F-15 - share your opinions

[tflash]

The whole idea of F-15 and Su-27 is that they would be manoevrable at high altitude. Thats where all these immense control surfaces and lifting body are for. These fighters where build to fly high and prey on lower flying fighters.

 

I guess the main aspect wher Lockon is not fully enabling a "realistic" environment is that in Lockon we mostly fly the Eagle at low to medium level.

 

I do not know if the manoevrability of Eagle (and Su-27) is undermoddeled at high altitude, but 2 other factors contribute to this "to low flying habit":

 

- the F-15's radar is very bad in look-down situations in lockon, whereas in reality it was build for that purpose,

- it doens't matter in Lockon whether you shoot a missile up or down, whereas IRL this should be a very different thing.

 

I think the details are not so important and open to debate, but the fact that we learn tactics in Lockon based on medium-to-low flying whereas IRL the F-15 was build for very high-to-medium is a big departure from reality.

[Crowbar]

Form ANG F-15C Pilot: "LOMAC F-15 does not fly like real F-15"

1. Radar not modelled propertly
   
2. Weapons not modelled propertly
   
3. Flight Model inaccurate
   
4. etc...

But he really liked the HUD representation in LOMAC vs. real thing

 

Cheers :thumbup:

[britgliderpilot]

Form ANG F-15C Pilot: "LOMAC F-15 does not fly like real F-15"

1. Radar not modelled propertly
   
2. Weapons not modelled propertly
   
3. Flight Model inaccurate
   
4. etc...

But he really liked the HUD representation in LOMAC vs. real thing

 

Cheers :thumbup:

 

Radar and weapons are potentially attributable to the version of the F-15 he's flying - the early F-15 was a rather different beast to the current one electronically.

 

 

Can we get any more info as to which radar his aircraft has, and in which areas he thinks the FM is inaccurate? :)

[Crowbar]

Radar and weapons are potentially attributable to the version of the F-15 he's flying - the early F-15 was a rather different beast to the current one electronically.

 

 

Can we get any more info as to which radar his aircraft has, and in which areas he thinks the FM is inaccurate? :)

Sure Britgliderpilot,

 

I'll ask him and pass his thoughts here just gimme a day or so :poster_oops:

 

Stay tuned :)

[TucksonSonny]

Note that this is the F-15A manual.

 

It is entirely possible that the F-15C has greater static thrust (ie. non afterburning) even though the max thrust is lower, and thus might perform in exactly this manner in real life in the lower altitude regime.

 

 

This type of enhancement is what the A-10C is going to receive ... the max thrust isn't increasing, but the available thrust at a given altitude is, which will solve many problems for this aircraft.

 

I don’t know how the resemblance goes as with the F-16 but the F-16A was lighter and more maneuverable than the F-16C (wings were modified to bear more load).

On the other hand thrust is increased seriously but the engines are heavier.

[britgliderpilot]

I don’t know how the resemblance goes as with the F-16 but the F-16A was lighter and more maneuverable than the F-16C (wings were modified to bear more load).

On the other hand thrust is increased seriously but the engines are heavier.

 

Rated thrust on the -220 was actually decreased over the -100 - engine weight remained largely the same.

 

If you look at the -229, thrust increased really quite a lot, but engine weight did as well . . . . . however, that engine is only fitted to the F-15E.

 

 

The reason given was that the engine was far less susceptible to compressor stalls 'n stuff, but performance through the height may be different. Heck, we don't know . . . . . anyone know if the manuals will tell you that stuff?

[Cobra360]

The -229 fitted to the F-15E is also fitted to the Block 52 F-16s and is now being installed in the Block 42s aswell as the -220s are not powerful enough for the Block 42s heavily armed in hot weather.

[rlogue]

As far as the flight model goes, I can live with. I thing ED did a fantastic job of conveying the feeling of flight. I particulary like the "feel" of the jet while pulling in a turn. I think more important than having a perfect flight model or avionics is to model each aircraft to their strengths. For example, if the 15 is the best high altitude performer out of the modelled A/C, then just make sure that's true, if it has the best look down radar, make sure it beats the other a/c in the game. If the mig 29 flies a tighter turn than the 15, it should be so in the game. My point being to make sure they modelled the advantages of particular aircraft rather than being perfect to the numbers. I'm sure I confused you all by that ... I confused myself by that.

[GGTharos]

I know what you mean. For the most part I think the differences between performance at low altitudes are well modelled (at high altitude, it's kinda hard to tell - most WVR happens low or ends up low).

 

For example, a MiG-29 will performa quite well in a high AoA-, low speed fight, but if the 15 keeps up its speed, the 29 is toast.

 

But avionics differences aren't well modelled at this time. :(

[S77th-GOYA]

This is an F-15 speed chart posted by Yo-Yo from the ED team.

 

[GGTharos]

Thanks GOYA, good resource to look at for speed.

 

I think these guys are concerned with Ps though.

[D-Scythe]

I don’t know how the resemblance goes as with the F-16 but the F-16A was lighter and more maneuverable than the F-16C (wings were modified to bear more load).

On the other hand thrust is increased seriously but the engines are heavier.

 

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.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/GOYA_551st/F-15env2.gif

 

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?

[GGTharos]

I've reached 2.2 at some point, running away from enemies. I've certainly cruised around at 58K doing bad things to enemy aircraft ;)

[D-Scythe]

I've reached 2.2 at some point, running away from enemies. I've certainly cruised around at 58K doing bad things to enemy aircraft ;)

 

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.

[GGTharos]

It works against human opponents under the right circumstances - human factors. (It works well too, if you know they don't see you can aproach so that the shot comes in outside of RWR limits)

[Kula66]

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.

 

I regularly fly at 40k+ online and since the patch the multi-engagement ability has gone ... only thing I can do is switch to STT mode just before launch - this means no stealth shots and no multi-target ability. But trying to hold multi target tracks is impossible from up high - one of the 15s key strengths!

[Pilotasso]

I've reached 2.2 at some point, running away from enemies. I've certainly cruised around at 58K doing bad things to enemy aircraft ;)

 

Mach 2.35 one time here. It requires supersonic climb and clean config.

[S77th-GOYA]

F-15 - 1371 knots - Mach 2.386

 

MiG-29S - 1382 knots - Mach 2.406

 

Su-27 - 1330 knots - Mach 2.316

 

All speeds achieved at ~36,200 feet, clean configuration, just before all fuel consumed.

 

From an old thread. Those are the top achievable speeds at that altitude.

[Pilotasso]

I did my run at 38000, sounds about right. :)

[D-Scythe]

From an old thread. Those are the top achievable speeds at that altitude.

 

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).

 

It works against human opponents under the right circumstances - human factors. (It works well too, if you know they don't see you can aproach so that the shot comes in outside of RWR limits)

 

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.

[S77th-GOYA]

I just ran a test at 45,000 feet and 23 degrees F. 1340 knots

[D-Scythe]

I just ran a test at 45,000 feet and 23 degrees F. 1340 knots

 

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

[Pilotasso]

Well TWS works reasonably well as long as the targets keep coming at you. You can get a TWS lock at over 60 miles looking down at a target flying low at 500kts. The problem lies when they slow down and beam. And online its all too frequent. It anoying but usualy you gain advantage if you keep high and manage the situation carefully. If he insists on doing that youll get him at under 15 miles wich is usualy too late for him unless you have let him pass by after a momentaneous loss of radar contact.

[TucksonSonny]

I've reached 2.2 at some point, running away from enemies. I've certainly cruised around at 58K doing bad things to enemy aircraft ;)

 

For the joke once I was cruising back to the home plate with a clean su-27 on HL 504th server @45k+ alt speeding between Mach 2.2 and reaching Mach 2.4 in the end with almost no fuel left. The enemy was as usual flying @2000-5000m and in large numbers below me. It was a surprise for me that nobody was able to intercept me or catch up with me and some even did not notice me (I guess the alt difference and speed advantage).

I wonder why almost everyone prefers low altitude (I guess dodging/outrunning missiles in thick air is one reason)

[D-Scythe]

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.