D-Scythe

Yeah...I know...? Maybe I should refer to the F-15C in LOMAC as the F-15LO :p

No idea, but I'm sure Pratt and Whitney or General Electric know what they're doing. Whether they'd release such data to the public is another thing though. Furthermore, I'm sure Mav-JP and Raptor from the HFFM team, as well as ED, know what they're doing as well. There are literally hundreds of things to consider, dozens of complicated engineering formulas to solve, but I'm sure AFM and HFFM provide excellent representations of engine performance. But if the Dash 220 never actually do produce more than 20 500 lbs of thrust (number given by Swingkid) in LOMAC, that's a bit wrong. There seems to be plenty of places where the 220 produces more than 20 500 lbs in AB.

Ha, egay. Anyway, I bought the internet version of Flaming Cliffs, which you can download off the net. Otherwise, I think Ebay would be your best bet as well.

Of course. And I stated as much at the beginning of my post, as well as saying that it shouldn't be a totally accurate indication for the performance of the F-15C's F100-PW-220, especially at speeds approaching and beyond Mach 2, but they're numbers, and they look pretty. In any case, it seems that in certain regimes, even the Dash 220 can produce thrust in excess of 30 000 lbs of thrust. This is contrary to the thread that Goya quoted before, where Swingkid determined that there was little proof that the Dash 220 ever produced more than 20 500 lbs of thrust in the F-15C.

Wouldn't the engines be trimmed as such in combat though? In any case, here's the figures for the F100-PW-220 engine, taken from Falcon 4's HFFM. Taken without permission, so if these figures do show up among some of you in the future, please give full credit to the HFFM crew. Another thing, I know that the performance of the 220 on the F-16 would not be the same as the performance of the 220 on the F-15C, especially around Mach 2 and above (due to the variable inlets on the F-15C and the F-16's lack there of), but it's a good way to get a general picture of engine performance, I think. EDIT: Apologize, it's also a bit hard to read. But each number corresponds to a certain speed, and each set of numbers correspond to the indicated altitude. 19 # Number of Mach Breaks 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 # THRST2 - THRUST AT MIL POWER (THROTL = 1.00) # # Alt 0 12500 12330 12260 12290 12350 12250 12050 11501 10820 10129 9455 8873 8385 7971 7625 7342 7108 6944 6797 # # Alt 10000 9100 9100 9300 9800 9950 9870 9680 9325 8897 8475 8018 7613 7230 6917 6630 6403 6213 6037 5913 # # Alt 20000 5900 6000 6300 6750 7650 7930 7890 7675 7400 7117 6867 6646 6517 6425 6316 6283 6270 6250 6224 # # Alt 30000 3720 3840 4090 4460 5120 5575 5800 5893 6034 6111 6194 6268 6379 6438 6490 6528 6562 6650 6667 # # Alt 40000 2400 2470 2600 2840 3250 3500 3800 4182 4609 5083 5600 6054 6544 7042 7475 7910 8282 8655 8972 # # Alt 50000 1325 1400 1560 1750 2150 2400 2650 3054 3578 4103 4622 5130 5764 6266 6748 7208 7594 7940 8255 # # Alt 60000 700 750 860 975 1150 1275 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 # # Alt 100000 57 56 62 66 77 84 92 102 114 128 143 159 166 168 169 169 169 168 164 # # THRST3 - THRUST AT FULL AB (THROTL = 1.05) # # Alt 0 22200 21420 22700 24240 26000 27000 28400 31600 33500 34400 34370 33495 31925 29790 27150 23985 20560 16855 12950 # # Alt 10000 16000 15700 16860 18910 21075 22100 23319 24700 26450 28250 30100 31250 31315 30770 29495 27735 25600 23225 20690 # # Alt 20000 10950 11225 12250 13760 15975 17100 18300 19750 21150 22350 23550 24150 24425 24290 23615 22680 21425 19875 18200 # # Alt 30000 7050 7323 8154 9285 11115 12150 13400 15250 16600 17250 17850 18450 19100 19550 19650 19515 19265 18840 18355 # # Alt 40000 4350 4435 4800 5400 6250 7100 8500 10100 11700 12400 12775 13125 13500 13900 14100 14260 14405 14520 14575 # # Alt 50000 2500 2600 2835 3215 3950 4500 5057 6000 7000 7750 8000 8200 8300 8350 8400 8510 8590 8710 8850 # # Alt 60000 1350 1400 1600 1800 2200 2450 2850 3400 4000 4350 4450 4500 4750 4615 4805 4880 4885 4905 4840 # # Alt 100000 163 163 177 201 247 281 316 375 438 484 516 531 541 547 550 550 550 547 531

Yup, you guys are absolutely correct. I remember that thread, but didn't realize it was more "up-to-date". Hmm, this does seem to be a problem then.

Actually, (I don't know if I'm supposed to disclose this), but Swingkid and ED had a pretty big discussion about this during V1.2 beta testing, and in terms of climb rate at low to medium altitudes, LOMAC's F-15 matched the real F-15 to the second. Thus, even though I won't say that the F-15 isn't underpowered at low/medium altitudes, but it seems very likely that the Eagle's performance at high altitude is not quite right. It definitely seems to be underperforming at high altitudes.

Well, setting temperature to -10 degrees celsius shouldn't hurt max speed, IMO, but I'll retry my test a bit later at 5 degrees.

True, but I don't know the temperature at 13600 m in LOMAC. Since I can't remember what standard atmosphere was, and since I'm assuming that Lock On uses some sort of scaling system of temperature vs. altitude, I just set the normal temperature -10 degrees Celsius and hoped I was right. EDIT: Anyway, looked into it a bit deeper. The brick wall effect is noticeable at Mach 2.5 here as well, so the Eagle probably has enough power to go faster. Unfortunately, even in my very favourable test at 46 000 ft (where the F-15 has already established altitude and speed, and has the luxury of accelerating to flame out), LOMAC's F-15 is still over 6% slower than an F-15 with the Mach 2.5 absolute airspeed limit. The wing weapons pylons probably factor in a bit to reduce overall speed, but we in LOMAC have the luxury of starting at altitude and speed, and running our F-15 until its tanks are dry, which should make up for it somewhat. In any case, even if Mach 2.5+ is unrealistic, it still seems that LOMAC's F-15 is definitely lacking a bit in power at altitude - I'd be expecting speeds over Mach 2.4 at least.

Anyway, just did a test myself. Set temperature to -10 degrees C, altitude 13600 m (45 300ft approx), started in the air with 50% fuel, 2600 kmph (almost Mach 2.39). Ran fuel down to zero. According to this chart, I should be hitting Mach 2.5, although it would put me in the "red" zone. With 1000 lbs of fuel left, my speed was only Mach 2.34, and not accelerating.

What did the Mach meter say? Speed of sound varies with altitude, so I dunno how fast that is.

Has anyone reached even Mach 2.3 between angels 45 and 50 in an F-15? (So about 10 000ft above your recorded speeds Goya) It seems that the F-15 is topping off at a much lower altitude than it should (should be hitting Mach 2.3-5 between 40-50K). Well, TWS is still a b*tch when you're perched so high. Unfortunately, this is actually a pretty standard tactic for Eagles, from what I've heard.

I've tried that a few times, but the AIM-120/APG-63 look-down, shoot-down tag team was simply not cutting it for me. In fact, try it against the AI - it's near useless.

Not exactly. The F-16C was several thousand pounds heavier (depends on Block) than the F-16A, that's why the 16A performs so much better. The F-15A on the other hand was about the same weight as the F-15C. Too be honest, I've never even gotten the F-15C close to Mach 2.4, let alone Mach 2.5, at any temperature. And I don't think I ever get up to angels 50/45 except in some zoom climbs. Has anyone managed to ever reach Mach 2.5 at angels 45?

But the air is much, much thinner at 40+K ft than at 10K ft. Shouldn't the typical control surfaces on an airplane be much less effective as a result? Still, IMO, LOMAC's F-15 (actually, the Su-27 too, from what I remember) could use with a bit more lift and the F-15C alone a bit more thrust. In LOMAC, the F-15 seems to model the airframe speed limit as the absolute speed limit, it seems. The sluggishness should be there, I think, as well as decreased maneuverability, but the Eagle should be better off than most other fighters in this respect due to its favorable wing area (plus its body which also generates some lift) to weight ratio.

Yeah, I know, but from what I understand the F100-PW-220 in the C is not all that different from the -100 in the A in terms of engine performance, but featured much greater reliability. I know that the PW-229 in the F-15E produces (comparitively speaking) much greater performance at lower altitudes than the previous -100 and 220 engines.

The max speed is not entirely correct. Notice that the real F-15C's max speed seems to hit a brick wall at Mach 2.3+. That's because sustained periods above Mach 2.3+ may cause some structural damage to the airframe. It's an airframe limit, not a speed limit. The F-15 (in the right configuration of course) can go faster; absolute speed is certainly greater than Mach 2.4 if you extrapolate the graph a bit. Certainly, the F-15 can go faster than Mach 2.3 between 36K and 50K, and in combat, given the right circumstances (running away from MiGs, full burner, high alt) I'd imagine that there would be no qualms for an Eagle driver to make short sprints above Mach 2.3. In Lock On, between 38K and 50K, it looks to me that the F-15 is a bit underpowered. There no "brick wall" effect (which means all speeds indicated is probably absolute max speed). So the real F-15, even limited to Mach 2.3+, can fly faster than a Lock On F-15 with no limits. Conversely though, you can see that Lock On's F-15 performs better than the actual F-15 below angels 35.

Hey Thomas, is that a new AB texture in your sig? Cause it looks pretty amazing :thumbup:

So? The F-15K is more expensive than the F-15E, which is already almost 70% more expensive than the F-15C. Don't know what you're trying to get at here. And I think UAE's and Israeli F-16C Block 60s and F-16I's sold for around $80 million each. We are comparing to the current F-15C to the current F-16C now, are we not (flyway price of course, maintenance excluded)? An F-15C may have some fancy air-to-air stuff, but the fact is that F-16Cs have grown to the point that people are packing so many things into it that it's price has skyrocketed in the past decade. Even if the basic Block 40/50 series F-16C is cheaper than the F-15C, it wouldn't be by much. There is no way anyone can get 3 F-16Cs for the price of one Eagle anymore.

Okay? So how does that stop them from killing things while in a dogfight? Dogfights happen at close ranges last time I checked. Um, last time I checked, the F-15C was a $30 million dollar fighter in the late 1980s. The F-15E was about $50 million. Now the F-15C isn't being produced anymore, but a new F-15Es cost around $70-80 million a copy I think? Anyway, I don't see how an F-15C produced now would cost more than $50-60 million, which puts it below the price range of the latest F-16s.

That's where you're wrong. Firstly, I'm pretty sure if the F-15Cs were still being produced, they'd be cheaper than the latest F-16C Block 50/60s. Secondly, the F-15C's more powerful radar (and higher speed) allows it to pick up the F-16 first, which gives it a distinct advantage in combat involving multiple friendlies/enemies. They'd have more time to: ID their targets, sort through their targets, build a picture of the engagement, set up their attack, ensure mutual support, execute more complicated tactics, etc. Usually, IMO, the victor of a BVR engagement is usually decided before even the first missile is fired. And I've heard equally convincing statements from F-15 pilots that the Eagle can hold its own :thumbup: They might not cut turns as well, but so long as the Eagle pilots are max performing their jets, the performance difference is not significant enough to give an inferior pilot in a Viper a victory over an Eagle. In any case, with AIM-9X, Python 5, R-73, etc. everyone should be dying rather quickly nowadays, so dogfighting is to be avoided even if it's still practiced.

I'm pretty sure we can say somebody is wrong without calling them stupid. But that's just me. BTW, what on earth is a Class A/B/X figther? Never heard of NATO using such a system before.

The YF-23 was a damn sexy fighter :thumbup:

Looks pretty swept back to me.

I don't think so. If I'm not too lazy, I'd post an excerpt or something, but non-variable intakes didn't stop the F-16 from reaching Mach 2. The F-22A's flight envelope is limited to Mach 1.8 though - if you observe its flight envelope chart, you'd notice that it basically hits a wall at that speed. In any case, I've read it somewhere. See if I can dig it up.