Nahen Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 I assume that the current patch, which influenced the "behavior" of the AiM-120 in the air, did not so much change the behavior of the AiM-120 as it changed the air effect on them - and thus the air effect on all objects. Yesterday we flew with my mate MiG-29S and my F-15C and in total the speed of MiG was also very good at altitudes above 34,000 and speeds close to Mach 2. I realize that now "something is wrong", but it does not change the fact that earlier the F-15C also accelerated without any problems (after dropping the tanks) to 2.4-2.5 Mach and was still deadly, being able to successfully shoot at a distance of over 60-65 miles. AiM-120C often times hit a fighter unable to effectively outmaneuver the rocket. The rocket at these speeds flies half its "path" above 6Mach - like the AiM-54 - and when it enters in pitbull it still has a reserve of speed and altitude that it can convert into kinetic energy. Condition - a shot at a target that is fly about 10,000-15,000 feet lower. Yesterday also, for example, on one of Growling's servers, this way I shot down "live" F-16s, JFs, F-14s without any risk for myself. I am sure that even a medium-quality F-15E module with CFT should easily reach 45-50,000 feet and accelerate to Mach 2-2.3, and that's enough. As far as I remember, the actual maximum speed for the F-15E at an altitude of 50-60,000 feet (from producers technical info - "at high altitude") is over 3,000 km / h (that's about Mach 2.9) - I emphasize - in fact. That's a good 300 km / h more than the F-15C. Producer technical info (Boeing earlier McDonnellDouglas) - "at high altitude" - "service ceiling" is to 65 000 feet for F-15C and 60 000 for F-15E. But this is no maximum ceiling for both planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang25 Posted October 27, 2021 Share Posted October 27, 2021 51 minutes ago, Nahen said: I am sure that even a medium-quality F-15E module with CFT should easily reach 45-50,000 feet and accelerate to Mach 2-2.3, and that's enough. As far as I remember, the actual maximum speed for the F-15E at an altitude of 50-60,000 feet (from producers technical info - "at high altitude") is over 3,000 km / h (that's about Mach 2.9) - I emphasize - in fact. That's a good 300 km / h more than the F-15C. Producer technical info (Boeing earlier McDonnellDouglas) - "at high altitude" - "service ceiling" is to 65 000 feet for F-15C and 60 000 for F-15E. But this is no maximum ceiling for both planes. Strike Eagles with CFTs have a limit of M2.0. Without CFTs it's M2.3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nahen Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 On 10/27/2021 at 6:35 PM, Mustang25 said: Strike Eagles with CFTs have a limit of M2.0. Without CFTs it's M2.3 https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15/#/technical-specifications Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mustang25 Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 51 minutes ago, Nahen said: https://www.boeing.com/defense/f-15/#/technical-specifications Given the choice between vague Boeing marketing material and the actual Strike Eagle Dash-1, I know which number I'm going to choose to believe. 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nahen Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Mustang25 said: Given the choice between vague Boeing marketing material and the actual Strike Eagle Dash-1, I know which number I'm going to choose to believe. Show me RELIABLE technical data according to you? Link to a RELIABLE page. I'm waiting. You are a F-15E pilot, I will ask for data to confirm this unequivocally. Because I'm a death star pilot ... Edited October 28, 2021 by Nahen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted October 28, 2021 Share Posted October 28, 2021 (edited) We're not allowed to post those here. Find yourself an F-15E -1 and check it out. These aircraft are limited by physics. NASA did fly their F-15B (with special engine mods) to M 2.69, but that's NASA's F-15B special. Limits for flying those aircraft at those speeds include: Overheating engines Lack of correct airflow into the engine (the ramps can only do so much to shape the airflow, their ability to do this is not unlimited) Heating of the canopy IAS/CAS limitations have to be respected or you might find that your aircraft will start falling apart Engines lose thrust as air pressure (so with altitude) decreases This is before we even get to drag preventing you from reaching such speeds. Vague references from brochures are usually quite meaningless, get the -1 and you'll learn much more. The -1 is your basic reliable technical data. Correction, here's a source: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/645693/ Edited October 28, 2021 by GGTharos 3 2 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nahen Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 (edited) Does the fact that the Bugatti Veron on the Ehra-Lessien circuit of Volkswagen AG reached 407.8 km / h and its owners run a maximum of 200 km / h on a daily basis mean that its maximum speed is 200 km / h? If you understand it, it's nice if not, well ... F-15E is able to reach over 3000 km / h If you think otherwise, your problem. Since the regulations say that you cannot drive faster than 140 km / h on the highway, it means that all cars have a maximum speed of 140 km / h ?? Nice idea... Edited October 29, 2021 by Nahen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 1 hour ago, Nahen said: If you understand it, it's nice if not, well ... F-15E is able to reach over 3000 km / h If you think otherwise, your problem. You don't know what you're talking about. 8 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TLTeo Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Ugh removing CFTs is going to be the next Triple Maverick rack/4 Harm loadout hill people die on, isn't it? 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 No one's really going to die on it though. 1 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAXsenna Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 "For whom the bell tolls" Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB3DG Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 I won't post the document here. But I can give page numbers if anyone wants to get specific. T.O. 1F-15E-1, D 15 April 1993. Blocks 41 to 53. Appendix B9-11. Level Flight Envelope, Gross weight 54,000 pounds, Maximum Thrust. Airplane Configuration: -5CFT, (4)AIM-7, (4)AIM-9. Remarks: Engines: (2)F100-PW-229, U.S. Standard Day, 1966. CFT design limit curve is Mach 1.2 at around 8,000ft, Mach 1.4 at 18,000, Mach 1.6 at 25,000, Mach 2 at 35,000. However on a standard day at max power, performance starts to drop away from the CFT design limit at around 22,000. At 30,000, the CFT DL is just shy of Mach 1.8, but the max speed is just a bit below that at Mach 1.7. Increase to 35,000, and there is a bit of a band between Mach 1.9 and Mach 1.85 that the jet can actually attain, and this is where it peaks on a standard day. Increase the altitude and it drops off. It can just barely touch Mach 2 (more like Mach 1.99) if the day is standard -10°C. Anything hotter decreases performance. At standard +10°C, the max peaks out below Mach 1.8 at around 1.7-1.75. In level flight, max top speed is a function of drag rather than weight, because weight only affects acceleration, so burning off fuel isn't going to help much. With CFTs and missiles, the jet isn't going to exceed those numbers. And the E CFTs are not the same as the C CFTs because they have all those extra weapon pylons on them. Add in LANTIRN pods and 2 bags under the wings and it can only get worse. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deano87 Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 7 minutes ago, JB3DG said: It can just barely touch Mach 2 (more like Mach 1.99) if the day is standard -10°C. Anything hotter decreases performance. At standard +10°C, the max peaks out below Mach 1.8 at around 1.7-1.75. Finally somebody working within the bounds of actual reality. 2 Proud owner of: PointCTRL VR : Finger Trackers for VR -- Real Simulator : FSSB R3L Force Sensing Stick. -- Deltasim : Force Sensor WH Slew Upgrade -- Mach3Ti Ring : Real Flown Mach 3 SR-71 Titanium, made into an amazing ring. My Fathers Aviation Memoirs: 50 Years of Flying Fun - From Hunter to Spitfire and back again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 The acceleration tables are also important. Having the time to get up to ludicrous speed is probably not a common thing unless the mission is designed specifically around achieving this and the environment is permissible. [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank50us Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 On 10/29/2021 at 6:55 PM, GGTharos said: The acceleration tables are also important. Having the time to get up to ludicrous speed is probably not a common thing unless the mission is designed specifically around achieving this and the environment is permissible. Or you just feel like going to plad 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB3DG Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 On 10/29/2021 at 7:55 PM, GGTharos said: The acceleration tables are also important. Having the time to get up to ludicrous speed is probably not a common thing unless the mission is designed specifically around achieving this and the environment is permissible. Yeah addressed that in my first comment. E isn't going to extend like the C does, cuz while mass doesn't affect top speed directly it does affect acceleration and a heavier jet isn't going to accelerate as quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker Posted November 1, 2021 Share Posted November 1, 2021 2 hours ago, JB3DG said: Yeah addressed that in my first comment. E isn't going to extend like the C does, cuz while mass doesn't affect top speed directly it does affect acceleration and a heavier jet isn't going to accelerate as quickly. it’s not the weight, it’s the drag. CFT racks are painfully draggy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB3DG Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 On 10/31/2021 at 10:28 PM, Rainmaker said: it’s not the weight, it’s the drag. CFT racks are painfully draggy. Its both. Simple a = f/m. A heavier aircraft will have a lower acceleration for the same thrust compared to a lighter one. Drag affects the net f, increase mass for the same net f and a will be reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 7, 2021 Share Posted November 7, 2021 On 10/31/2021 at 10:28 PM, Rainmaker said: it’s not the weight, it’s the drag. CFT racks are painfully draggy. As JB3DG said; everything that affects acceleration affects cycle time. This includes weight. This may not be a huge deal when you're facing low threat opponents, but anything with competitive weapons that can move better will out-BVR it, so other tactics will be needed. [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rainmaker Posted November 8, 2021 Share Posted November 8, 2021 (edited) 11 hours ago, JB3DG said: Its both. Simple a = f/m. A heavier aircraft will have a lower acceleration for the same thrust compared to a lighter one. Drag affects the net f, increase mass for the same net f and a will be reduced. Sure, it’s both...but the weight is not nearly as comparable of a factor as the drag is. You lose way more due to drag than you do from the additional weight. You can fly both configs at the same gross, but there will be a substantial difference from the additional drag of one vs the other. Edited November 8, 2021 by Rainmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bies Posted November 15, 2021 Share Posted November 15, 2021 (edited) On 9/21/2021 at 2:59 AM, 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 I doubt it's true, I've seen official documentation, it's publicly available, F-15C was head and shoulders above F-15E performance wise. Especially maneuverability and speed. Remember F-15E even without CFT is considerably heavier airframe thus higher wing loading no matter what engines you use. And this degrade turning performance, especially at higher altitudes. F-15E is a strike aircraft, not a fighter. Remember as well more powerful engines to maintain the same T/W ratio of the heavier aircraft means higher fuel consumption so flying without additional CFT would be pointless except for the 10 minutes airshow. Edited November 15, 2021 by bies 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inconnudiscret Posted November 16, 2021 Share Posted November 16, 2021 On 10/29/2021 at 12:21 PM, Nahen said: Does the fact that the Bugatti Veron on the Ehra-Lessien circuit of Volkswagen AG reached 407.8 km / h and its owners run a maximum of 200 km / h on a daily basis mean that its maximum speed is 200 km / h? If you understand it, it's nice if not, well ... F-15E is able to reach over 3000 km / h If you think otherwise, your problem. Since the regulations say that you cannot drive faster than 140 km / h on the highway, it means that all cars have a maximum speed of 140 km / h ?? Nice idea... You can’t be serious ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 It may have been more appropriate to use the 100-PW-220 charts rather than -100s. 1 [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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_DK_ Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 True, I'll rework them to the 220s, didn't realise you had linked a source for them above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FoxOne007 Posted November 20, 2021 Share Posted November 20, 2021 We can debate and show charts about this all day long but in the end RAZBAM had already said they won’t be removable. CFT’s are an integral part of the Strike Eagle and only ever come off during repot maintenance and other rare MX occasions. Discussing X & Y performance is a waste of time as it won’t have any result 4 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts