captain_dalan Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 Hey folks, a bit of a question for the F-15 in the know crowd. While strolling through the 220 powered Eagle performance charts, one thing got me a bit confused. Namely the charts for the 41500pds and 43000pds, 4 Sparrow, 4 Sidewinder and a clear center line pylon seam to show quite a bit of difference in the performance or better said in the structural restrictions. As both configurations are externally the same, why would those extra 1500pds of internal fuel matter that much? Is it about what tanks are involved in which the fuel is stored? Does it effect the center of gravity in some way? Thanks in advance Cheers and safe flying! :thumbup: Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
VampireNZ Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 Generally for structural restriction considerations it makes a difference where the weight is located on the aircraft - either the body of the aircraft or the wings. If the stores/fuel is carried on/in the wings then there is no 'structural load penalty' as such for carrying it as it is 'carried' directly by the wings lift. If the same additional weight is carried on/in the fuselage then this same weight is also carried by the wings lift, but via the wing/fuselage structural interface and as such is subject to different limitations/considerations. I haven't looked at the specific chart you have mentioned - but I hope this makes sense? Does this help? Vampire
GGTharos Posted August 24, 2017 Posted August 24, 2017 I suggest consulting the OWS chart instead. Hey folks, a bit of a question for the F-15 in the know crowd. While strolling through the 220 powered Eagle performance charts, one thing got me a bit confused. Namely the charts for the 41500pds and 43000pds, 4 Sparrow, 4 Sidewinder and a clear center line pylon seam to show quite a bit of difference in the performance or better said in the structural restrictions. As both configurations are externally the same, why would those extra 1500pds of internal fuel matter that much? Is it about what tanks are involved in which the fuel is stored? Does it effect the center of gravity in some way? Thanks in advance Cheers and safe flying! :thumbup: [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
captain_dalan Posted August 24, 2017 Author Posted August 24, 2017 Thanks mates, to both of you. GGT, will take a look tomorrow, it's a bit late here now. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
captain_dalan Posted August 26, 2017 Author Posted August 26, 2017 I suggest consulting the OWS chart instead. Did it. Turns out the values i got there are pretty close to the sustained charts at 41500 i 43000. At least for sea level. Modules: FC3, Mirage 2000C, Harrier AV-8B NA, F-5, AJS-37 Viggen, F-14B, F-14A, Combined Arms, F/A-18C, F-16C, MiG-19P, F-86, MiG-15, FW-190A, Spitfire Mk IX, UH-1 Huey, Su-25, P-51PD, Caucasus map, Nevada map, Persian Gulf map, Marianas map, Syria Map, Super Carrier, Sinai map, Mosquito, P-51, AH-64 Apache, F4U Corsair, WWII Assets Pack
Recommended Posts