0 - 30000 ft. in 60+ secs. Can the F-15 Eagle do it.

[Holbeach]

It is widely reported that the real F-15 can go from brakes off to 30,000 ft in just over 1 minute.

 

Can the DCS F-15 model do the same?

 

"There is only one way to find out"!

 

"Fly-it". :pilotfly:

 

 

 

I'm doing this to try out Tacview.

 

Brakes off to 30,000 ft to brakes on time trial. 3 min. 25 sec at the time of this video.

 

.

Edited November 29, 2014 by Holbeach

[Rangi]

um, 60+ can mean anything more than 60 so yes it can do it, but yeah let us know if you can do it in game.

[Holbeach]

um, 60+ can mean anything more than 60 so yes it can do it, but yeah let us know if you can do it in game.

 

You'll have to watch the video to find out. :)

Edited November 29, 2014 by Holbeach

[Sciatis]

Pretty crazy!

[Brisse]

60+ seconds means anything between 60s and infinity so I'd have to say yes, it's possible :)

[Holbeach]

60+ seconds means anything between 60s and infinity so I'd have to say yes, it's possible :)

 

If you read the intro. it says, just over 1 minute. That narrows it down a bit.

[Holbeach]

The 1 st video is now obsolete.

 

With the aid of Tacview to analyze each flight, I've honed the technique and brought the brake to brake time down to 2 minutes 52 seconds.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Mowgli]

Think we got a newbie test pilot here :joystick:

[Holbeach]

You can shave more off that time

 

When braking on runway, pull stick towards you. You'll brake a lot faster

 

And your landing, could you try landing the same way you came up ? So without the extra go around ?

 

Good luck ! :D

 

You have to slow from Mach 1.2 to 250 kt flap speed in a very short time and high g turns are the only way to do it, so I've removed that downwind leg and replaced it with a high g spiral to be facing the threshold at under 200 kt.

 

That end of the runway is the one you look at as you come off the top, so it saves a 180 twist on the way down.

 

Time at the moment is 2 min 35 sec. :pilotfly:

 

.

[Holbeach]

The last video is now obsolete.

 

This is the last go at using Tacview as an analytic tool to improve a specific trial.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited December 1, 2014 by Holbeach

[GGTharos]

You can easily hit 30000' in 56s without running yourself out of fuel. The plane will climb great with 3500-4000lbs of fuel on-board, and leave you with enough to land with minimum required fuel.

[fitness88]

The last video is now obsolete.

 

This is the last go at using Tacview as an analytic tool to improve a specific trial.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

Nicely done!

[Holbeach]

You can easily hit 30000' in 56s without running yourself out of fuel. The plane will climb great with 3500-4000lbs of fuel on-board, and leave you with enough to land with minimum required fuel.

 

 

I prefer to land with zero fuel thereby ensuring minimum weight, giving the shortest possible landing run and the lowest possible brake to brake time.

I don't need an engine past the bottom of the dive.

But thanks for the input.

 

.

[GGTharos]

In the real plane engines out means a risk of completely loss of control, since hydraulics are directly powered by the engines.

 

The -1 directs a spool-down restart attempt on each engine in sequence if both engines stop operating.

 

A minimum RPM of 12% must be maintained to keep the emergency power generator going just to power engine instruments AND hydraulics for flight control, and that 12% RPM requires 350KIAS.

 

The JFS can generate enough hydraulic power for flight control and some emergency power, but since we're running on no fuel at all, the JFS wouldn't do squat in this case.

 

After slowing down from 350kts hydraulic pressure will drop, and the pilot is directed to eject once emergency generator power is lost and/or transients in control of the aircraft are detected, or one of the PC systems drops pressure to zero.

 

None of this is modeled, and I don't think it will be for FC3.

[Holbeach]

Thought your point was to represent the real thing.. burning all fuel is an inherent risk of death and loss of millions of taxpayer $ in the real thing and probably would never be done "on purpose".

 

just my .02

 

The 1st part is real. Comparing the game to the RL jet of zero to 30,000' of just over 1 minute, shown in the 1st vid. which is proven.

 

After that, it's a point A to point C passing B, anything goes, balls out, race to do it in the shortest time possible and using Tacview to cut that time down by analyzing the track in order to improve times. This is also how it's done in reality, with a variety of machines.

[Holbeach]

yes but the thing is they didn't do those time to climb tests with the amount of fuel you were carrying. so your test is inclusive compared to the real thing.

 

That 1st test video had more fuel on board and the engine was still running after landing. Although we don't know what "just over 1 minute" quoted by the USAF exactly means, I feel that the game F-15 closely represents the RL plane. I did about 80 runs with various fuel loads, e,g, 50% was about 65 secs.

 

My case rests.

 

.

[Holbeach]

In the real plane engines out means a risk of completely loss of control, since hydraulics are directly powered by the engines.

 

The -1 directs a spool-down restart attempt on each engine in sequence if both engines stop operating.

 

A minimum RPM of 12% must be maintained to keep the emergency power generator going just to power engine instruments AND hydraulics for flight control, and that 12% RPM requires 350KIAS.

 

The JFS can generate enough hydraulic power for flight control and some emergency power, but since we're running on no fuel at all, the JFS wouldn't do squat in this case.

 

After slowing down from 350kts hydraulic pressure will drop, and the pilot is directed to eject once emergency generator power is lost and/or transients in control of the aircraft are detected, or one of the PC systems drops pressure to zero.

 

None of this is modeled, and I don't think it will be for FC3.

 

I have added a disclaimer to all my videos.

[GGTharos]

That was just a response to pr1m4lr8ge.

 

I'm not going to tell you how to play your game or issue your challenges, I'll just provide info if someone says they want to do it 'like the real thing'. It's pretty meaningless anyway if it's not modeled in game :)

[strikeeagle]

 

The JFS can generate enough hydraulic power for flight control and some emergency power, but since we're running on no fuel at all, the JFS wouldn't do squat in this case

 

The JFS doesn't supply hyd power to flight controls. There is no way it can do this.

[GGTharos]

I cleaned up the thread, and moved the technical discussion out.

[Mike77]

I know this thread is a year old, but I really enjoyed the subject matter and your video. Great job!

 

I just came across some info that I thought I'd post about. I apologize in advance if this has already made the rounds.

 

 

Here's a link to the whole blog post at 'This Day In Aviation 26 January 1975" http://www.thisdayinaviation.com/tag/streak-eagle/

 

And a snippet from the blog post:

The flight profiles for the record attempts were developed by McDonnell Douglas Chief Experimental Test Pilot, Charles P. “Pete” Garrison (Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Air Force, Retired).

 

Streak Eagle carried only enough fuel for each specific flight, and weighed 36,709 pounds (16.650.9 kilograms). It was secured to the hold-back device on the runway and the engines were run up to full afterburner. It was released from the hold-back and was airborne in just three seconds.

 

When the F-15 reached 420 knots (777.84 kilometers per hour), the pilot pulled up into an Immelman, holding 2.65 Gs. Streak Eagle would arrive back over the air base, in level flight at about 32,000 feet (9,754 meters), but upside down.

 

Rolling up right, Streak Eagle continued accelerating to Mach 1.5 while climbing through 36,000 feet (10,973 meters). It would then accelerate to Mach 2.25 and the pilot would pull the fighter up at 4.0 Gs until it reached a 60° climb angle. He held 60° until he had to shut down the engines to prevent them from overheating in the thin high-altitude atmosphere.

 

After reaching a peak altitude, and slowing to just 55 knots, the airplane was pushed over into a 55° dive. Once below 55,000 feet (16,764 meters) the engines would be restarted and the Streak Eagle returned to land at Grand Forks.

Edited December 8, 2015 by Mike77

[Sweep]

Think someone posted the other Streak Eagle profiles recently...

 

Edit: found them!

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2572832&postcount=13

Edited December 6, 2015 by Sweep
found the streak eagle charts

[RoflSeal]

I did the bottom right one and I came up at 30,000ft at a weight of 31,921lbs (18% fuel, 0% cannon,chaff and flare) so I guess that is close enough for any flying errors since I'm not the best pilot, you basically have 500lbs of fuel left after the immelman. The aircraft had to be of been modified to strip weight of in exchange for fuel.

[DerekSpeare]

The Streak Eagle was just bare aluminum...even the paint was too much weight :)

 

http://www.pw.utc.com/News/Story/20150218-0945/2015/All%20Categories

[pr1malr8ge]

Since we are on an old thread.. I do want to state that the Strike Eagle was tethered allowing full power+AB run up before release[explosive bolts severing tether] to allow maximum acceleration from start [breaks off]. I would not doubt that this will reduce TTC by 1-3 seconds over a normal take off.