Option to remove CFTs

[carss]

Any chance we may have the option to remove the CFTs as i know the F-15E does have that ability, plus it can max perform better than the C model thanks to more powerful engines. It'll have better turns and a much higher top speed too and if flown 100% clean it can get airborne in 6 seconds after lighting the burner! Look at this video....

 

https://youtu.be/osFNW14QBHw

 

I also wonder if the F-15E can carry weapons without CFTs in a similar manner to the C model and if it can, will this be an option in DCS too!?

[AT_Youmu]

nope

[Tank50us]

This was discussed to death in another thread, and the response has been 'no' from the Developers. Why are people obsessed with the subject?

[Exorcet]

2 hours ago, carss said:

plus it can max perform better than the C model thanks to more powerful engines. It'll have better turns and a much higher top speed too

The E is multiple tons heavier than the C. The C is the better performer with maybe the exception of straight line acceleration under specific circumstances.

[carss]

49 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

This was discussed to death in another thread, and the response has been 'no' from the Developers. Why are people obsessed with the subject?

Well clearly I missed it which is why I brought it up now. I don't see why it's an issue to bring it up

[Tank50us]

1 hour ago, Exorcet said:

The E is multiple tons heavier than the C. The C is the better performer with maybe the exception of straight line acceleration under specific circumstances.

 

And much of that comes from all the extra equipment needed to support the dude in the back seat, and all the kit needed to deploy the AtG weapons, and that's before you add in the CFTs

 

19 minutes ago, carss said:

I don't see why it's an issue to bring it up

 

Because to add that feature, you'd basically have to go through making an entirely new flight model that accounts for the fact that those tanks, and their weapon stations, aren't present. And given how long it's taking them to model the thing as it currently is, I really don't want to wait another 2+ years for them to do all that work for a feature that most of us won't use. Seriously, if you're going to fly an F-15E without the CFTs for an air to air fight.... why not just load up the F-15C? (and 'because it's Low Fidelity' is not an acceptable answer)

[Eagle7907]

Oh god. Here we go again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Tank50us]

10 minutes ago, Eagle7907 said:

Oh god. Here we go again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

That was my reaction.... as you can tell.

[MAXsenna]

Well clearly I missed it which is why I brought it up now. I don't see why it's an issue to bring it up

Because if you had taken 30 seconds to search the forums you'd have found the thread with all the arguments and mud slinging back and forth to save you some time. It's a touchy subject obviously. I'm not dissing on you, it's just an observation.
Cheers!

EDIT: I'm on my cell or I would have provided the link.

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[=DROOPY=]

Literally....the only time the conformals come off the Strike is for maintenance purposes. 

Even the official USAF Strike Eagle Demo performances were done with CFT's installed.

No reason to make them removable. 

 

Date of photo:

24 May 2008

[Tank50us]

21 hours ago, =DROOPY= said:

Literally....the only time the conformals come off the Strike is for maintenance purposes. 

Even the official USAF Strike Eagle Demo performances were done with CFT's installed.

No reason to make them removable. 

 

Date of photo:

24 May 2008

 

To be honest... the Eagle just looks better with the CFTs anyway, and I'm struggling to think of reasons to not have them since the loss of maneuverability, while noticeable, isn't something Eagle Pilots are all too concerned with as they get along in mock dogfights as is. Plus you can't argue that having more gas a bad thing at the end of the day. Kinda makes the Eagle look like it spent a bit of time at the gym.

[Nahen]

On 9/21/2021 at 6:26 AM, carss said:

Well clearly I missed it which is why I brought it up now. I don't see why it's an issue to bring it up

 

Is the same question again? Maybe sometimes it is worth checking in the forum before asking the same question again?

We make bets, how many more times will there be questions about this in the newly created threads until the module exits? 
My type 550 times.

 

On 9/21/2021 at 6:49 AM, Tank50us said:

 

And much of that comes from all the extra equipment needed to support the dude in the back seat, and all the kit needed to deploy the AtG weapons, and that's before you add in the CFTs

 

 

Not necessarily. The airframe structure itself in relation to the A / C version has been strengthened so much that there is already a difference of almost two tons in mass

[Tank50us]

26 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Not necessarily. The airframe structure itself in relation to the A / C version has been strengthened so much that there is already a difference of almost two tons in mass

 

And given the raw power of those engines, it's probably about the difference between wearing a pair of running shoes vs wearing a pair of heavy work boots as far as they're concerned. So in reality, while an F-15E might need a second or two more on a standard take-off roll (IE, no A/B), once the burner cans are lit, it makes near enough no difference that the E weighs a little more than the C. And in actual combat, given that the E is still an Eagle, it will still turn and burn with the best of'em, and with the extra fuel provided by the CFTs, it may even be able to burn a little longer than a C (or any other fighter it might come across for that matter).

[Nahen]

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

 

Biorąc pod uwagę surową moc tych silników, prawdopodobnie chodzi o różnicę między noszeniem butów do biegania a noszeniem ciężkich butów roboczych, jeśli o nich chodzi. Tak więc w rzeczywistości, podczas gdy F-15E może potrzebować sekundy lub dwóch więcej na standardowym rozbiegu (IE, bez A/B), po zapaleniu się puszek palnika nie ma prawie żadnej różnicy, że E waży niewiele więcej niż C. A w rzeczywistej walce, biorąc pod uwagę, że E nadal jest Orłem, nadal będzie się obracać i płonąć najlepszym z nich, a dzięki dodatkowemu paliwu zapewnionemu przez CFT może nawet być w stanie spalić trochę dłużej niż C (lub jakikolwiek inny fighter, z którym może się spotkać).

Have you heard about something like inertia in motion?

 

Do you think that 50,000-ton ship on sea with twice as powerful engines as the 10,000-ton ship will be just as agile and maneuverable? Congratulations...

Edited September 27, 2021 by Nahen

[Tank50us]

47 minutes ago, Nahen said:

Have you heard about something like inertia in motion?

 

Do you think that 50,000-ton ship on sea with twice as powerful engines as the 10,000-ton ship will be just as agile and maneuverable? Congratulations...

 

 

I think you might have missed my point. The Eagles engines are incredibly powerful, and I'm saying that while an Air to Air loaded E still weighs in more than a C, it's going to be just as fast as a C despite taking a bit longer to get to that speed. A more apt comparison would be the difference between the Jug and the Mustang. The Mustang is lighter, faster, and technically has a longer range, but the Jug is still very capable in a dogfight (as evidenced by its kill record), and not to be underestimated.

[Spurts]

The -229 powered F-15E is as fast/faster than the -220 powered C with the same load, yes, but it will never turn and burn like the C.  A 10% increase in weight for the same plane results in 21% more drag for the same G at the same speed and a 10% reduction in G available aerodynamically.

[Nahen]

Inertia - E is faster, but greater inertia results in much weaker maneuverability. The F-15 was not made for maneuvering fighting, but the A / C versions turned out to be quite good dogfighters aircraft. Unfortunately, the E version differs significantly in this matter. Not a chance in maneuvering fight with the C version. And thus also with the MiG-29, Su-27 with which the F-15C is able to cope with.

 

Its all in this thema.

[Wizard_03]

Well it can still huck AMRAAMs really far with the CFTs on and that is the F-15C best trick too. And it still can be a handful in a dogfight, just not quite the nemesis the F-15C is. 

 

But I'll take the BVR stuff over agility, any day of the week. The latter is fun and nice to have, but the former is a game changer. F-15E with 120s will still completely dominate all the the other teens with the exception of the 15C. And obviously the red stuff in game is not comparable either. 

 

Really, the Eurofighter and F-15C should be the ONLY real challengers in the BVR department. 

[Nahen]

Any module who can on 35000-45000 feet accelerating to speeds over 2 Mach armed with AiM-120C-5 rockets or similar, in the BVR will be deadly.

Edited September 30, 2021 by Nahen

[JB3DG]

On 9/30/2021 at 10:38 AM, Nahen said:

Any module who can on 35000-45000 feet accelerating to speeds over 2 Mach armed with AiM-120C-5 rockets or similar, in the BVR will be deadly.

 

Not gonna happen. The E with 8 missiles and the CFTs weighs around 54000lbs with the -229 engines. According to the perf charts I have, at max AB it can just touch Mach 2 at 35000 feet, below that the max mach drops off rapidly due to CFT design limits. Add in LANTIRN pods and the max mach drops to 1.8. At MIL it will just barely exceed Mach 1 at 35000 and that quickly drops as you go higher or lower. It takes over 9 minutes at 40000 ft MAX AB to reach Mach 1.75 on a standard day. For supersonic BVR, you would want a Typhoon or a F-22. The F-15C or E are not going to reach it.

 

[Nahen]

14 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Not gonna happen. The E with 8 missiles and the CFTs weighs around 54000lbs with the -229 engines. According to the perf charts I have, at max AB it can just touch Mach 2 at 35000 feet, below that the max mach drops off rapidly due to CFT design limits. Add in LANTIRN pods and the max mach drops to 1.8. At MIL it will just barely exceed Mach 1 at 35000 and that quickly drops as you go higher or lower. It takes over 9 minutes at 40000 ft MAX AB to reach Mach 1.75 on a standard day. For supersonic BVR, you would want a Typhoon or a F-22. The F-15C or E are not going to reach it.

 

Have you ever flown the F-15C in DCS? I dare to doubt ... Currently it is able to easily climb 45-50,000 feet with two fuel tanks and accelerate to Mach 2.2. Without tanks yesterday I was at 130,000 feet - of course with almost zero speed - but yesterday, in order to check the "speed limit" without tanks, I accelerated the F-15 C about 40,000 feet to a speed of exactly 2,643 Ma.

Are you still saying "it won't happen"?

I invite you to one of the two severs of "304th Virtual Fighter Wing" and see what the F-15C can do in terms of speed and BVR combat - as of today there is no aircraft that can stand against it.

 

Ah, I forgot everything I write about is with 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders under the wings.

 

And I'm not writing about reality but about DCS, earlier I also wrote about DCS.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Nahen

[JB3DG]

The F-15C doesn't have the CFTs for starters. Secondly the gross weight of similar configurations is not comparable (the E is heavier).

Also according to perf charts for an empty F-15C, at 40000ft the max mach is 2.4, 2.6 is more realistic at about 55000ft. Finally, because the C is so much lighter, it can accelerate to that max mach much faster than the E. So nope, there will be noticeable loss of performance even with the -229 engines, and with the -220s it will be very much a truck.

[Vampyre]

39 minutes ago, JB3DG said:

The F-15C doesn't have the CFTs for starters.

Not true. The F-15C CFT's were used on 57th FIS Eagles out of Iceland, 1st TFW Eagles out of Langley, 21st TFW Eagles out of Elmendorf and the Israeli C's and D's carry them as well. The USAF hasn't really used them since the cold war but they are capable.

                           EDIT- Just found a photo of a Kadena based 18th TFW C Eagle with CFT's as well.

Edited October 26, 2021 by Vampyre
More Info

[Nahen]

2 hours ago, JB3DG said:

The F-15C doesn't have the CFTs for starters. Secondly the gross weight of similar configurations is not comparable (the E is heavier).

Also according to perf charts for an empty F-15C, at 40000ft the max mach is 2.4, 2.6 is more realistic at about 55000ft. Finally, because the C is so much lighter, it can accelerate to that max mach much faster than the E. So nope, there will be noticeable loss of performance even with the -229 engines, and with the -220s it will be very much a truck.

But you know that you are writing about what has been written about many times? The F-15E is heavier "structurally", has much more powerful engines, is much faster than the F-15C, has greater inertia and therefore it has no chance against the F-15C in maneuvering combat, but in BVR it has much more possibilities because of achieving much higher speed and, consequently, can significantly extend the effective range of the AiM-120 missiles.

In DCS, removing or not CFT will not change anything completely. As far as we know, it will not be possible to take them off. But it will not be a problem at all, because I'm confident that with them he be will calmly climb 34-50 000 feet and will be accelerate to a minimum of Mach 2.2-2.4 - and this will make him an unbeatable machine in the BVR - like now F-15C is.

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, Nahen said:

Have you ever flown the F-15C in DCS? I dare to doubt ... Currently it is able to easily climb 45-50,000 feet with two fuel tanks and accelerate to Mach 2.2. Without tanks yesterday I was at 130,000 feet - of course with almost zero speed - but yesterday, in order to check the "speed limit" without tanks, I accelerated the F-15 C about 40,000 feet to a speed of exactly 2,643 Ma.

Are you still saying "it won't happen"?

I invite you to one of the two severs of "304th Virtual Fighter Wing" and see what the F-15C can do in terms of speed and BVR combat - as of today there is no aircraft that can stand against it.

 

Ah, I forgot everything I write about is with 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders under the wings.

 

And I'm not writing about reality but about DCS, earlier I also wrote about DCS.

 

I'm not sure if your testing was in the current OB or not, but know that the Eagle is currently bugged. The Fuel tanks and weapons all have zero drag and weight, so it always flies as if it's clean and on internal fuel. It's grossly overperforming in combat right now.

However I agree with you in your general point. In past patches where there was stores drag, the Eagle can outpace the rest of the teen series even with 2 fuel tanks. It just needs sufficient distance to accelerate.