F-15E?

[SDsc0rch]

my eyes my eyesssss!lol

[jojo]

Thing is, if they allow non-CFT AA configs, it will make the F-15C in game useless if going with PW 229 engine F-15Es. 229 F-15Es without CFTs are beasts. I imagine RAZBAM is going to go with that model since it will be more fun for the players, giving you a kind of fighting chance in BFM and also give some performance when fully loaded out with bombs above 20k ft. It won't be fun for 220 engine F-15Es in game, having to use afterburner just to midair refuel with a full bomb load.

 

I’m not saying that we should get it if the real jet can’t do it.

I tried to understand if the Strike Eagle could do it: answer is NO.

[Wizard_03]

The CFTs are not that big of a performance drain. There’s an acceleration penalty and slight drag penalty. Which you see at high speed/high alititude (compared to the F-15C) so its not quite as good at launching 120s high and fast...

 

but make no mistake a lightly loaded F-15E with an A2A load is still quite a handful. I feel like people exaggerate the CFT performance degradation

[Rainmaker]

The CFTs are not that big of a performance drain. There’s an acceleration penalty and slight drag penalty. Which you see at high speed/high alititude (compared to the F-15C) so its not quite as good at launching 120s high and fast...

 

but make no mistake a lightly loaded F-15E with an A2A load is still quite a handful. I feel like people exaggerate the CFT performance degradation

 

It’s a lot bigger than you think depending on the motor. Gross weight increase alone with full tanks is somewhere around 14K lbs if I remember correctly. That’s more weight than the internal fuel load. That doesn’t include the drag penalty which is significant as well.

Edited September 28, 2018 by Rainmaker

[Tirak]

It’s a lot bigger than you think depending on the motor. Gross weight increase alone with full tanks is somewhere around 14K lbs if I remember correctly. That’s more weight than the internal fuel load. That doesn’t include the drag penalty which is significant as well.

 

 

I'm just curious about a few things If you happen to know. What's the drag penalty of CFTs compared to two wing tanks? Would you not see an increased amount of lift with CFTs installed because they provide a wider body to generate lift with? What is the weight of just the CFTs, fuel load not included?

 

 

I had imagined that an F-15E with no bags and just an AA loadout would be comparable to an F-15C with wing tanks, and if the fuel load were low enough, that an F-15E would come within shouting distance of an F-15C with no bags but nearly full internal fuel, could you shed some more light on the comparable performance?

[Wizard_03]

It’s a lot bigger than you think depending on the motor. Gross weight increase alone with full tanks is somewhere around 14K lbs if I remember correctly. That’s more weight than the internal fuel load. That doesn’t include the drag penalty which is significant as well.

 

 

I'd love to see the EM charts side by side.

 

 

With equal Fuel, and configured for A2A (it should go without saying but you don't ever want to fight on full tanks) and the F-15E with 229s of course.

[RShackleford]

It’s a lot bigger than you think depending on the motor. Gross weight increase alone with full tanks is somewhere around 14K lbs if I remember correctly. That’s more weight than the internal fuel load. That doesn’t include the drag penalty which is significant as well.

 

I'm just curious about a few things If you happen to know. What's the drag penalty of CFTs compared to two wing tanks? Would you not see an increased amount of lift with CFTs installed because they provide a wider body to generate lift with? What is the weight of just the CFTs, fuel load not included?

 

 

I had imagined that an F-15E with no bags and just an AA loadout would be comparable to an F-15C with wing tanks, and if the fuel load were low enough, that an F-15E would come within shouting distance of an F-15C with no bags but nearly full internal fuel, could you shed some more light on the comparable performance?

 

Speaking from experience in the F-15C in DCS only and flying the F-15E in real life, the F-15C in DCS is a monster compared to the F-15E. I don't know how well the F-15C performs in real life, but it sounds like it can rate around at 9Gs with just a slight nose low trajectory flight path. F-15E is also a bit heavier than F-15C even without CFTs due to bomb carrying requirements (stronger wings.) Basically all BFM fights, even at low fuel weight, consist of a 7-9G break turn followed by fighting around 5Gs after the initial break turn. This is with 220 engines.

[Rainmaker]

I'd love to see the EM charts side by side.

 

 

With equal Fuel, and configured for A2A (it should go without saying but you don't ever want to fight on full tanks) and the F-15E with 229s of course.

 

To my knowledge the 229 EM charts are not publically available. They exist of course, but they were in later -1 editions that are not floating around on the net.

 

You can see the 220 charts to get an idea.

[Rainmaker]

I'm just curious about a few things If you happen to know. What's the drag penalty of CFTs compared to two wing tanks? Would you not see an increased amount of lift with CFTs installed because they provide a wider body to generate lift with? What is the weight of just the CFTs, fuel load not included?

 

 

I had imagined that an F-15E with no bags and just an AA loadout would be comparable to an F-15C with wing tanks, and if the fuel load were low enough, that an F-15E would come within shouting distance of an F-15C with no bags but nearly full internal fuel, could you shed some more light on the comparable performance?

 

My memory wants to tell me they were somewhere between 2000-2500 lbs, but I might be wrong there. I’m sure I could find the info, just takes time amd effort.

 

As for penalty, I personally don’t know and I dont believe there’s any EM chart data out there (might be for the C to compare CFTs to ext bags). I would be merely speculating at this point.

[dundun92]

To my knowledge the 229 EM charts are not publically available. They exist of course, but they were in later -1 editions that are not floating around on the net.

 

You can see the 220 charts to get an idea.

Eh, ive found the -229 charts before. Lemme look.

EDIT: Yup, they're in the manual here.

 

And, the E is definitely inferior to the C with CFTs. About 4° less STR. Even without the CFT, the E has an equivalent STR, thanks to the extra weight.

Edited September 29, 2018 by dundun92

[blower]

What I find most reasonable to do to satisfy every part is, being able to retire the CFTs for people that want to do so, and to give an option on servers or on the mission creator to block that capability on servers that dont want the CFTs removed for balance purposes.

Edited September 30, 2018 by alvarolage

[Banzaiib]

Can you mount aim-7's to the CFT's?

 

EDIT: yes...

 

nevermind, i looked back through this thread and saw the f-15E with 4 Aim-7's mounted on the CFT's.

 

Thanks guys! Cant' wait for this!!!

Edited October 1, 2018 by Banzaiib

[RShackleford]

What I find most reasonable to do to satisfy every part is, being able to retire the CFTs for people that want to do so, and to give an option on servers or on the mission creator to block that capability on servers that dont want the CFTs removed for balance purposes.

 

Kinda goes against the realism of the game, as F-15Es will never ever deploy without CFTs.

[SDsc0rch]

exactly

well said

[Tirak]

Kinda goes against the realism of the game, as F-15Es will never ever deploy without CFTs.

 

 

Doctrine =/= Capability.

 

 

Just because they don't do it doctrinally, doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of doing what is being asked. F-16s will almost never fly without two wing tanks. Do we forbid players from being able to remove them from the aircraft?

[Dudikoff]

Just because they don't do it doctrinally, doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable of doing what is being asked. F-16s will almost never fly without two wing tanks. Do we forbid players from being able to remove them from the aircraft?

 

Not really the same thing. An F-16 might be flown on some theoretical short range mission without the fuel tanks, while in the same case the F-15E would still get flown with them as it makes no sense to remove them.

 

The closer analogy might have been operators of one of these later F-16's with CFT's, e.g. Poland. How often do they take them off?

Edited October 3, 2018 by Dudikoff

[mvsgas]

F-16s will almost never fly without two wing tanks.

Same can be said about the F-15C, A-7, F/A-18, F-14,F-4, S-3, SU-25, SU-17, etc. so I not sure if I understand your point.

[jojo]

What I find most reasonable to do to satisfy every part is, being able to retire the CFTs for people that want to do so, and to give an option on servers or on the mission creator to block that capability on servers that dont want the CFTs removed for balance purposes.

 

I understand you. But some people think that’s absurd because CFT on F-15E aren’t just for extra fuel. These are the hard points for offensive weapons, being AA or AG, most of the ordonnance is carried on the CFT, excepted the 2000lbs class bombs.

[mvsgas]

Funny, on the F-16 thread they keep asking for CFT and here they want to get rid of them. Not the same people. Funny situation to me.

Edited October 3, 2018 by mvsgas

[beppe_goodoldrebel]

while discussing CFTs RAZBAM announced that the next month video update will include news on this module.

[jojo]

Funny, on the F-16 thread they keep asking for CFT and here they want to get rid of them. Not the same people. Funny situation to me.

 

On the other hand, if they make a F-16 with CFT, and can’t get rid of them, people will ask to be able to remove them too...

 

But it would make more sense on the F-16.

[Tirak]

Same can be said about the F-15C, A-7, F/A-18, F-14,F-4, S-3, SU-25, SU-17, etc. so I not sure if I understand your point.

 

 

Simple, that saying the CFTs should not be removable due to doctrine is an absurd point. If there's a hardware limitation then alright, but removing that option because doctrine doesn't normally support that action is a poor excuse. When it comes to issues of realism based on usage and not capability, those can easily be dismissed as "do what you want when you play". If the F-15E wasn't capable of flight at all without CFTs that would be a different story, but to remove an aircraft option simply because it's not common usage is in my opinion a poor reason.

[Dudikoff]

If the F-15E wasn't capable of flight at all without CFTs that would be a different story, but to remove an aircraft option simply because it's not common usage is in my opinion a poor reason.

 

Well, the flight model is not a simple plug and play thing. It would take quite some extra work for the developers to have switchable 3D models, textures, somewhat different flight models, support different weapon attachment points, etc. and for what purpose exactly? So someone can experiment with a USAF F-15E in a way it's never flown?

 

Ultimately, it's up to the developers, but it seems a bit far fetched to expect them going through all this for such little gain.

Edited October 3, 2018 by Dudikoff

[Tirak]

Well, the flight model is not a simple plug and play thing. It would take quite some extra work for the developers to have switchable 3D models, textures, somewhat different flight models, support different weapon attachment points, etc. and for what purpose exactly? So someone can experiment with a USAF F-15E in a way it's never flown?

 

Ultimately, it's up to the developers, but it seems a bit far fetched to expect them going through all this for such little gain.

 

 

I understand the difficulties in the flight model being a challenge. If that is the reason why they don't include that option, that is in my opinion an appropriate excuse not to allow for players to do that. However, not modeling it solely because that's the way the aircraft are not normally flown is in my opinion an absurd stance, akin with players who argue that LAU-88s should not be usable because they are no longer in operational use with the Air Force, but that's a fight for another day.

[SDsc0rch]

Well, the flight model is not a simple plug and play thing. It would take quite some extra work for the developers to have switchable 3D models, textures, somewhat different flight models, support different weapon attachment points, etc. and for what purpose exactly? So someone can experiment with a USAF F-15E in a way it's never flown?

 

Ultimately, it's up to the developers, but it seems a bit far fetched to expect them going through all this for such little gain.

 

i think this is the best argument for permanent/non-removable CFTs i've seen yet