough to reach that height with a bit left over.)
F18c Late 66-67% fuel, 10 AMRAAM’s, and 2 aim9m’s:
(Sidenote I had to do this one twice because I wanted to give some help and gave 65% fuel hoping that it would be enough and would be still light enough to reach the goal.
It didn’t, it reached out of bounds during the leveling out, then made it to the other side of the map nearly but the engines just before while at Mach 1.49, so went again with 66-67% fuel this does mean though after reaching the goal it ran out of fuel 10 seconds later., I wanted to kill myself after this one but knowing it was at least capable of it made me have to do this in my eyes.)
Main overview, you were right the F16c reaches Mach 1.5 while climbing to 6700-7000 alt faster at max fuel then the F15a or c at all fuel ranges wtf gaijin, how.
Also learnt that the F14’s engines are only slightly weaker than the F15E’s and it is making me thank god, that Grumman made it so godamn heavy or it would have been a UFO as well as the f15E but 3-4 years early.
Last note the f18c late sucks worse than I remembered and is probably why I forgot it and never grinded its CAS options or the AMRAAM c’s which are probably even worse for it especially, then on the F15c GE or E.
2 Likes
I can confirm after checking all fuel loadouts for the f15c GE and A with full AMRAAMS, or the 4 sparrows and 4 sidewinders against the f16c at 100% fuel and fully loaded as well, there is no fuel range where the F15 beats the F16c to his measured stats.
Which is fucking insane because for me it also doesn’t make any goddamn sense but somehow in Gaijin’s eyes it’s true, either you and me have a worse understanding of basic physics or gaijin heavily screwed something up when adding or changing the f15’s in game.
Appreciate the shout, I knew I wasn’t imagining things since when I play USA in Sim Battles it’s almost always with the F-16C and it always reaching Mach 1.7 when I wasn’t paying attention for a minute or two (totally possible since the contrail changes + having your radar off in Sim) and when I recently unlocked the GE (thus giving me an actual reason to play an F-15 in SB aside from the Strike Eagle which I use strictly for bombing) I noticed that it took ages compared to the F-16C.
Like I said/asked earlier, shouldn’t this be the opposite? I know the F-16C is fast, but I’m pretty sure the F-15C should be faster.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Honestly I’m unsure I can find any specific stats and I don’t know a way to check Gaijin’s code to see the f16c in game when compared to the f15c.
Wikipedia says the f15 has a weaker t2w then the f16, but one that’s Wikipedia, and two neither source is good or even has one.
Only proof I’ve seen for the f16 is in the Wikipedia table on t2w comparisons and that one doesn’t even have a citation yet, and says its 1.096 and is (1.23 with loaded weapons and 50% fuel which doesn’t even make fucking sense the longer you think about it.)
Edit during the writing I found the source its legitimately word for word a Facebook comment that is quoting the John Boyd book, you know one of the people who were in the fighter mafia so I take that as shit proof, and might look into getting that removed later tonight lmao.
The f15 has more trustworthy evidence than the Boyd f16 book but is also shit its stated to be 1.04 nominally loaded according to an about.com article written back in 2009 and seems to source only long gone websites and also seems to slightly change the wording of the US air force’s f15 page which has seen minimal updates since then and also gives no specific numbers outside obvious one like dimensions, weights and fuel load, but gave 0 thrust values. secondly even more concerning is Wikipedia doesn’t even have it made up either the f15 page says its 1.07, (1.26 fully loaded and 50% fuel) which would then make it better by 0.03.
Honest answer, no real info tells us I’m pretty sure the f15c t2w in real life is higher than the f16c but I cant be 100% certain and that also doesn’t determine in games stats.
Can someone please find any actual sources or provide the ones gaijin used because journeying through the archives, google and the sourced data in Wikipedia is showing that the stats are not known or are just made up by whoever the fuck they chose sometimes that’s a godamn Facebook comment
I thought my teacher was joking about bad Wikipedia data and I always assumed they were exaggerating but after today I’m realising that webpage might be a joke regarding some topics.
After doing all my research over several hours today,( I regret doping this) I’ve realised that gaijin has gone way farther than I even thought. I assumed the biggest issues would be fabricated details on 5th gens an 4.5++ and certain weapons systems, but they don’t even have safe primary sources or don’t show them for even 4th gens and main line aircraft that are 40-50 years old, this entire time I assumed their would be a primary source in the public but there isn’t we’ve already hit a point of just fucking guessing and it worries me even more now with how were rushing newer and newer jets each update.
1 Like