F15c high fedilitize after F15e?

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

Available AoA, surface stall angles, buffet regions etc are the same..

 

In fact they are not.

 

2 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

why? Because the shape is the same,

 

Because in fact it is not.

 

[Spurts]

while i haven't spent the most time looking into this, I have looked through the F-15E FM in the past and it mentions how the CFTs increase pitch response (not sure how, didn't spend a lot of brainpower on that) but it would definitely increase the roll moment of inertia.  The characteristics of CFT on vs CFT off are not the same.  It would take two Flight Models.  CFT will change airflow over the tails, CFT will change airflow and the wing root leading edge, CFT will have it's OWN buffet.  This is why even at the same weight CFTs change the flight model.

 

[GGTharos]

Don't even need to go to the CFTs right away, you can start with the long nose.

[Spurts]

6 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Don't even need to go to the CFTs right away, you can start with the long nose.

Enlighten me.  I thought the nose OML was the same on all production F-15s, A-EX.

[GGTharos]

The nose affects the CG, as well as the moment of arm for high AoA (read: low yaw stability) regimes, thus changing behavior significantly enough for it to be notable.

[Hummingbird]

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

In fact they are not.

 

 

Without CFT's they should be the same.

 

You talk about a different CoG due to a longer nose, but the length of the aircraft is the same according to Boeing. 

 

The only noticable shape change I see is the larger canopy, but that shouldn't significantly alter flight characteristics, esp. during maneuvers. 

 

It's only the altered airflow and CoG changes caused when mounting the CFT's that should have an effect. Mount them on the C (I know it cant) and you'd see the same effect. 

 

Main point here is that a clean F-15E without CFT's should fly basically the same as a clean F-15C (bar some very small differences), as shape and CoG are the same. 

 

In other words if the Razbam F-15E flies nothing like the ED F-15C under similar configurations , then it begs disbelief. 

Edited August 19, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Spurts]

11 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

 

 

In other words if the Razbam F-15E flies nothing like the ED F-15C under similar configurations , then it begs disbelief. 

 

only if we get the shaft and get the -220 powered F-15E.  I believe it was stated above that Razbam was not going to have removable CFTs.  Don't pin your purchase of the module on that.  

[GGTharos]

22 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

Without CFT's they should be the same.

 

They should not and are not.

 

22 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

The only noticable shape change I see is the larger canopy, but that shouldn't significantly alter flight characteristics, esp. during maneuvers. 

 

And yet it does.

 

22 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

Main point here is that a clean F-15E without CFT's should fly basically the same as a clean F-15C (bar some very small differences), as shape and CoG are the same. 

 

It will fly similar, and more so to the 15D, but it will not and absolutely should not be the same as a 15C.  You will lose AoA capability at minimum.

Edited August 19, 2021 by GGTharos

[Rainmaker]

8 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Without CFT's they should be the same.

 

You talk about a different CoG due to a longer nose, but the length of the aircraft is the same according to Boeing. 

 

The only noticable shape change I see is the larger canopy, but that shouldn't significantly alter flight characteristics, esp. during maneuvers. 

 

It's only the altered airflow and CoG changes caused when mounting the CFT's that should have an effect. Mount them on the C (I know it cant) and you'd see the same effect. 

 

Main point here is that a clean F-15E without CFT's should fly basically the same as a clean F-15C (bar some very small differences), as shape and CoG are the same. 

 

In other words if the Razbam F-15E flies nothing like the ED F-15C under similar configurations , then it begs disbelief. 

 

 

 

 

nvm...not even going down the path

Edited August 20, 2021 by Rainmaker

[Hummingbird]

12 hours ago, GGTharos said:

And yet it does.

 

So you're saying the flight characteristics are significantly altered by a slightly different size canopy?:

 

 

Without CFT's this is litterally the only difference between the two aircraft in terms of external shape, and I can't find any data on a shifted CoG.

 

Hence I am certainly expecting very similar flight characteristics between the two in DCS.

 

PS: Have the devs confirmed that you cannot ommit the CFT's on the F-15E they're releasing? I hope not.

Spoiler

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Hummingbird

[GGTharos]

11 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

So you're saying the flight characteristics are significantly altered by a slightly different size canopy?:

 

Without CFT's this is litterally the only difference between the two aircraft in terms of external shape, and I can't find any data on a shifted CoG.

 

Hence I am certainly expecting very similar flight characteristics between the two in DCS.

 

The canopy is extra heavy, the additional life support and avionics are extra heavy.  Yep, you're going to have a significant effect on the 15Es agility.  Even without CFTs, it will have marginal advantages in STR in some cases, but it will lack ITR, AoA handling and the minimum stall speed will be higher.  In other words, a light grey flown in BFM with techniques other than benign attempts to out-STR it should win every time if both aircraft are flown perfectly.

 

11 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

PS: Have the devs confirmed that you cannot ommit the CFT's on the F-15E they're releasing? I hope not.

 

I hope you can't, otherwise it's not really an F-15E.  They're part of the package of what the aircraft is and does.

[Hummingbird]

The STR of a 41,000 lbs PW220 powered F-15C & E (no CFT) is close to identical, looking at the charts right now. So there's no noticable difference due to the canopy there, as expected.

 

Added weight changes performance, that's a given. But I see no data on shifted CoG anywhere to indicate a difference in stall angles, buffet regions, pitch sensitivity etc. (without CFT that is)

 

Edited August 20, 2021 by Hummingbird

[GGTharos]

27 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

But I see no data on shifted CoG anywhere to indicate a difference in stall angles, buffet regions, pitch sensitivity etc. (without CFT that is)

 

And you're not going to see it.  That doesn't mean the facts aren't as I said.

[Hummingbird]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

 

And you're not going to see it.  That doesn't mean the facts aren't as I said.

 

Have you got a source instead of "because I say so" ?

[GGTharos]

The F-15E -1 specifies that the performance for the F-15E is estimated and assumed (they use those specific words) based on the previous models.   That should be a red flag.  Any other sources you'll have to find yourself.  Razbam probably won't have any trouble getting the relevant information from their SMEs.

[Rainmaker]

7 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

 

PS: Have the devs confirmed that you cannot ommit the CFT's on the F-15E they're releasing? I hope not.

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Already been stated, what, at least two times now in this thread because I did it.  Yes, confirmed. CFTs aren’t coming off. Not sure why you have read it and keep asking the question. 

[Nahen]

On 19.08.2021 at 00:29, Hummingbird said:

 

Poważnie, dlaczego ludzie nie czytają tego, co jest napisane, zanim odpowiedzą? Oczywiście OSIĄGI (tj. STR/ITR/tempo wznoszenia itp.) przy różnych wagach będą różne, jednak charakterystyka lotu będzie taka sama. Dlatego porównałem wersję 41 000 funtów E vs C..

 

Do you seriously think an airplane with the same shape but with twice the weight will still have the same flight characteristics ?? You're kidding I hope ... It may have the same drag, but in life it won't achieve the same AoA ... do you know the concept of inertia? Do you know what it involves?

 

Maybe ask the pilots of the F-15C and E if they think that both versions have the same "chance" in maneuvering combat. Controversy due to the increase in weight associated with the change in the airframe structure, the E version got much more powerful engines. Therefore, it is much faster than the C version - but unfortunately it is less "maneuverable". And he is no longer a fighter who can enter a maneuvering fight an equal level with for example, the F-16 or MiG-29 / Su-27 and their next development fighters versions. But C of course yes. C is still good dogfighter but E no.

[Hummingbird]

1 hour ago, Rainmaker said:

 

Already been stated, what, at least two times now in this thread because I did it.  Yes, confirmed. CFTs aren’t coming off. Not sure why you have read it and keep asking the question. 

 

Because when "someone" says it, it doesn't automatically mean it's true. Provide a link/source instead of assuming people think you're an authority on the subject and will trust you blindly.

 

Arguing your case with "because I say so" is about the most asinine form of argumentation there is.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Rainmaker]

5 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Because when "someone" says it, it doesn't automatically mean it's true. Provide a link/source instead of assuming people think you're an authority on the subject and will trust you blindly.

 

Arguing your case with "because I say so" is about the most asinine form of argumentation there is.

 

Join their dischord...that came directly from Ron. Good enough for you?

Edited August 20, 2021 by Rainmaker

[Hummingbird]

35 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Do you seriously think an airplane with the same shape but with twice the weight will still have the same flight characteristics ?? You're kidding I hope ... It may have the same drag, but in life it won't achieve the same AoA ... do you know the concept of inertia? Do you know what it involves?

 

Maybe ask the pilots of the F-15C and E if they think that both versions have the same "chance" in maneuvering combat. Controversy due to the increase in weight associated with the change in the airframe structure, the E version got much more powerful engines. Therefore, it is much faster than the C version - but unfortunately it is less "maneuverable". And he is no longer a fighter who can enter a maneuvering fight an equal level with for example, the F-16 or MiG-29 / Su-27 and their next development fighters versions. But C of course yes. C is still good dogfighter but E no.

 

So you didn't read a single thing I wrote I see, well done.

 

 

"twice the weight"  Jesus Mary and Joseph, where do these people come from??

 

 

14 minutes ago, Rainmaker said:

Join their dischord...that came directly from Ron. Good enough for you?

 

 

So they didn't write it anywhere in their subforum under FAQ or expected features....well...

Edited August 20, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Nahen]

5 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

 

"twice the weight"  Jesus Mary and Joseph, where do these people come from??

 

 

 

Since you say that weight does not matter, I had to write something that may open your eyes to the relationship between weight and flight characteristics ...

 

And one more:

 

Let me suggest one more thing - fuel and weapons dump before an emergency landing - Fuel Dump - Not Fuel Tanks Dump. Dump fuel tanks before maneuvering combat. It doesn't matter in your opinion? Oh, it probably has nothing to do with weight either ...

Edited August 20, 2021 by Nahen

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Hummingbird said:

So you didn't read a single thing I wrote I see, well done.

 

You didn't write anything useful.   The F-15E at 41000lbs is comparable to an F-15C at 38000lbs in terms of fuel load.

 

The - for the 15E clearly states that the performance is estimated and assumed based on the F-15C, as opposed to 'flight testing'.  The F-15D is 'only' 500lbs heavier than the C but the heavy nose configuration already makes it 'not preferred' for training.

 

You're not going to find this stuff in books or forums, no, but that's ok.  'Someone' is going to advise RAZBAM on the facts.

[FoxOne007]

5 hours ago, Hummingbird said:

 

Because when "someone" says it, it doesn't automatically mean it's true. Provide a link/source instead of assuming people think you're an authority on the subject and will trust you blindly.

 

Arguing your case with "because I say so" is about the most asinine form of argumentation there is.

 

Dude… that’s exactly what you keep on doing in this thread. People who have actually worked on/in the jet have commented multiple times saying you are wrong about the F-15E without CFT’s handles/flies/acts the same as an F-15C, which again it does not!!!! I can also confirm that CFT’s will not be removable (thank god, reason: you would need a whole new FM). You can find all the info on the jet and systems here, which was all provided by RB on their discord: 

 

Also @BIGNEWYcould you please just close this thread. It’s endlessly arguing with someone that can’t accept he’s wrong, and Devs already having said no to what he is  continuously  going on about

 

[Hummingbird]

8 hours ago, Nahen said:

Since you say that weight does not matter, I had to write something that may open your eyes to the relationship between weight and flight characteristics ...

 

 

I never said weight doesn't matter. Hence why I'm comparing the aircraft at the same weight & configuration. So again, you really didn't read anything I wrote, instead you immediately jumped to conclusions in your eagerness to prove someone wrong, a common theme in here it seems...

 

6 hours ago, GGTharos said:

You didn't write anything useful.   The F-15E at 41000lbs is comparable to an F-15C at 38000lbs in terms of fuel load.

 

Sorry but what does that have to do with anything? The point is we should ofcourse expect the aircraft to fly realistically at any weight & configuration. Hence if we set up a F-15E at 41,000 lbs without CFTs we should also expect it to fly similarly to a F-15C at that weight (bar some minor differences). If the aircraft engineers themselves "estimate" this, then why shouldn't we? 

 

If we can't remove the CFT's then we should expect the aircraft to fly like the real one does with CFT's, with matching performance. The charts are all there, and they are made by the real professionals, not us goons discussing on a internet forum.

 

Quote

The - for the 15E clearly states that the performance is estimated and assumed based on the F-15C, as opposed to 'flight testing'. 

 

So if the engineers at McDonnell themselves estimated only a very minor difference, then I'm at fault for doing the same?

 

And btw, it's only the effect of the stores drag that's estimated on.  The data basis is flight testing of the aircraft, with & without the CFTs. Hence why the data basis for the clean F-15E chart is "flight test".

Edited August 20, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

3 hours ago, FoxOne007 said:

 

Also @BIGNEWYcould you please just close this thread. It’s endlessly arguing with someone that can’t accept he’s wrong, and Devs already having said no to what he is  continuously  going on about

 

 

This is not about being right, it's about providing a source for you statements. I haven't heard anyone in here say they worked on/in the F-15 either.

 

But thanks for the forum link at least.

Edited August 20, 2021 by Hummingbird