Officially it’s only Mach 1.5+ (that one image showing its dry cruise flight performance is classified and cannot be used so gaijin will probably only make it 1.5 which is the highest stated public number)
iirc there was more evidence that could still be used for 1.7+
there’s pilot statements, but other than that, I don’t think there’s anything officially claiming more than mach 1.5+
when calculate channel loss
you do not account in weight
you account in the variable intake size compare to the engine intake size
given that the F-15s intake are almost 1:1(maybe 1:1) the account of ~20% lost of thrust are simply too much
the intake side determine the performance of the actual engine thrust, not the weight → it would be a different calculation
reason why older fighter jet(or bus like F-4E) has strong engine but isnt very good as a fighter because of small intakes and obviously heavy
bigger(bigger doesnt mean better but still) intake = more air = more air more compression = more compression = more thrust
this is why modern fighters are so big and heavy but still provide enough power to be agile
also
cars n jets are different categories
car engines use air to cooldown while jet engine use air to cooldown AND produce thrust
the only part where weight matter is speed, manuverability and lift
2 Likes
From a gameplay perspective why does the amount of thrust the aircraft generates matter? All that really matters is acceleration at different speeds and altitudes. Thrust curves are generally guesswork anyways, static thrust is only valid at 0 airspeed.
Are people just looking at WTRTI or X-ray and getting upset that their engine is making 69000 kgf instead of 80085 kgf (arbitrary numbers) because immersion???
Because 1) It isn’t Russian and 2) It’s American
Therefore the Gaijin process tree in those circumstances demand artificial made up nerfs with the blanket hand waving excuse of “Game Balance”.
Simple
the issue is that the weight is correct
and T/W ratio very much matters
Okay to be fair we have the thrust losses charts for Russian engines come on, that’s not comparable. The ones for some American engines for example are export restricted so you can’t use them.
Su-27
Mig-29
I do love that logic “this thing isn’t modeled so we won’t use that”
But when something needs nerf? They will program it right away(like the leopard 2s having to lift their guns when your turn to the rear)
S.ducts are bettwr because they break the Shockwaves through their shape
no
especially because we are talking static thrust where shockwaves isnt a problem at all
Yes, it’s justified to you to give Russian jets extra thrust, but ask why the F-15E has so much channel loss and it’s hurr durr US main power trip
1 Like
Engines optimised for high speed and power, war thunder shows static installed thrust on the stat card. Will be higher at high altitude
1 Like
Most public figures are static thrust. Saying it’s optimized for higher speed and altitude makes 0 sense and doesn’t really mean anything
Theres just one example ive found once i bounced on the app, literally at the bottom of the suggested thread thing at the end of s topic.
Yes thrust to weight matters but as I said, if the acceleration times are correct, who cares?
because thrust to weight is involved in a lot more equations than just acceleration
You just tried to ping ALL 124+ of the Moderators. Did you just join the forums? Do you realize how incredibly rude that is?
EDIT: Kk, looks like you were not actually successful. But still rude, and a huge overreaction. There is a flag button on every reply. But imo, there was/is no reason to report that person you were having a conversation with. Don’t abuse the reporting system(s).
It doesnt actually ping us.
2 Likes
thats good
should still probably like ban someone if they do it too much though