MADDOG!

[D-Scythe]

i guess the grafic that goya posted says enough, just have a carefull lock at it and understand whats written or shown there ;-)

 

then you maybe get a sence of what i said and somebody else told me from first hand.

 

ok, i guess we are thrugh with that part

 

and credebility is not just about simpathys in this form, it is about knowledge

 

Haha, don't try to take the high road, this is a forum - we can LOOK up what you wrote, and thus precisely know where you were trying to bullsh!t us.

 

"little example, the f-15c is supposed to fly mach 2.5, thats what the industrie tells us, but in real life, it would only achiev that from a hgh altitude dive with full burners and max out the structural performance" - Post#82 in this thread, by borchi_2b

[S77th-GOYA]

This is a silly argument. As the graph indicates, borchi may be correct at a given engine trim and temperature. And in fact, the charts show that at various trim and temps, it is more likely that the F-15 WON'T reach M2.5 in level flight.

 

I really don't know but, it very well could be that a pilot has never flown his Eagle at trim settings above 95%. Thus, the only way he could reach M2.5 is in a dive from altitude. (Unless, maybe it was a very cold day?)

[GGTharos]

It's pretty interesting how big a difference temperature makes - but in any case I'd expect a real pilot to know this graph and say 'yeah, you could reach it under such and such circumstances' ... don't you think?

 

Also, I forget what STD DAY is defined at ... 68F or about 20C? But yeah it'd be deep autumn or winter to hit peak performance.

 

But yes. It IS a silly argument.

[S77th-GOYA]

I think it's 15C. (Quite apropos, no?)

[GGTharos]

Hah, indeed, quite so :D

[S77th-GOYA]

If the relationship of top velocity in level flight and temperature is somewhat linear, it's easy to see that even at 95% trim, the F-15 should reach M2.5 on a day that is at 0C or below at MSL. That shouldn't be too uncommon.

[D-Scythe]

This is a silly argument. As the graph indicates, borchi may be correct at a given engine trim and temperature. And in fact, the charts show that at various trim and temps, it is more likely that the F-15 WON'T reach M2.5 in level flight.

 

Actually, the borchi's argument seems to be that the F-15 can NEVER reach Mach 2.5 in level flight - it can ONLY achieve such speeds in a dive. Otherwise, yes, this is a silly argument - because it's utterly useless.

[GGTharos]

I would think eagles based in Alaska and Iceland would achieve that kind of performance often enough. But in any case, the planes in LO seem to accelerate very very slowly to those high speeds - slower than they should .. lack of thrust, too much drag? ... plus the 7's are like airbrakes in LO.

 

If the relationship of top velocity in level flight and temperature is somewhat linear, it's easy to see that even at 95% trim, the F-15 should reach M2.5 on a day that is at 0C or below at MSL. That shouldn't be too uncommon.

[borchi_2b]

ok, guys, what is a trim of 102%, do you know?

i do, and it is not very common that the eagles fly with that setup. maybe in areal theater, cause the engine runtime till it is done for good is about 2 to 3 weeks.

but well i do not want to argue, but i would just like to remind you that such perfect sircumstances never really exist, cause air pressure and tempratures can change very fast at each diffrent altitude.

so when you take a close lock at the left graph you will see that at no point the max is greater then mach 2.3 when you stay at levelfilght

at the right graph in levelflight with max thrust the f-15c can only get to mach 2.31 to 2.32 at a flightlevel of 38000 feet, so what has that graph proven.

it has proven that my informations are not wrong and well maybe i do have first hand sources, but well i do not care if the people who said i am bullshitting will trust me or not, cause i know better and do not have to deal with such additutes like you guys.

by the way, my question i asked a few posts ago was not answered why?

cause you guys think you are so good and unbeatable in your arguments and do not want to answer to a question you cannot know unless you have first hand informations, lol, you guys are so wrong with your additutes, nothing else.

 

here again my question for our professionals:

how many f-15c in europe are in flyingduty right now, or lets put it a higher level, how many are allowed to fly?

 

when you can answer that then you maybe know what firsthand source means, and sorry but never discredit me again, that not a behavior an ed tester should show, just my opinion

 

i only agree with GGtharos in one point: that the eagle is weak in lock on, when you want to refer to the performance of the bird.

have you ever tried to fly at 40000 with full armament and 1 or 2 externals?

the f-15c in real life is able to keep its speed steady at about mach 0.9 plus minus a bit in regards to weatherconditions, but in lockon, the speed at full power without burners, it slows down all the time. ok, but i am sick of proving anything to you guys and talk about things that do not have to do anything with maddoging.

we could start a threat where everything deals only about the f-15c, so that it makes sence again

[borchi_2b]

ahh, nearly forgot something,

does the graph prove anything about the structure of the plane at mch 2.5?

no, and it does not tell you, what you learn in fighterschool.

it is not recommended to go up to mach 2.5 cause the airframe will sevear structural damage caused by the high temp and the weaknes of some parts of the plane.

 

quote from GGtharos:

It's pretty interesting how big a difference temperature makes - but in any case I'd expect a real pilot to know this graph and say 'yeah, you could reach it under such and such circumstances' ... don't you think?

 

and GGtharos, i did not say that it could never reach that speed of mach 2.5

just read over all my posts and you will read that i said, that it can only reach that speed in a dive

 

ok

lets just drop that now, cause it gets childish to argue who is right or wrong

lets keep it the way it is and not accuse people of anything, thats how i want to betreated and you guys to, so a little appologie should not be to hard or is that to much i ask for?

[GGTharos]

and GGtharos, i did not say that it could never reach that speed of mach 2.5

just read over all my posts and you will read that i said, that it can only reach that speed in a dive

 

And you were wrong. Which can be clearly seen in the graphs.

 

ok

lets just drop that now, cause it gets childish to argue who is right or wrong

lets keep it the way it is and not accuse people of anything, thats how i want to betreated and you guys to, so a little appologie should not be to hard or is that to much i ask for?

 

Yeah, are you going to apologize yet or what?

[SoaringEagle74]

Almost all industrial manufacturing companies hype the performance specs of their product in every industry...this is common practice! What they state, although not necessarily incorrect, almost always assumes a best case scenario under ideal circumstances. Most street smart people(nevermind the experts) know not to take their word at face value because they know companies always stride to get the competitive edge over their respective competitors by using such gray area(but common and legal) tactics.

 

I think we should end this arguement because indeed it is silly and proves nothing to anyone!;)

[GGTharos]

ok, guys, what is a trim of 102%, do you know?

i do, and it is not very common that the eagles fly with that setup. maybe in areal theater, cause the engine runtime till it is done for good is about 2 to 3 weeks.

but well i do not want to argue,

 

Then why are you still posting?

 

but i would just like to remind you that such perfect sircumstances never really exist, cause air pressure and tempratures can change very fast at each diffrent altitude.

 

These are far from perfect circumstances.

 

it has proven that my informations are not wrong and well maybe i do have first hand sources, but well i do not care if the people who said i am bullshitting will trust me or not, cause i know better and do not have to deal with such additutes like you guys.

 

It was proven then you do not undestand your info or you're unable to fess up to a simple mistake.

 

by the way, my question i asked a few posts ago was not answered why?

cause you guys think you are so good and unbeatable in your arguments and do not want to answer to a question you cannot know unless you have first hand informations, lol, you guys are so wrong with your additutes, nothing else.

 

And you think your attitude's ok? I have nothing to prove to you. Zero. Zip zilch and nada.

 

when you can answer that then you maybe know what firsthand source means, and sorry but never discredit me again, that not a behavior an ed tester should show, just my opinion

 

Everyone has an opinion, and you've already been discredited.

 

i only agree with GGtharos in one point: that the eagle is weak in lock on, when you want to refer to the performance of the bird.

have you ever tried to fly at 40000 with full armament and 1 or 2 externals?

the f-15c in real life is able to keep its speed steady at about mach 0.9 plus minus a bit in regards to weatherconditions, but in lockon, the speed at full power without burners, it slows down all the time. ok, but i am sick of proving anything to you guys and talk about things that do not have to do anything with maddoging.

we could start a threat where everything deals only about the f-15c, so that it makes sence again

 

 

The power issue has already been examined and proven to be incorrect by someone with -real- first hand knowledge and also ability to do some science.

 

Thank you for your time though! ;)

[GGTharos]

The -1 is DATA COLLECTED BY FLYING THE AIRCRAFT, and IS USED BY PILOTS TO UNDERSTAND THE AIRCRAFT'S PERFORMANCE!

I really did not think I would have to use CAPS to explain this. It would be very detrimental for it to be overstated.

This is THE AIR FORCE MANUAL!

 

Almost all industrial manufacturing companies hype the performance specs of their product in every industry...this is common practice! What they state, although not necessarily incorrect, almost always assumes a best case scenario under ideal circumstances. Most street smart people(nevermind the experts) know not to take their word at face value because they know companies always stride to get the competitive edge over their respective competitors by using such gray area(but common and legal) tactics.

 

I think we should end this arguement because indeed it is silly and proves nothing to anyone!;)

[SoaringEagle74]

GGTharos,

 

Maybe you are correct. I am not going to argue with you on any specifics because I am not an expert on any plane. I am only generalizing on industry practice as a whole!

 

P.S. Calm down a bit...Why are you so angry when people disagree with you?

[IvanK]

I posted this in another thread, but its related to this one as a number have commented on "Maddog" type shots with R27Es. I would be interested on some more seasoned Lock on pilots view on this IR tone issue with the Russian Ir missiles.

 

Why is it I only get IR missile tone when using the Longtitudinal mode ? With the other modes used to slew the seeker head you don't get any tone just the LA cue. Does the system automatically check to see if sufficient IR return is seen by the missile and if so and inside the DLZ then issues the "LA" cue ?

 

On the loose translations I have on Russian IR missile employment I think Tone is required for both the R73E series and the R73 and R60.

 

Doing some testing in game you can loose off an ET with an LA cue at a much greater range than you can actually get tone if using the Longtitudinal mode. If tone before launch was a requirement (and I think in RL it is) then this would stop a lot of "Cheap" R27E shots.

[D-Scythe]

GGTharos,

 

Maybe you are correct. I am not going to argue with you on any specifics because I am not an expert on any plane. I am only generalizing on industry practice as a whole!

 

P.S. Calm down a bit...Why are you so angry when people disagree with you?

 

Hey, give the guy some credit. It took him over 10 pages of posting the same stuff repeatedly before he even started to show signs of frustration.

 

And I'd be angry too - if I kept repeating that the Dash-1 is representative of the actual performance of an average F-15. I mean, he takes a page to explain it to one guy, and some other guy jumps in right after and starts to doubt the Dash-1 again. Which is dumb, because everyone's supposed to be on the same page. Instead of discussing something meaningful, we're squabbling over the credibility of the Dash-1.

[cool_t]

:)

 

Hi,

 

You know its nice to see how much knoledge we all have about the subject, but dont you think it becomes pointless when the Simulated physics are "Simulated".

 

Also no one here is an expert on the subject and if you are and you decide to exploit information M.P.s will be knocking at your door.

 

Lets bring the subject back to "Simulation" and how they work in LOMAC.

 

Try somthing new lets see some hard evidince like TAC VIEWs. Show some MISSION EDITOR experiments, lets get some good "Visual" information instead of everyone trying to "One-Up" everyone else.

 

:thumbup:

[Frostie]

hoho, bombastic claims here against F-15 drivers...

Not really I was just staying on subject, the same is true of 77's and ET's.

I find your claiming to be the voice of F-15 drivers but then claim you fly all planes laughable, why create a divide then claim to be universal.

Ive got no reason to pro Russian hardware over US so drop that thought.

 

This part of the message is a typical of someone who doesnt fly various aircraft. What you said about RF is inherent to the problems given by SARH concept.

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, for the record I probably fly more F-15 than you fly Russian and its possible that im actually better than yauw in the Eagle.:D

[rogue_blade]

this topic has nothing to do with mad dogs

 

*closed*

[cool_t]

Hi,

 

You know its nice to see how much knoledge we all have about the subject, but dont you think it becomes pointless when the Simulated physics are "Simulated".

 

Also no one here is an expert on the subject and if you are and you decide to exploit information M.P.s will be knocking at your door.

 

Lets bring the subject back to "Simulation" and how they work in LOMAC.

 

Try somthing new lets see some hard evidince like TAC VIEWs. Show some MISSION EDITOR experiments, lets get some good "Visual" information instead of everyone trying to "One-Up" everyone else.

 

:thumbup:

 

Lets see some TAC VIEW MADDOGS, Come on lets SEE Some action.!

 

:pilotfly::thumbup:

[GGTharos]

Basically what D-Scythe said; plus I don't really like writing all that much :D 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)

 

GGTharos,

 

Maybe you are correct. I am not going to argue with you on any specifics because I am not an expert on any plane. I am only generalizing on industry practice as a whole!

 

P.S. Calm down a bit...Why are you so angry when people disagree with you?

[504Goon]

Lets see some TAC VIEW MADDOGS, Come on lets SEE Some action.!

 

:pilotfly::thumbup:

 

 

Yeesss! Yeehaa! Keep em coming! Oh yeah! F**k yes!!

 

http://rapidshare.de/files/38029715/Maddog.txt.rar.html

[GGTharos]

I posted this in another thread, but its related to this one as a number have commented on "Maddog" type shots with R27Es. I would be interested on some more seasoned Lock on pilots view on this IR tone issue with the Russian Ir missiles.

 

Why is it I only get IR missile tone when using the Longtitudinal mode ? With the other modes used to slew the seeker head you don't get any tone just the LA cue. Does the system automatically check to see if sufficient IR return is seen by the missile and if so and inside the DLZ then issues the "LA" cue ?

 

 

I believe this is a mistake - you -should- get tone in the Russian systems when you get LA for heaters. I'm prettysure that's in the MiG or Su manual somewhere (the real deal I mean).

And yes, you are correct about the LA decision making: If the missile seeker locks on, and you are in range, you get LA. Those missiles will specifically not launch without a lock, IIRC. (Or well .. they well might, but they'll fly to whatever they pick up, which might very like NOT be the target you intended - for reference see wandering sidewinder seeker indication on F-16 HUD if you can find it ... Falcon has a reasonabel representation of this too, and basically it is THE reason you should not shoot one of those babies without seeker lock when you have a target nearby. For long range shots, you are almost guaranteeing the seeker will lock onto something you didn't intend, like a cloud, sun reflection from water, boy scout campfire ...

 

On the loose translations I have on Russian IR missile employment I think Tone is required for both the R73E series and the R73 and R60.

 

Doing some testing in game you can loose off an ET with an LA cue at a much greater range than you can actually get tone if using the Longtitudinal mode. If tone before launch was a requirement (and I think in RL it is) then this would stop a lot of "Cheap" R27E shots.

 

 

Correct. This has already been slated to be fixed in one way or another in a patch - for all heaters (not just the ET) ... so firing them without seeker lock -should- become impossible.

[IvanK]

That is good news :)