Oswald efficiency is the energy efficiency of the aircraft. It will be better at holding energy.
The Russians assumptions on the performance of the F-15 mean absolutely nothing. The F-15 sustained turn rate is available publicly from the TO 1F-15A, 1986.
Currently the F-15 at speeds > 0.4 mach has sustained turn rate in-line with the manual. Below 0.4 mach it is underperforming as per my bug report. The Su-27 was already performing very closely to the sustained turn rate charts and as such the bug report for that aircraft was closed.
Stop sharing misinformation based on assumptions the soviets made about a plane they didn’t operate.
I gave above an extract with the F-15 overload schedule, it shows that “The Russians assumptions” are correct.
So calm down already.
The F-15 has never outperformed the Su-27 at speeds below 1100 km/h. And there can be no talk of any competition at speeds >0.4M
No, less than 0.4 mach is incorrect… should be a bit better. Above 0.4 mach it coincides with the manual.
I’d need to look side by side at the charts but there is no reason to use a secondary source for the F-15 when a primary is available. Stop using Russian charts for American planes when the American charts are easily accessible.
1…0.4M=489.8 km/h
2…250 knots=463 km/h
3…200 knots=370.4 km/h
Su-27=50% fuel+2_R-27 (between engines)+2_R-73 (on the wingtips)…
According to this graph, at an altitude of 200 meters (steady turn) …
the Su-27 should have …
1…200 knots-16.5 degrees per second …
2…250 knots-18.5 degrees per second…
you said the missile followed the wrong path off the rail and would have hit the jet otherwise
that’s wrong, had the missile been launched slightly later and not locked on/gotten fooled by flares, it would have turned harder off the rail and probably could have hit the jet
