Rainmaker

The first 2, IIRC, were due to water intrusion. The third was the fault of the aircrew performing a bad escape maneuver with an improper weapons config. Zero to do with the aircraft itself. You are still way off.

I get your point completely...and I am not against the idea of doing such things (again, no dog in the fight)...it’s just the supporting elements that you guys have been using is not really suitable at all for the argument. The instances of crashes, the charts, etc...are not related to the stance you are trying to give support to.

Dude, I’m an F-15 maintenance person by trade. Jets were physically found to have structural defects. There were others found that might have gone years/decades before any catastrophic failure happened. It was a combination of a lot of things that attributed to those. I was intimately involved in those inspections personally as I was part of the cadre that tore jets apart to inspect them. You are using instances without context. Again, you are implementing a line for something on a chart that was never intended to be used that way. You are trying to draw a line in the sand where there isn’t one. You are using the wrong charts and the wrong books for that.

BTW: Sustained turned rates are not a good way to do anything like that. Those turn charts are for sustained performance to project turn rates and capabilities of turn performance for a given airspeed/alt. Same scenario, you are improperly trying to make use of those charts for something for which that was never their intent.

A. Structural limit also deals with service life. Not X time, or X number of times, or X time past X number of times. B. The OWS system on the real jet is way more in depth than the DCS implementation. The real jet has multiple accelerometers in multiple places. ‘Mass items’ vs ‘X’ items and what exactly sees 9G (or whatever G) dictates a lot of things. The charts are extremely simplistic, again, you are using them for something, or attempting to use, for something they were never intended to be used for. There are actual books/criteria made for that purpose...we don’t in any way, use those -1 charts for anything not should they be nor was that the intent of them.

Dont have a dog in the fight here...but I can almost make a guarantee that whatever chart you are trying to use to base the argument off of, is the wrong use of said chart.

correct! seems minor, but you throw those kinds of things off...then thrust is off...then performance is off...it’s just a trickle-down effect.

It’s been a bit, and it’s anyone’s guess where my notes are, but most I believe to be related to the simplified engine modeling. I could be 100% incorrect in my assumption of that, and it could be drag, or other things. The control system, for what it’s worth, does many things very very well. It misses in few areas on things that it should do, but is far more right than it is wrong. The engine modeling, is very simplified though, which is why I think much of the problem lies there. Might be intentional, might not be in terms of thrust, but it’s lacking some of the other features like increased idles, etc that are in the real thing for stall/stag prevention, etc. Being an FC3 aircraft, and so many other projects ongoing at this point, I would say we got what we got most likely.

That is our current fight...and likely will be outside of a peer-peer conflict which is less likely IMO. Like it or not...that’s where it’s at...that’s the reality of the situation.

It hasn’t changed over the last 30+ years. It’s actually gone backwards in a sense. The mig kill, the drones we have engaged, etc...all WVR.

Yep...no official accounts of -9s being fired by -15s...none...nada.

occurred, but also a lot of fights ended WVR. The plan is hopefully to not get that point, but as history has shown, it doesnt end u that way. The last US mig shoot down was also WVR. You can it the other way, but history tends to keep repeating itself, for a myriad of different reasons.

The whole thing was recounted in a few different articles. https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/eagle-vs-foxbat-when-usaf-f-15s-dogfighted-with-iraqi-or-russian-mig-25s-during-operation-desert-storm/ Also, anyone that can use their fingers to count could take the number of mig kills the C had and subtract the number of kills with -7s and figure out that 9s were used...there’s just no convincing some people they are wrong though so...

No dude, you are just moving goal posts. First it was WVR/BVR, now it becomes specifically AIM-9s. Next it’ll be gun engagements. it’s obvious you haven’t done any actual research. Here’s your -9 engagement And one more WVR engagement just because No need to move the goal posts again as I’m not going to waste my time responding to you any longer.

When did BVR mean you have to be close enough to identify aircraft type? https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf https://media.defense.gov/2010/Sep/27/2001329817/-1/-1/0/AFD-100927-066.pdf https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/media/csis/pubs/941015lessonsgulfiv-chap06.pdf https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Airmen-at-War/Haulman-MannedAircraftLossesYugoslavia1994-1999.pdf?ver=2016-08-22-131404-383 Anything else?

They have air slots which align themselves with airflow. Fighters are a bit different than your traditional passenger aircraft for obvious reasons.

that’s an AoA probe. They are cone shaped

FWIW, every engagement I can think of over the last 30 years has ended WVR. It may have started BVR, but by the time the actual shootdown has happened, they have been in the 5-10 mile range. The only grey area fights I can think of that tip toe that line are ones at night. A lot of that is dictated by ROEs, etc so there are variables to that of course which prohibit things starting at max range of the capabilities.

Join their dischord...that came directly from Ron. Good enough for you?

Already been stated, what, at least two times now in this thread because I did it. Yes, confirmed. CFTs aren’t coming off. Not sure why you have read it and keep asking the question.

nvm...not even going down the path

You realize I am actually one of the people that has access to all the performance data, right?!? Not only FM charts but also the books that go into pretty good detail on what the differences are? What do you mean performance is different but characteristics are the same? If you mean that physics stays the same, sure? Lift is lift, drags is drag, etc. AFCS is not the same between the two for starters. Mech is. You let me know when you find C model charts with -229 motor performance...I'll wait. And no, you won’t be able remove them, in any way other than graphically, which is pretty silly IMO. RB has already said as much. The point of any comparison is moot. The C in DCS is also not accurate in all places either FWIW.

The CFTs won’t be coming off...and they alter the FM/performance a lot so there is really no comparison to be made.

No, you have a better performing E model in terms of flying. That doesnt make everything else that different any closer to one another.

The good thing is with precision weapons, there’s a lot more versatility than just using the jet to lob bombs. The bombs themselves are programmed to know how to fly a better profile to maximize range/effects. Same for things like the PWIII series weapons if ED models the different guidance modes available. They can actually pitch themselves into an arc to save you doing things with the jet to get the same results.