F-15C Landing speed

[Sanch0]

Is there a chart of landing speed depending on load for F-15C?

 

For example we have F-15C equiped with 6 x AIM-120C + 2 x AIM-9M and 3 x fuel tanks (fueal 100%). After take off pilot must turn back and land (because he forget cigarettes). What should a real F-15C pilot do?

[mvsgas]

Is there a chart of landing speed depending on load for F-15C?

 

For example we have F-15C equiped with 6 x AIM-120C + 2 x AIM-9M and 3 x fuel tanks (fueal 100%). After take off pilot must turn back and land (because he forget cigarettes). What should a real F-15C pilot do?

 

A real pilot wold not worry since he can't smoke in the cockpit and continue the mission :D

Or he could claim physiological problems, declare and IFE, dump all excess fuel ( basically externals, and 50% internals, completely guessing by the way) while circling a designated area and land. :smartass:

 

In FC2, you should be find landing at about 130 to 150 knots no matter the load-out, I do not think is modeled in FC2

Edited September 29, 2010 by mvsgas

[Sanch0]

No doubt it isn't modeled correctly in FC2 like a lot of other things but IMHO 150kts for fully loaded plane is too slow, too high alpha I mean FC2.

 

And cigarettes are part of the mission :D

Edited September 29, 2010 by Sanch0

[Steel Jaw]

In the real jet, and as simulated very well in the Falcon 4 F16, you play the AOA bracket and dont need to know an exact speed or weight.

[aaron886]

I'm not sure the AOA tape on the F-15 HUD in LO is worth anything. It's impossible to be precise with the little caret on a scale that goes past any achievable AOA in the Eagle with the gear down. Silly, IMO, if that's how the real thing is made.

[Steel Jaw]

Have a look at this and you'll see what I mean about playing the AOA bracket...

 

http://www.87th.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=22

 

Now, how that would apply to lite weight sim of debatable realism like FC2 is the question....

[mvsgas]

I just tried out what I said before

In FC2, you should be find landing at about 130 to 150 knots no matter the load-out, I do not think is modeled in FC2

 

I was able to land on average at 160 knots. I had full load fuel, tanksX3, AIM-7X2, AIM-120X4 and AIM-9X2. Again, prof that I'm full of it :joystick::doh: :D

[GGTharos]

Just touch down with about 10AoA or a bit more, less than 14.

 

You can land anything that doesn't have to land on a carrier at heavy weight, but the touchdown has to be VERY gentle. In general, cigarettes are not part of the mission no matter how much Sanch0 would like them to be, and the pilot would not come back for them ;)

 

Should he have an emergency, depending on procedure and conditions he would dump all externals and possibly internal fuel, but not all of this is necessary.

[mvsgas]

The problem in RL is the landing gear. I seen F-15 having to land just after take off and dump fuel for a good 5 or 10 minutes before attempting to land. They where F-15E from Lakenheath. It also depends on runway length, air temp, if they airfield has a barrier (cable)etc. The F-16 for a fact can't land until they burn "x" amount of fuel or risk collapsing the landing gear or a brake fire when attempting to stop.

[Jinro]

Now, how that would apply to lite weight sim of debatable realism like FC2 is the question....

 

If only the graphics on the Falcon games were worth anything, I would be playing them instead :P

 

I agree that the flight dynamics of the F15C in FC2 are...weird. The rate of climb after takeoff is just way too fast.

[pauldy]

Just sharing an opinion on the matter since my statements might be of little to no values..

 

In FC1, I rarely check the airspeed at all..

Though i can see my speeds are around 135-140 when most of my missiles have been launched and have an empty centerline fuel tank.. (yes, I take them home with me most of the time ^^)

 

Somewhat similar to what Mower said, I'm just looking for the AoA values.. somewhere around 6-8 units of AoA while on final approach in that indicator at the lower left side of the HUD in flaps full config... (this if Flamming Cliffs 1.12b..)

 

Landing speeds vary based on your total weight ideally (fuel left + amount of unused weapons..)

 

I have no idea if this can still be applied in FC2 though.. will know once i get my hard boxed copy..

 

I just go by some saying, fly the "simulated aircraft" based on its given "flight model" in-game, not by what it does or should in Real Life.

 

We all know computer simulation flight models might have some differences against Real World aircraft.. every game engine has it's limits ;)

[vanir]

I don't know, visually at least if you pull near vertical off the runway at full burner in the Flanker or Eagle, climb a good height and roll inverted to level out on positive g's, roll again to right yourself, cut the burners and vector to a course heading (no idea if I just ordered a pizza with that terminology), well the whole thing in FC2 at least looks pretty much exactly like a video taping I've got of the real thing from the cockpit of an F-15C with a couple of AIM-9.

 

I wouldn't know exact timings and measures, but visually it looks exactly like the real thing to me, compares very well with the genuine footage.

No claim for technical realism, but the visual experience and entertainment value of FC2 is great in this regard, it seems or feels pretty accurate, has great immersion.

[GGTharos]

It matches the -1. Yes, the F-15 is THAT fast.

 

I agree that the flight dynamics of the F15C in FC2 are...weird. The rate of climb after takeoff is just way too fast.

[Jinro]

It matches the -1. Yes, the F-15 is THAT fast.

I should have clarified. Yes, it matches up in unlimited climb. But when I'm at a +5 degree angle, the rate of climb seems much, much faster than it should be. Especially if you're loaded down with ordinance.

 

The Hog's rate of climb at the same angle is practically the same as the F15's....so I know something's amiss with its flight model.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Jinro

[GGTharos]

No, it matches the -1 schedule in time-to-altitude and distance-to-altitude. So yes, it IS that fast and is correct.

 

I should have clarified. Yes, it matches up in unlimited climb. But when I'm at a +5 degree angle, the rate of climb seems much, much faster than it should be. Especially if you're loaded down with ordinance.

[Jinro]

I have no bloody idea what "-1 schedule" means......and Google doesn't help.

 

Well, if the Eagle's rate of climb is right, then the Hog's must be wrong.

[Boberro]

Have a look at this and you'll see what I mean about playing the AOA bracket...

 

http://www.87th.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=22

 

Now, how that would apply to lite weight sim of debatable realism like FC2 is the question....

 

LOL Falcon has much more complicated landing procedure than LO all systems :D

Honestly I've never watched that bracked.... been landing visually like I am used to do that in LO. Time to change it.

[aaron886]

I have no bloody idea what "-1 schedule" means......and Google doesn't help.

 

Well, if the Eagle's rate of climb is right, then the Hog's must be wrong.

 

 

Then you may not be in a position to be saying it's not right.

[Jinro]

Then you may not be in a position to be saying it's not right.

I don't appreciate your condescending tone....

 

I'm thinking logically here--and something logically doesn't make sense, so I'm expressing my confusion about it. If you don't like it, then don't read my comments and don't reply to them unless you have something helpful to say. And if you're not an actual Eagle driver or Hog driver, then you may not be in a position to tell me squat.

 

So, the F15's rate of climb is accurately modeled in game. However, the A10 appears to have the same rate of climb (at a +5 or +10 degree angle). If the F15's rate of climb is 254m/s, and the A10's rate of climb is 30m/s, then the A10's rate of climb shouldn't feel anywhere close to the F15's...yet in the game it feels very close (unless I go at a higher angle of course, in which case it does feel like 30m/s).

 

I'm interested to know at what angle the rate of climb is actually measured so I can test it out in the game.

[GGTharos]

Rate of climb -can- be the same for the same airspeed and same pitch angle. There's almost no reason why it shouldn't be. If you're faster your vertical vector will also be greater.

 

Can you show me screenshots of how you have done the comparison?

 

 

PS: The -1 is the aircraft operator's manual which usually (but not always) also includes performance characteristics of the aircraft for a large number of factors including engine tuning, gross weight, drag (aka payload) and air temperature, usually vs. alt/mach.

 

I'm reasonably certain that the A-10C if FC2 matches its -1 reasonably well also.

Edited September 30, 2010 by GGTharos

[Jinro]

Thanks for the answer. Is it possible to find out at which speed/weight/pitch angle the rate of climb was/is measured at?

 

I don't have screenshots, but I just did a test.

 

Stopwatch timing from wheels off the ground to 2,000ft (609.6m) at a 5 degree pitch angle. 100% power (no afterburner with Eagle). A10 loaded to 18,068kg, F15 reduced to 18,068kg. Flaps up at around 170kts (which is probably way off from real-life procedure).

 

A10's time: 65 seconds=9.38m/s

F15's time: 53 seconds=11.5m/s

 

I would like to do a test at a set airspeed from, say 1000ft to 3000ft, but then there would be a weight difference issue between the A10 and F15.

Considering that the A10 gets 9,065lbf from each engine, and the F15 gets 17,450lbf dry from each engine, I would expect the time difference to be much greater.

[GGTharos]

The -1 schedule for non-AB climbout is as follows:

 

RUn up to 80%, release brakes, go full AB and rotate to 10deg wit half stick aft at 100kt - hold 10 deg pitch until take-off, flaps/gear up, throttle to MIL before 250kt.

 

Pitch for 350kt, and maintain 350kt until 0.9M cross-over at which point you hold 0.9M.

 

Your test is wrong ... what you need to do is this.

 

Take off with each AC, and reach a pre-dermined speed. Let's say 230kt. Make sure you start at the same altitude.

Pitch up to maintain 230kt at 100% power in both aircraft.

Maintain speed ONLY with pitch.

See how fast it'll take you to gain 5000' for both.

[Jinro]

Wouldn't the difference in weight skew the results a bit?

 

You wouldn't happen to have a link to the document you're getting these procedures from, would you? Google keeps leading me to believe that I either have to pay $40 to download a manual, or that it's classified and I can't get it....

 

I'd like to learn how to fly the F15 properly before I jump into combat.....apparently I suck at turning dogfights.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Jinro

[GGTharos]

Weight matters only when you are comparing the aircraft to itself. If you want to know the difference in climb rate, just fuel both aircraft fully and leave them otherwise clean.

 

And no, these documents are not free so there is no link; you can purchase them if you so please. The -1 will give you performance figures, but it won't teach you to fly or fight. If you can interpret those figures, great, how you use them, well ... :)

 

As for turning dogfights, you have to know whom to do it with. Here it is skill that matters - turning with a Su-27 is a bad idea for example ... you want to use energy fighting in this case, which is far more difficult and angles fighting (ie. turn and burn).

 

I suggest you practice sustained turns at different altitudes and different weights. You get the most power at around M0.9-0.95, but this might not be a practical speed at higher altitudes.

[Jinro]

I recall the training in LOMAC where the best speed for the F15 in a turning fight was something like 375kts? I can't remember exactly.

 

My biggest weak point is in BVR. Somehow, enemy fighters manage to dodge most if not all (I've frequently had an Su27 in the DACT mission dodge all 6 of my radar guided missiles), yet I can barely shake the enemies' missiles even with violent maneuvering, ECM and chaff.

 

As for energy fighting....I'm lost there. The only way I can think of maintaining energy while maneuvering is to dive for the deck....then I have to pop back up and lose energy at some point.