MADDOG!

[S77th-GOYA]

 

Someone please explain the difference in design limit in reaching M2.5 because of engine trim. Why does the trim setting of 95% allow the 15 to reach M2.5 at angels 41.5 when M2.5 can't be reached until angels 45 at 102% trim?

[X-man]

But I'm not actually angry. More of a ... 'why are you guys not getting it yet?' thing, though TBH that might be too much of an expectation (not a slam on anyone's IQ, just the way the world works - I had to have things repeated a good number of times for me too now and then)

Why should we get it??? you seem to have your own pre-decided arguments and stick to them without listening to anyone else....So why should we listen to you? could you pehapes point to/show/post some of the evidence you claim that you have?? That would make the 'get it' part alot easier, and not just by your word...

[Pilotasso]

This is where your applying your opinion and deciding its correct, read what I said again then link everything from 'under modeling' to 'over modeling' and accept that to make the 120 better would be wrong if you didn't also cut its balls in other aspects

 

I know what you mean. :) Have the seekers seek pattern time increased and bye-bye BVR maddogs, few things would make me happier, however then using the AMRAAM properly with fixed ECM resitence would end up increasing this missiles resulting PK instead of decreasing it. Thats IMHO of course, remember 1.02? People hardly maddoged as much back then. I remenber I would get 4-5 bandits with 8 missiles with TWS normaly, never again. Not that I regret the follwing patches, lots of improvements. I have hopes for the future though.

[Phantom_Mark]

But surely this is all dependant on the length of the carpet in the hallway ?

[Guest Crazy_Eyes]

After looking at that -1 chart I have to agree with GG Tharos, The Eagle is capable of mach 2.5 in level flight, I f I thought he was wrong I'd say so.

 

In LO I find the climb rate of the Eagle poor as well as the maximum ceiling height, IMO the Eagle has had an unfair and inaccurate FM in LO, it feels like it has been restricted!.

 

The AMRAAM needs to be given the justice it so rightly deserves, the R77 which IMO I beleive is an inferiour ARH missile compared to the AMRAAM, the R77 has much better performance in LO and is less suseptible to chaff. I also would like to state that I think the AIM-9 is also in a bad state, especially when a Sparrow has a MUCH better PK rate than the AIM-9 at - 2NM in a fast turning dogfight.

 

Russian fighters have R77's that did not belong on MiGs in the LO era and ET's that are guided by the almighty himself, US fighter have been given a hard time regarding FM, avionics and WFM in LO. This is not a pop at ED.

 

GG, I always thought that the F-15C of the era LO is set in had datalink, is that true?.

[tflash]

I know what you mean. :) Have the seekers seek pattern time increased and bye-bye BVR maddogs, few things would make me happier, however then using the AMRAAM properly with fixed ECM resitence would end up increasing this missiles resulting PK instead of decreasing it. Thats IMHO of course, remember 1.02? People hardly maddoged as much back then. I remenber I would get 4-5 bandits with 8 missiles with TWS normaly, never again. Not that I regret the follwing patches, lots of improvements. I have hopes for the future though.

 

I do agree with the statement that as far as the Amraam is concerned, 1.02 is better than 1.12a. I run both on the same machine, and at least in single player it is very clear that you could do textbook BVR tactics with the Amraam in 1.02 whereas in 1.12a the Amraam basically has become a dogfight missile. When in a 1v2 scenario, you can keep the bandits at distance in 1.02 while in 1.12a you really have a big problem with the second bandit, since you have to track the first one till well within Rtr for a second shot while you loose SA on the second.

 

Of course 1.12a contains numerous fixes over 1.02 so it is no solution to go back (you loose lock much more quickly in 1.02 eg), but honestly, just for the F-15C/Amraam fun I will stick to 1.02 for a long time to come!

[Frostie]

 

Don't know how much effect it would have but after 35000feet the air temperature remains at a constant -67degF.:book:

[aviadreams87]

Sorry for the slight Off topic question, anyway it's AMRAAM related...

 

If the player maintains radar lock after the AIM-120 had gone active, will it make the PK higher? or it won't have any effect?

 

I always maintain radar lock until my missile hits the target. Wonder if i'm doing this in vain :)

[Frostie]

When your AMRAAM goes active this ofcourse is known as going 'pitbull', my understanding of this is that the missile has taken over control from you and is now solely relying on its own radar to track down the bandit its got a hold of just like a pitbull off the leash, so your radar has no input.

[GGTharos]

I cited a reference which you can acquire - I didn't ask you to take my word on it, not in this argument anyway. No, the -1 can't be found for free, but it isn't that expensive either.

 

Why should we get it??? you seem to have your own pre-decided arguments and stick to them without listening to anyone else....So why should we listen to you? could you pehapes point to/show/post some of the evidence you claim that you have?? That would make the 'get it' part alot easier, and not just by your word...

[Guest Crazy_Eyes]

Sorry for the slight Off topic question, anyway it's AMRAAM related...

 

If the player maintains radar lock after the AIM-120 had gone active, will it make the PK higher? or it won't have any effect?

 

I always maintain radar lock until my missile hits the target. Wonder if i'm doing this in vain :)

 

In LO I think that the AMRAAM has a higher PK when fired -10NM maddog. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

GG the F-15C in the LO era had datalink is this correct or false?.

[GGTharos]

-Some- F-15's in that era (notably the alaskan ones) had JTIDS. Most F-15's didn't get it until now, IIRC, and right now it's 'JTIDS light'. I'm uncertain if they were equipped with another datalink system prior to that, but most of the evidence is leaning towards no.

 

About the 120 - like Frostie said, once it goes active, what your own radar is doing doesn't matter in LO.

[Rhen]

 

Someone please explain the difference in design limit in reaching M2.5 because of engine trim. Why does the trim setting of 95% allow the 15 to reach M2.5 at angels 41.5 when M2.5 can't be reached until angels 45 at 102% trim?

 

You're making a similar error SwingKid made in reading the chart. The 95% Trim side shows the Eagle NEVER making M2.5 (it makes just shy of M2.4). The 102% Trimmed engine makes it to M2.5 (actually faster, but it hits the "brick wall" of the ops limit right at M2.5)

 

I believe this chart denotes an Eagle that's 35,000Lbs, so it's pretty damn light & has a -100 engine rather than the 220.

[S77th-GOYA]

You're making a similar error SwingKid made in reading the chart. The 95% Trim side shows the Eagle NEVER making M2.5 (it makes just shy of M2.4). The 102% Trimmed engine makes it to M2.5 (actually faster, but it hits the "brick wall" of the ops limit right at M2.5)

 

I believe this chart denotes an Eagle that's 35,000Lbs, so it's pretty damn light & has a -100 engine rather than the 220.

 

No, Rhen. I can see that it can't reach that speed at 95%. What I'm noticing is that the the ops limit is different for the different trim settings. From those charts it appears that on an STD -20C day, the 95% trim should be able to reach M2.5 at angels 41.5 whereas the 102% trim would be limited to ~ M2.38 at the same alt. Of course, I'm assuming the increase of performance with lower temperatures continues at least somewhat linearly. But regardless, the limits are different.

[Kuky]

I wonder then why -20°C is not represented on the chart?

[S77th-GOYA]

Probably the same reason +20 and -30 and +30, etc are not. It would become very cluttered.

 

But it makes me think the 15s flying out of Nellis in the summertime are probably putting around at not much more than M1 in full reheat.

[Rhen]

No, Rhen. I can see that it can't reach that speed at 95%. What I'm noticing is that the the ops limit is different for the different trim settings. From those charts it appears that on an STD -20C day, the 95% trim should be able to reach M2.5 at angels 41.5 whereas the 102% trim would be limited to ~ M2.38 at the same alt. Of course, I'm assuming the increase of performance with lower temperatures continues at least somewhat linearly. But regardless, the limits are different.

 

Yes, GOYA :P. The ops limit really is not different. If there was such a curve as std day -20, the 102% trimmed aircraft would reach M2.5 at around 32K - extrapolating that data. But Frostie's correct, above 37k, temps are pretty stagnant. SwingKid's mistake WAS in the extrapolating.

 

But, let's stick with the data we have, & just compare standard day at a given altitude:

 

For 95% Trim @ 36K STD day we get - oh, about M2.16

 

For 102% Trim@ 36K STD day we get - oh, about M2.3

 

Seems like the higher trimmed aircraft gives more thrust, right?

[Rhen]

Probably the same reason +20 and -30 and +30, etc are not. It would become very cluttered.

 

But it makes me think the 15s flying out of Nellis in the summertime are probably putting around at not much more than M1 in full reheat.

 

Depends on our loadout and how many bags, but M1 is a VERY conservative guesstimate. Kick it up a bit more.

[S77th-GOYA]

But, let's stick with the data we have, & just compare standard day at a given altitude:

 

For 95% Trim @ 36K STD day we get - oh, about M2.16

 

For 102% Trim@ 36K STD day we get - oh, about M2.3

 

For 95% @ 38K STD -10C the chart shows - M2.375

 

For 102% @ 38K STD -10C the chart shows - less than M2.35

 

No extrapolations, those figures are straight from the charts.

 

The 95% figure is limited by thrust AND ops limt while the 102% figure is limited only by ops limit.

 

The ops limit really is not different.

 

I'm certainly not arguing with you but I'm curious as to why the charts show that the ops limits ARE different. It doesn't make sense to me to see them different on the two graphs. The only thing even remotely feasible that I can come up with is that the intake ramps aren't as efficient for engines at higher trim settings, but I really doubt that.

[cool_t]

Maddoging tips and Tricks

 

Maddoging tips and Tricks,

 

Use Theatricality, deception, luere, and hesitatonal misconceptions to your advantage.

 

:thumbup:

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Nor it does include aspect, launching aircraft speed nor closure. All those things that are in that DLZ that was mentioned few pages ago. Interesting in deed. :)

I am (re)reading "F-15 Eagle and Strike Eagle" by Steve Davis (ISBN 1-84037-377-6). In the Appendix part of the book, Steve Davis talks about the F-15 weapons and briefly covers the AIM-120 AMRAAM missile. He is listing the range of the missile to be "32KM+" ... Well, this obviously is not telling us the missile range, however it is an indication of the "approach" to a discussion of the AMRAAM range.

[GGTharos]

Sounds like maybe a little short of the practical range - much like an R-27ER.

By the way, the DLZ on that tape shows some 35km range at relatively low altitude - for the 120A model. The 120C allegedly has a range advantage over that. The 120D moreso.

[Pilotasso]

120C and C5 is the mainstay of western weaponry for many years to come, 120D are still very very fresh out of production lines, if at all. LAst time I checked it was still on trials.

[GGTharos]

Yep, but unlike certain other wanna-be weapons, the 120D is actually happening ;)

[Rhen]

For 95% @ 38K STD -10C the chart shows - M2.375

 

For 102% @ 38K STD -10C the chart shows - less than M2.35

 

No extrapolations, those figures are straight from the charts.

 

The 95% figure is limited by thrust AND ops limt while the 102% figure is limited only by ops limit.

 

 

 

I'm certainly not arguing with you but I'm curious as to why the charts show that the ops limits ARE different. It doesn't make sense to me to see them different on the two graphs. The only thing even remotely feasible that I can come up with is that the intake ramps aren't as efficient for engines at higher trim settings, but I really doubt that.

 

You're wanting to exit the confines of the envelope and extrapolate performance. While an interesting exercise, it nevertheless will yield theory, rather than practice.

 

Look at the confines of the envelope. The 102% trimmed engine will outperform the lower trimmed engines. However, as you've surmised, the advantages are at the edges of the envelope. So, I'll have to concede that you're right when you see a difference in the ops limit there. What you're looking at is a time-limited "brick wall" that the 102% trimmed engine hits before the lower trimmed engines. Better performance is achieved by increasing the FTIT, which is time-limited at high mach and operating temperatures - obviously.

 

BUT!!! When you look at STD day and operate within the confines of the envelope, there's really no UNEXPECTED differences here.

 

Does that kinda answer your question, Goya? :D