F-15E?

[falcon_120]

Does anybody know if the F-15E has the same A/A performance in comparison to the F-15C? Do they have the same maneuverability in WVR fights?

The platform by itself is as capable as the f15c in the maneuverability department. The things is, normally it will operate with a huge fuel and bombs load, so rather than a fighter is more like a bomb truck. And secondly, their crews are not specialized in A2A as f15c crews which make their performance worse. But this does not mean they are bad, just not so trained in that specific role.

 

But an empty f15e(or with only a2a missiles) with 50% fuel is as good dogfighter as an f15c

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[Rainmaker]

Does anybody know if the F-15E has the same A/A performance in comparison to the F-15C? Do they have the same maneuverability in WVR fights?

 

A lot of extra weigtt, lot of extra drag, different radar, gun rounds count is lower...not really all that close but can still holds it own depending on the scenario.

 

You can slim it down, dump the CFTs, etc...but with both in a combat config they aren’t really equal when it gets to the knife fight.

 

The -229 motors can close that gap a little bit, but again, they are still not really all that close.

[Eagle7907]

I can tell you from a 1st person experience, the AdA actual pilots of the Mirage 2000C actual complain is about something NO ONE complained (I wont say it, leave that to DCS M2000C experts) and the complain is about the procedure we used instead of it's functionality.

And about some other complains by the community? well, some stuff (switches) in the cockpit are not even pilot intended but ground crew intended, and yes, the complain is about those not being implemented.

About Harrier functionality, did you know that the NATOPS/manual hanging around freely in the internet actually has almost NOTHING to do with the version we did for DCS? it's mostly DAY ATTACK version (phased out long time ago) but only a REAL USMC AV-8B pilot can tell, so the so called Harrier Bible being used in RAZBAM inquisition is actually..well...obsolete.

We do know since we do have real, very much in active, AV-8B pilots testing the module.

And now about bugs, functionality and stuff "unfinished", DCS is a continuously evolving simulation, some stuff is "there" some stuff is simply "not there" yet and some is there but not fully implemented until the next iteration of DCS arrives, the most notorious might be A/G radar, some thing work today, tomorrow they wont (hence the coming and going bugs), we take the blame and find the solution (because something was changed in the code) but the bottom line is that this means that DCS is alive, always changing and evolving and we have to deal with it and constantly adapting, that's why we keep working with the M2000C (which is officially complete) and the Harrier being finished up. I love DCS, love the development mechanics behind it and i praise Eagle Dynamics for what they are doing.

F-15E is a go, Mig-23 is a go, A-29 is a go, and some others that i simply can't talk freely due to my OWN policies. It has been said and explained ad nauseam our work flow, there is a very capable team, in all fronts. I could fill pages with tech stuff taken from the real world, pictures and stuff and explain to you how it works...in real life, but this is not REAL aircraft development, nor actual avionics or flight instruments, while in real world you have to work with navigational algorithms, in software development is as clear as if alingnementTime <= 4 then Pos = Pos + random; else Pos = Pos(this is not an actual code line) and then the DCS engine handles the rest, this is where we have to work hand in hand with ED(which is phenomenal in this department) . But these lines of code are not going to write themselves, it has to be done manually and that takes time (hence our silence), yes silence means we are working.

So there you have it, I'm telling you what most are not willing to tell you, but those in the know (and i know there are software developers being DCS fans) know exactly what i mean.

Now i will step down from this soap box and be quiet again, since there is a lot happening and yes, some of these guys actually work in Sundays.

Best regards

 

 

Ron Zambrano

RAZBAM Simulations, LLC

Owner & Founder

 

 

 

Nice write up. I don’t have any doubts about the professionalism of this outfit. I’ve been waiting a loooong time for this bird of destruction and RAZBAM continues to deliver. Keep up the great work guys(gals).

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[SDsc0rch]

A lot of extra weigtt, lot of extra drag, different radar, gun rounds count is lower...not really all that close but can still holds it own depending on the scenario.

 

You can slim it down, dump the CFTs, etc...but with both in a combat config they aren’t really equal when it gets to the knife fight.

 

The -229 motors can close that gap a little bit, but again, they are still not really all that close.

 

THIS

[Haukka81]

When you talk about nice intro and music:

 

Janes F-15E was great, so much immersion and really good radio traffic.

 

Its about 8 years since i last time played janes f-15 desert storm campaing.

 

I will buy F-15E module even if it costs 1000e

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jojo]

Does anybody know if the F-15E has the same A/A performance in comparison to the F-15C? Do they have the same maneuverability in WVR fights?

 

The CFT will add weight and drag. Striped down of AG stuff it will be close to F-15C.

 

Otherwise the weapon system is as capable in AA department.

We can even hope to have better radar with more function than FC3 F-15C.

Edited June 26, 2018 by jojo

[Vladinsky]

About Harrier functionality, did you know that the NATOPS/manual hanging around freely in the internet actually has almost NOTHING to do with the version we did for DCS? it's mostly DAY ATTACK version (phased out long time ago) but only a REAL USMC AV-8B pilot can tell, so the so called Harrier Bible being used in RAZBAM inquisition is actually..well...obsolete.

 

Out of curiosity, how recent is the harrier variant being modeled? You say that the NATOPS is vastly outdated when the most recent one available is from 2011 with the TACMANs from the early 2000s. So presumably what we're getting is more or less what's in service right now?

[TLTeo]

Per wikipedia the Strike Eagle weights about ~10% more than an empty Eagle so it definitely won't turn as well; the engines may make up for it a bit but all in all I would expect it to be worse WVR. It's probably still pretty good when compared to many fighters though.

 

 

Out of curiosity, how recent is the harrier variant being modeled? You say that the NATOPS is vastly outdated when the most recent one available is from 2011 with the TACMANs from the early 2000s. So presumably what we're getting is more or less what's in service right now?

 

 

 

My understanding of it is that the US Harrier IIs basically have three versions:

- the original day attack version, which entered service in the mid 80s

- the night attack version, which we have in-game, was an upgrade over the first one that started in the early 90s

- the Harrier Plus variant which is the most modern, comes with different sensors including radar, AMRAAM capability, and a bunch more stuff.

 

 

If the manual Prowler is mentioning refers to the day attack version it's definitely outdated compared to what is in DCS.

Edited June 26, 2018 by TLTeo

[SDsc0rch]

the big bulbous canopy also has an effect on performance

[TLTeo]

Yea but to me that's more hand-wavy than "weights 10% more and has the same amounts of lift available"

[Vladinsky]

If the manual Prowler is mentioning refers to the day attack version it's definitely outdated compared to what is in DCS.

 

That's what has me confused because I've got five manuals going into great detail on the night attack and radar aircraft that barely mentions the day attack.

 

I haven't even been able to find a day attack manual, I'm sure it would make for an interesting read.

 

But on topic, the CFTs have some other interesting effects.

[Rainmaker]

Yea but to me that's more hand-wavy than "weights 10% more and has the same amounts of lift available"

 

CFTs are said to generate more lift which can in theory create more pitch authority, but also generate more drag/weight.

[TLTeo]

Uh, that's very interesting, I didn't know.

[Emilio_Ger]

I listened to a podcast with an eagle driver some time ago. He flew both Charlie and Echo Eagle and said, that the manouverabilty was overally worse on the Strike Eagle. Main difference was worse sustained turn performance. But the podcast wasn’t to technical so I don’t know whether that’s entirely true... and it was some time ago

[SinusoidDelta]

Here’s why I’m praying for -229’s:megalol:

 

 

Source

 

[Level flight acceleration at 40,000 ft]

Edited June 26, 2018 by SinusoidDelta

[SinusoidDelta]

CFTs are said to generate more lift which can in theory create more pitch authority, but also generate more drag/weight.

 

CFT’s generate an increased pitching moment at all angles of attack.

 

The increased drag and weight results in decreased specific excess power compared to the non-cft aircraft. Thrust was increased on the E models for this reason.

 

 

Still, the Strike Eagle’s turn performance is a few degrees lower than the light grey throughout the envelope.

[blkspade]

I'd be interested to know if they'll model it both with and without the CFTs.

[Texac]

I'd be interested to know if they'll model it both with and without the CFTs.

 

Usually USAF Strike Eagles don't fly without pylons or CFT's, it would still be interesting if we were able to remove both of these.

 

However, looking at other RAZBAM modules, they tend to aim for realistic loadouts, so I doubt they would allow the removal of the CFT's.

[GGTharos]

The F-15C is superior in all air combat aspects. The nose moves faster, it accelerates faster in most cases (and when it doesn't, it probably ends up having more play time) and it has better all around stability/departure resistance AFAIK. The latter basically leads to better high AoA control, so it owns the slow speed fight as well.

 

 

The beagle most likely has its own tricks, but the C is the air to air machine.

 

 

 

CFTs are said to generate more lift which can in theory create more pitch authority, but also generate more drag/weight.

Edited June 27, 2018 by GGTharos

[HawkDCS]

Is this going to be full fidelity?

 

If so its a dream come true. Grew up flying Janes F-15 and Janes F/A-18 on JCN and HL. To have these in full fidelity would be crazy in a modern sim.

Edited June 27, 2018 by HawkDCS

[SDsc0rch]

that is the stated intention

[Rainmaker]

CFT’s generate an increased pitching moment at all angles of attack.

 

The increased drag and weight results in decreased specific excess power compared to the non-cft aircraft. Thrust was increased on the E models for this reason.

 

Still, the Strike Eagle’s turn performance is a few degrees lower than the light grey throughout the envelope.

 

 

The thrust increase didn't happen for all the Es. The 220s went to the 220E and added the DEEC control which helped the reliability, but there are many out there without the 229s in them, and it's a night/day difference in performance if you have ever seen them side-by-side.

 

Agree with being behind the C's of course. Never bothered to look honestly at what the performance differences are between the Es as far as sustained turn rate with the two different motors.

[Rainmaker]

The F-15C is superior in all air combat aspects. The nose moves faster, it accelerates faster in most cases (and when it doesn't, it probably ends up having more play time) and it has better all around stability/departure resistance AFAIK. The latter basically leads to better high AoA control, so it owns the slow speed fight as well.

 

 

The beagle most likely has its own tricks, but the C is the air to air machine.

 

Agree to a point, depending on what you mean by nose rate and the low speed stability. Sustained turn performance obviously goes to the C for many reasons, but as remarked on already, the CFTs create some additional lift and increase the AoA capability of controlled flight over the it's slick counterpart. The E can probably rate the nose faster(not saying turn faster), but it's going to create more drag in the end when you talk the ability to sustain a turn rate...so depends a little on what you mean by "nose moving faster".

[dundun92]

Does anybody know if the F-15E has the same A/A performance in comparison to the F-15C? Do they have the same maneuverability in WVR fights?

 

According to one Strike Eagle WSO on the forums, an F-15E is inferior to the F-15C in dogfight performance, especially considering that BFM training isn't their priority(obviously). Except when you remove the CFTs, and have the -229s. In that scenario, he said, it totally outclasses the F-15C and F-16 (dunno which block) in dogfights, it can supercruise, and can sustain a 9g turn. He said it's very rare that they remove the CFTs though.

Here are two of his posts:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2910103&postcount=30

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2910317&postcount=37

Edited June 27, 2018 by dundun92

[SinusoidDelta]

The thrust increase didn't happen for all the Es. The 220s went to the 220E and added the DEEC control which helped the reliability, but there are many out there without the 229s in them, and it's a night/day difference in performance if you have ever seen them side-by-side.

 

Agree with being behind the C's of course. Never bothered to look honestly at what the performance differences are between the Es as far as sustained turn rate with the two different motors.

 

For anyone curious the USAF procured 236 E’s, the first 134 of which had PW-220’s (about 50%).

 

The F-15E is powered by the F-15C/D's pair of 24,000 lb.s.t. afterburning Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 turbofans. However, the engine bays were adapted so that these engines could eventually be replaced by more powerful turbofans in the 30,000 pound thrust class. The first 134 F-15Es were fitted with the -220 turbofans. Plans to deliver F-15Es with the twenty-percent more powerful F100-PW-229 Increased Performance Engine rated at 29,100 lb.s.t with afterburner beginning in August 1991 were delayed slightly. The -229 turbofans were duly installed in the 135th and succeeding F-15Es, beginning with 90-0233.

Source: http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f15_10.html

Edited June 27, 2018 by SinusoidDelta
Wrong numbers, thanks Rainman