Fast pack Fuel Tanks

[wilky510]

After doing some searches on these forums, i did see some past conversations about them, but nothing for a concrete answer on them for not being in DCS.

 

Is it the same story with the R-27EA? Not enough F-15's had the plumbing done, so there wasn't a large amount of numbers of F-15's that could use them? (aka not widely used).

 

I thought they would be fun to use, especially with the AFM that could easily model the drag they gave.

[Svend_Dellepude]

I don't think conformal fuel tanks for F-15C are in operational use with USAF and that's why they don't appear in-game.

Anyway you don't want to end up in a D/F with the extra weight of those tanks. Once they get the AAR bug sorted external tanks should be a thing of the past considering the relative small world we fly in.

[DarkFire]

After doing some searches on these forums, i did see some past conversations about them, but nothing for a concrete answer on them for not being in DCS.

 

Is it the same story with the R-27EA? Not enough F-15's had the plumbing done, so there wasn't a large amount of numbers of F-15's that could use them? (aka not widely used).

 

I thought they would be fun to use, especially with the AFM that could easily model the drag they gave.

 

The official line (someone correct me if I'm, wrong) would appear to be that the Russian air force doesn't actually have any R-27EA in its inventory, hence they're not modelled in DCS. I would imagine that the same is true of the FAST packs for the F-15C as none of them seem to use them (outside of those based in Iceland) though they do seem to be standard fit on the E model.

 

It would be interesting to have the FAST packs as that would bring the Eagle's internal fuel more in line with the enormous internal capacity of the Flanker...

[GGTharos]

R-27EA died on the design board, IIRC. MAYBE there were a couple of working examples produced. Maybe.

 

As for the FAST packs, the only aircraft that actually used those (again AFAIK), were the Iceland-based eagles that were tasked with very long ranged bomber intercepts ... in which case you can basically forego maneuverability for endurance.

 

Not the case with pretty much any other F-15 scenario, including transit to an OR, since those tanks have to be mounted and removed at the depot level.

[Sierra99]

...since those tanks have to be mounted and removed at the depot level.

 

Really!. That's a new twist I've never heard. From reading old advertising documents it was presented like they were just like adding drop tanks...two guys pushing one under a wing etc. but those were advertising sooooo...

 

Just out of curiosity, can the F15E fly without the fast packs? I know the Mudhens is actually quite different from a standard Eagle. Are the tanks a "Required" option?

[mvsgas]

AFAIK, the "Fast pack" tanks are different from the CFT in the about of stores they carry, 2 for the Fast pack to 6 on the CFT ( they are older version of the CFT). There are several forums that have talk about this.

 

F-15E can fly without them but they loose 12 hard points or weapons station not to mention the amount of fuel.

 

I do not believe they are Depo level maintenance to change them, since they are removed for some maintenance, it would be impractical to have to send the aircraft to depo every time you need them off.

 

Israel's AF/ADF has used them the most outside of the E community AFAIK.

 

http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/technology/fuel-system/91-conformal-fuel-tanks

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11762

[GGTharos]

I don't think you'll catch an F-15E flying without the FAST packs. Yes they can, no they won't.

[strikeeagle]

CFT's take 15 minutes to remove and do not require depot maintenance. The tanks take about 30 minutes to install. Strike's fly to depot (at least from SJ) w/out the CFT's installed and that's about it. I know there was a demo flown years back in AK w/out the CFT's installed.

 

ZZ also used FAST packs. Israeli 15's use them today. Also, CFT's are made in Israel.

[strikeeagle]

[Wizard_03]

Well the original idea behind FAST packs was that you could swap different mission specific equipment based on the requirement in those compartments, and they were supposed to be changed on the fly hence the name.

 

 

 

One of them, although not in the list, was Rocket assisted take-off :holloween: although the whole concept was dropped for the F-15C with the exception of the CFTs which some Cs used. Then when the F-15E was designed they made them a standard feature as the E is meant for deep strikes and can use the extra range. A couple years ago Boeing wanted to make the F-15E more stealthy so they brought back the idea of internal weapons bays used in the fast pack.

[CHRISXTR3M3]

The so called F-15SE. SILENT EAGLE

 

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=844

[Wizard_03]

Yeah the Conformal weapons bay idea came from fast pack. Its too bad they dropped the SE those canted tails are snazzy! :matrix:

 

But rather then have the Fast Packs applied F-15C I think we just need a F-15E then everyone is happy! :D although the CFTs would be a cool option. Imagine how long you could fly around with CFTs and externals lol you'd never have to land.

[Sierra99]

It never occurred to me this was what they used for the silent eagle demonstrator...

[Wizard_03]

Its a little different the SEs weapons bays are integrated and non removable, I think, but I know the conceptual design was inspired from the fast pack program.

[Svend_Dellepude]

Yeah the Conformal weapons bay idea came from fast pack. Its too bad they dropped the SE those canted tails are snazzy! :matrix:

 

But rather then have the Fast Packs applied F-15C I think we just need a F-15E then everyone is happy! :D although the CFTs would be a cool option. Imagine how long you could fly around with CFTs and externals lol you'd never have to land.

 

Imagine how much you'd have to avoid enemy contact because you'd be a flying brick. :D

[Snarf]

One of the reasons they wouldn't fly without them is that they actually improve performance. By all accounts that was an unexpected side benefit.

[Wizard_03]

Imagine how much you'd have to avoid enemy contact because you'd be a flying brick. :D

good point! lol still wouldn't be that bad if you could lug a couple thousand pounds worth of JDAMs with you..:smilewink: but for the C its just a novelty, we need an E Edited June 16, 2015 by Wizard_03

[NRG-Vampire]

ZZ also used FAST packs.

 

BT, ED and AK as well, formerly, rarely

but IS Eagles used almost always

 

Edited June 16, 2015 by NRG-Vampire

[strikeeagle]

BT, ED and AK as well, formerly, rarely

but IS Eagles used almost always

 

 

 

 

 

I forgot about the others :thumbup:

[Sierra99]

Imagine how much you'd have to avoid enemy contact because you'd be a flying brick. :D

 

Why does everyone keep implying the Fast Packs have a dramaticlly adverse affect on the aircrafts performance? From all accounts, the operational impact and drag was negligible.

[NRG-Vampire]

Why does everyone keep implying the Fast Packs have a dramaticlly adverse affect on the aircrafts performance? From all accounts, the operational impact and drag was negligible.

 

probably the highest cons: Fast Pack/CFT is not droppable/jettisonable and has much more higher price tag than a basic external fuel tank

[Svend_Dellepude]

Why does everyone keep implying the Fast Packs have a dramaticlly adverse affect on the aircrafts performance? From all accounts, the operational impact and drag was negligible.

 

I wasn't refering to CFT's specificaly.

My post was a reply to a guy that wanted CFT and externals at the same time and considering the size of our current theater he would probably still have a lot of fuel onboard when encountering contact with the enemy, unless he spend all his flying time in afterburner at sea level.

Fuel ads weight and externals ads weight and drag. On top of that most fight end up WVR where you don't really want to carry more than you need.

 

CFT's only, might be an option, but again as i wrote before, once ED fix the MP bug with the tankers, considering the size of the theater, extra fuel is not really needed (unless you only fly with afterburner which many ppl tend to do online).

 

But again seeing that more squadrons seems to be using them they might be nice to have in the game an option to externals.

BTW anyone know how much fuel CFT's hold?

[DarkFire]

I wasn't refering to CFT's specificaly.

 

BTW anyone know how much fuel CFT's hold?

 

No idea how reliable this is, but apparently each CFT holds 849 US gallons of fuel:

 

http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_8.html

 

This reference is the only place that I've found that actually gives a figure for the fuel capacity. The figure seems rather high, but it's the only one I've found...

[wilky510]

I wasn't refering to CFT's specificaly.

My post was a reply to a guy that wanted CFT and externals at the same time and considering the size of our current theater he would probably still have a lot of fuel onboard when encountering contact with the enemy, unless he spend all his flying time in afterburner at sea level.

Fuel ads weight and externals ads weight and drag. On top of that most fight end up WVR where you don't really want to carry more than you need.

 

CFT's only, might be an option, but again as i wrote before, once ED fix the MP bug with the tankers, considering the size of the theater, extra fuel is not really needed (unless you only fly with afterburner which many ppl tend to do online).

 

But again seeing that more squadrons seems to be using them they might be nice to have in the game an option to externals.

BTW anyone know how much fuel CFT's hold?

I don't fly with afterburners on 24/7, only use afterburners on takeoff to climb altitude and for long range AMRAAM shots. I was more referring to getting these tanks for the newer theatres that will eventually become alot more bigger in size.

 

My post wasn't really about the fuel gain anyways. I was just simply asking a question why they aren't added. The small map thing isn't a good excuse, imo. People showing alot of squadrons using them; I just have no idea why they aren't in the game as an option then.

 

 

By the way, can they only carry AIM-7's on the CFT's?

[GGTharos]

They were used by eagles whose purpose was just to intercept bombers, no fighter threat.

 

There is writing about how they don't affect maneuverability, but all you have to do is look at the maneuver charts to see that this isn't quite true. They also affect acceleration and max speed, so if you want to do some form of flat-dash intercept they are not your friends.

 

These CFTs are not used much at all. The throttle has more settings than idle, MIL and stage 5. Fly right, you won't need CFTs.