D-Scythe

But the point is that real pilots have accelerated their real F-15s in the vertical.

Again, the airframe was NOT set up "specifically" for this record. Basically, stuff was taken out - it's STILL an F-15. And yes, this is a record - but you don't miss your "record" 14 000 ft in 56 seconds. The difference is just too significant to ignore. Again, we've been over this.

Eh, I think a bunch of F-15 pilots (as well as a lot of documented evidence) would disagree with that. I know, I know, you're just clearing things up ;) The charts are misleading.

Thanks for the kind words, but it still needs quite a bit of work. Also, I have like two different versions going on at once now (one for the default F-15 model). I hope the new F-15 model is resurrected, and it would be huge loss it isn't. BTW, the screens were taken with LOFC.

Can you post a track or some screens or something? Some of us tried, without success. And do you have anything comment on the issue that, although the climb performance of the F-15 in Lock On matches that of the F-15's manual, that it STILL cannot accelerate vertically when it supposedly can?

Um, most sources just simply state that BOTH the F-15C and Su-27's climb rate is >50 000ft/min. Which illustrates a good point - because the actual instantaneous climb rate is highly variable throughout all portions of the flight envelope, for each aircraft, at different configurations/fuel loads. Thus, these general climb-rate specs you find in Falcon 4's TacRef or Wikipedia are absolutely meaningless unless you just wanna whip it out, take out the yardstick and see whose tail hook is bigger.

You're NUMBERS are FAKE. Furthermore, you cannot use the performance of the Foxbat to "prove" that a) your data is correct or b) the F-15 has a low climb rate. This kind of logic is laughable. Ha-Ha-Ha laughable.

You're wasting your time. Swingkid already did what you did - and yes, Lock On in this respect was accurate to the second. However, that's irrelevant in this case. This was the response by Rhen: Full thread here: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=15815&page=7&highlight=F-15+climb+rate

Is this guy serious? Is he making up numbers? Please tell me this is just a joke and he's making up numbers.

If you're telling me...that things like counter measure dispensors (which have an outer covering on the F-15 AFAIK), flaps (which don't have to be used), the speedbrake (also, which don't have to be used) and the "joints" for these moving parts (which are aerodynamically "hidden" from causing too much drag)...cause enough drag to cut your climb rate in HALF, then I don't know what to say. It's obvious I cannot convince you otherwise - all I have is my words against yours. About your only good point was the gun - in this case, though the mass can be accounted for by reducing the fuel load, the extra drag cannot be compensated for - and I'll give you that. But there is still NO way a gun causes a difference of 14 000 ft in 56 seconds between the two climb-rates.

No.

Weight figures came from the Streak Eagle - Lock On's F-15 just had its fuel load reduced to match that. As for the exact weight the Streak Eagle and where it's available, I don't have it handy but I'm sure I can dig it up if required (or Swingkid can - it's always better to skip the middle man and just ask him). Sorry for being a prick, but it's been a long day and the fact that people keep trying to EXPLAIN to me what the Streak Eagle is like I'm some kind of idiot is grating on the nerves. I have to disagree. Enough to almost DOUBLE the climb rate? You're telling me that a couple hundred pounds of thrust and the removal of a few pylons would do that? (and yes, unless someone comes up with a Vmax thrust figure for the F100-PW-100, I'm going to assume that there are going to be no INSANE increases in thrust that would DOUBLE one's climb rate) Pretty sure I read and refuted those points already ;)

And if you read my post, you would've known that an equivalent amount of fuel on board Lock On's F-15C was removed in order match its weight with that of the Streak Eagle. Do I have a "LOSER" sign taped on my forehead? Why do people think I don't know what the Streak Eagle is or what had been done to it? Anyway, since not reading other people's post seems to be in Vogue, I will repeat my position once again - Lock On's F-15C should NOT match the Streak Eagle in climb performance even at the exact same weight (yes, it SHOULD be slower) but being outclimbed by 14 000ft in 56 seconds is RIDICULOUS.

Kay, once again, the external modifications were insignificant - there is no reason why the Streak Eagle would climb twice as fast as an F-15C at the exact same weight. They basically took some equipment out and removed some pylons. You're telling me that that will almost double your climb rate? By 14000ft in 56 seconds? Don't think so.

Do people not read? What's the point of having a forum if nobody's going to FULLY read another's post before responding to it while trying to sound smart?

Um, what? The airframe is basically the SAME - the only things that change are the antennaes, pylons, etc. It's STILL an F-15A, but a lighter. It didn't get a new wing. Pylons and flaps - okay, would they cause enough drag to cut the F-15's climb rate in half? Paint - what skin drag changes? Aircraft fly without paint all the time - prototype, LRIP, pre-production and evaluation aircraft no less. The reason the paint was removed was because it saved an extra 40 lbs. This is a weak argument. Engines - the F100-PW-100s produced like 200 lbs more thrust than the -220s. This is a weak argument as well. Furthermore, in COMBAT, the F100-PW-220 would likely be uprated also. Finally I'm STILL looking for that number - exactly how much thrust does a Vmaxed Dash 100 produce? Keep in mind, I'm not asking for Streak Eagle performance. But the fact that it climbs almost twice as fast as the F-15C in Lock On is ridiculous.

Since the other thread was about the Su-27, I'm going to start a new thread here. These are the results of Swingkid's test: As you can see, when both the Streak Eagle and LO's clean F-15C are configured at the same WEIGHTS, the Streak Eagle outclimbs the F-15C by 14 000 ft in 56 seconds - it almost gains TWICE as much altitude in the SAME timeframe. Now, the counter argument is that the Streak Eagle has maxed out F100 engines that need to be overhauled right after. Now, the question is, how much thrust do these maxed out F100s produce, and is it enough to allow the F-15A Streak Eagle to climb almost twice as fast as a normal F-15C. I think not - unless these maxed out F100s are secretely F119s, there is no way the F-15A Streak Eagle destroy an F-15C like that in climb rate.

Still looking for a number here. Exactly how much more thrust did the Streak Eagle's F100-PW-100 produce over the F100-PW-220? And would it be enough to say, allow the F-15A Streak Eagle to beat the F-15C to 20000 ft by a time in the order of minutes?

Have you any proof that the F100-PW-100s installed in the F-15A Streak Eagle provided a *significantly* different thrust output than a wartime Dash 220? Again, why not? Same airframe, same or even LESS weight (we have the liberty of reducing fuel to 100 lbs and turning on "unlimited fuel") and approximately the same thrust. Cept in LOMAC, the F-15C climbs *significantly* slower - like by minutes. Obviously this data is an approximation, but the point is, this is the BEST data we have to go on. Thus, if Lock On's F-15 can be configured the same way as the Streak Eagle - and it CAN - we should expect ROUGHLY the same performance. And when we do, Lock On's F-15C is not even in the same ballpark as the Streak Eagle. It can't even perform a proper viking take-off - the thrust provided by its -220s never seems to exceed 41 000 lbs, when in reality they are rated at almost 47 000lbs together. It's in the beta forums somewhere. It was the thread about the F-15C - I don't want violate any NDA stuff, but I'm sure you can find it if you search it.

Can you please comment on why, if we were to adjust the F-15C's weight to about the same as the Streak Eagle's weight, the time-to-climb figures are TOTALLY off? Same basic airframe, same basic engines and same weight, but the F-15C in LOMAC is horribly under-climbing in comparison. Swingkid did the tests.

No, of course. I understand that. However, my whole premise was based on the anti-tank battle - tanks are not exactly suited to mountainous terrain where such conditions (hot/high, updrafts, etc.) are prevalent. It's not unfair, because I never said that the Ka-50 as a whole was at a disadvantage ;) It certainly has the potential to materialize into a devastating attack helicopter - my main point was that in the context of a heavy SAM threat, anti-tank environment, increased speed/agility is not *that* big of a deal (although it's of course good to have). If you can't decoy/lose that Stinger or SA-19 missile and find some cover, you're screwed - it doesn't matter if you're in a Ka-50 or Chinook. IMO, the AH-64D Longbow fares extremely well in this kind of situation - it simply can direct the greatest amount of missiles onto multiple targets within a very short time frame out of any helicopter, without the need to stick around after weapon release because its weapons are fire and forget. This logic is obviously not going to hold if we consider an entirely different mission (counter-insurgency) with a different array of threats (RPGs and small arms). Then, IMO, Ka-50 is arguably more survivable than the AH-64D is. It all comes down to tactics, and with its greater power and agility, the Ka-50 simply has more things it can physically do to avoid PK and RPG fire. That's my position - I'm not saying that one helicopter is absolutely better than the other.

The Afghani's were hardly armed with anything sophisticated. The most lethal threat (small arms was arguably the "greatest" threat) was the FIM-92 Stinger missile, and those things are designed to bring down faster flying, fixed-wing birds - it's going to have no problems out-running and out-turning a Ka-50 or an Mi-26. Against tanks and other armored targets, I'd go with the more "advanced" chopper, like the Tiger or Apache (which are no slouches in terms of agility either) or a late model Ka-50/Mi-28. Conventional choppers should have no problem darting from one position to the other before popping up behind a ridge-line and lobbing a couple Hellfires at their targets. A single AH-64D can potentially eradicate an entire tank company in a heart beat with their fire-and-forget AGM-114Ls. In this respect, being more advanced is arguably more useful than being more agile, in almost every case. In lower threat environments, like Afghanistan and Baghdad, the increased speed and agility of the Ka-50 theoretically makes it more survivable. This is more difficult to put into practice, however - it's not like PKs and RPGs trip any of the early warning sensors on-board a chopper, and the pilot cannot dodge an attack if he's oblivious to it. But of course, this doesn't detract from the usefulness of having the extra speed and agility available to the pilot - it presents more tactical options/alternatives to consider, and that is always good.

I've been working on a new set of Eagle skins, with a planned release date of "soon" (probably after LOBS). It's not quite finished - still need to touch up on some USAF markings and weathering. But I am trying out a new style of getting the bird dirty, tell me what you think. Far shot: Weathering, far, top: Weathering, close, top: Weathering, close, bottom: Weathering, far, bottom: Mug shot:

Pretty sure I accounted for the increased protection against small arms that speed and agility provides ;)

All this talk about agility...in the end, does it really matter? You're in a helicopter for crying out loud - an SA-18 isn't going to care if you're an Mi-28N or Ka-50. While the extra speed/manueverability is good for dodging RPGs and small arms, you're not going to be killing tanks by dancing around in your Kamov at 300 kmph - ideally, you should be popping up from behind a ridgeline, shoot your missiles, then getting the hell out of there. And helicopter vs. helicopter battles rarely happen, and when they do, the loser usually gets speared by a Stinger or Vikhr missile 5 klicks away.