D-Scythe

What's so bad about Walmis' model as is? Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot better than what we had before, and if I want 3 new models, then the F-15 wouldn't be one of them ;)

If you're rig can run Lock On V1.02, IMO, it shouldn't have much of a problem with FC. Honestly. All models are built with LODs so the only way it can have a noticeable effect on FPS is if you're looking at 15 of them close up on your screen (which is unlikely). If it helps, I've been doing a lot of beta testing on my laptop - 1.73 Chz Intel Mobile processor with an X300 graphics card, and it more than suffices for low settings (can crank up some parameters to "medium"). My PC, a P4 3.2 Gig, 1 Gb 533 Mhz RAM and X800XL, didn't suffer ANY performance loss from V1.1 to the current betas - I retain all my previous settings as before. Again, because of the implementation of LODs, the practical effect on performance is negligible except in certain extreme circumstances (e.g. a situation where 10 models rendered with their most detailed LOD). So basically, the sum it up - PERSONALLY speaking - the new models didn't noticeably hurt my performance until I was looking for ways for it to do so.

I'm pretty sure that nobody will be getting the F-22 anytime soon - was the ban really lifted? Last I heard it was still being disputed.

Me too - AFAIK there were no ballistic changes to the AIM-9 when production jumped from the Lima to Mike.

I can't see how any version of the R-73 has a range of 40 km. Unless it is ramjet powered, or they stuffed another 30 kg of HTPB in that body, I'm inclined to believe that this is just another example of a spec amped up by Russian companies to better sell their gear - like how they advertised the vanilla R-77 had a 100 km range.

Think you are mixing up some names. The missile you are really looking for is called Starstreak.

I thought he just meant the lethality of the weapon overall. In any case, the seeker (and the guidance computers that use it) is everything - you can literally have NO warhead but a flawless seeker and you'd STILL have the best AAM in the world. Skewering your targets with hit-to-kill missiles has been in Vogue for the last couple years.

I never said the R-73 was draggy. I simply stated that the AIM-9 is pretty sleek as well. 9 km ballistically is not that great - keep in mind when the missile is locked onto a target, the seeker isn't perfect - the missile is going to waste a LOT of energy just guiding onto a target flying a straight profile due to errors in PN (i.e. the "sidewinding" effect that ALL missiles that use PN have). And once again, in terms of the rocket motor, unless the R-73 is using a propellant that is substantially - like by orders of magnitude - more powerful and efficient than HTPB (such a thing does not exist), there is absolutely NO WAY that the R-73 can triple the range of the AIM-9M.

How on earth did you jump to that conclusion? Lethality: Seeker-wise, the technology in the R-73 is about the same as the AIM-9M. In the absence of classified information, there should be no difference in lethality between the two provided each missile is fired within their respective employment envelopes (which is much bigger for the R-73). Range: Ballistically, there is no reason to expect the R-73 flies that much further than the AIM-9. The missile certainly does NOT have 3 times the range of the Sidewinder, unless the Russians are using some super propellant that's many times more energy-efficient that HTPB. In terms of drag, the AIM-9M is not even draggy - it's drag index compares very favourably to the AIM-120 and AIM-7. WAFM would solve everyone's problems. I don't think an interim solution would be all that desirable.

And again, we AREN'T talking about the take off. IIRC, the F-15 accelerates for a while on the deck AFTER take off before it pulls up and accelerates in the vertical. The portion of the flight envelope I'm talking about is COMPLETELY different from Fox's - in his argument, increased thrust generated from increased speed is basically a non factor, since we're only talking from 0 kts to take off airspeed (less than 200 kts any way you look at it). My point is that the F-15 cannot accelerate vertically no matter what the airspeed. @ subsonic, sea level? You honestly think the extra thrust generated will not be enough to overcome any induced drag caused by the increased airspeed? We're not talking Mach 1.8 here. Parasitic drag is a non-factor. How did you make that jump in logic? Fuel economy has NOTHING to do with the argument of thrust/ram-air vs. drag. There are a billion other factors to consider for fuel economy.

Well...according to Swingkid's sources, the F-15 can enter a loop at 150 kts (sorry, I remembered it wrong, but nonetheless, it'z not possible in Lock On - well, it wasn't when I tried it, but it was a very rushed job :( ). http://forum.lockon.ru/showpost.php?p=320302&postcount=28 Regardless, this is irrelevent to our discussion. Your point that more speed = more drag is clearly false, since once again, drag induced by increased speeds in this portion of the flight envelope is largely negligible. More speed = more thrust (due to ram air effect) which is why the F100 is NOT limited to 80% of its bench thrust like Fox was saying.

At this portion of the flight envelope (ala Viking take off)? Any drag induced by increased speed is negligible. And no, I have not been able to get my Eagle to accelerate straight up - or any other energy intensive manuevers (like entering a loop at 180 kts and coming out the top faster than when I started). Of course, I didn't go all out and reduce my fuel load to 50lbs. Can you post a track?

Um, we weren't talking about thrust being produced at static/take-off. This is after the F-15 has picked up some speed and is pulling vertical? Completely different part of the flight envelope. More speed, more thrust. And, clearly, since we know for a fact that an F-15 can accelerate in the vertical, it must produce more lbs of thrust than its own lbs of weight in order to achieve such a feat. Doesn't mean that Fox was wrong and the F100-PW-220 doesn't produce less than its bench thrust when the F-15 is taking off.

Wasn't SK's point that the F-15 should be able to accelerate vertically in Lock On (because it can IRL) but cannot? Therefore, any losses in thrust have already been accounted for, simply because the real F-15 can perform such a feat. Furthermore, on the other hand, an engine may produce more thrust than its bench numbers indicate depending on the portion of the flight envelope being traversed (as I'm sure you're aware of). I think the basic point is that the F-15 doesn't seem to ever produce more than 41 000 lbs of thrust in the portion of the flight envelope associated with taking off in the various fashions. And that's clearly false.

Apparently it was pushing Mach 2.8 when the canopy started to melt. Yeah, I can't rep them enough either.

Well, it doesn't matter anyway. Even if the HFFM numbers are legit, they only apply to the F-16 - the fact that the F-15 uses a completely different, variable geometry intake changes the equation entirely.

The -229 powered F-15E can supercruise pretty easily without its CFTs and LANTIRN. And no, the Typhoon does NOT fit your definition of supercruise. It cannot break Mach without AB. Once it's supersonic, it can chop the burners and cruise along at something like Mach 1.3.

Well, my bad for dragging you through the mud, but honestly, once you got in the thick of things, I don't think anyone would believe how much I enjoy reading your posts or Rhen's. And really, I know there are a ton of other guys who feel the same way as well. You and Rhen make a solid case - besides Yo-Yo's "sweetspot" at 3050m, I don't think there is now any doubt that something's not quite right here with the Eagle's engines. I'm actually curious as to how Yo-Yo's going to respond to all of this.

I brought this up before - in the "real" top speed chart, the F-15's top speed shown (around Mach 2.3-4ish) is an airframe limit, not a performance limit - extended flight times beyond Mach 2.3 is not really friendly to the airframe. The curve literally looks like it hits a wall, with basically the F-15's envelope past that speed being truncated out. However, Lock On's curve looks like it takes it as an ACTUAL performance limit. It tops off at Mach 2.4, WITHOUT the wall. That's probably another indication of the lack of acceleration/thrust at altitude. If you take into consideration that the speed curve for the real F-15 above extends to Mach 2.5+ above, than the F-15C *severely* underperforms at altitude (specifically, between 38 - 50 000 ft).

Yeah...Rhen DID provide numbers, and they DIDN'T match. Specifically, he said that acceleration from Mach 0.83 to Mach 1.0 at 39000lbs/40000ft was off by 5 seconds (it takes 25 seconds IRL compared to 30 seconds in LOMAC). Is it possible that maybe you guys simply interpreted the Dash 1 chart wrong? If nothing else, how much can talking to Rhen hurt? :)

Kay, relax, it was a line taken straight out of the TV show House M.D. I didn't actually mean it (House did though, when he said it) - I just thought it fit perfectly. The guy's hilarious. Anyway, back on topic.

Or maybe you're some 14 year old kid who's crying for attention because daddy doesn't hug you enough. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were having a "state-the-obvious" contest - I'm competitive by nature.

Hmm, seems I have to spread more rep around...

Can you post the output of the Dash 220 in Falcon 4.0's HFFM?

That's what I thought too.