F-15C Top Speed in Lomac

[bflagg]

Um, exactly because it's at 38k.

 

if it's doable at sea level too (the tape shows the wrong airspeed) then it's either a bug or the instrumentation isn't able to show it problely, and by the way, you're nto supposed to be going so fast at that alttiude anyway, your canopy will implode ;)

 

??? :confused:

 

Published F15 documentation states that the thing can go 2.1+ mach at sea level and 1.x at higher alt (don't remember).

So i would find it unlikely of the canopy implosion suggestion....

Actually wouldn't it be a explosion, since bernoulli's law would be ineffect? (lower pressure outside due to moving air which will be greater than the sealed enviroment the pilot is in)

 

There is a link on this board about Engines of the PW-100-xx versions and

and that published paper is where I got my info from, (not include other sources hear and there).

 

go ahead a try this in lomac... you'll go mach but your hud tape won't go above a certain speed.

 

You'll all know my feelings on the F15 model in LockON, but going 750knots

and get a betty bitch warning "maximum speed", is ludicrous.

 

I can only surmise the ED developed this limitation because it is such

a small Island . By the time you get to mach 2.x you'll be half over the map.

[bflagg]

So how come an F-15 will take off and immediately stand on its tail and climb vertically to 8000' ... I've seen it. What speed can it be doing just after take-off? 200-300kts?

 

I have seen this also at various US air bases ( and watch it accelerate), and I just don't understand why it's not modeled as to what I have actually seen?

(tho I do realize this is just a game)

 

Everyone here throws documentation at you, but when you stand

at a airfield and watch one of these puppies go straight up , it goes

against what you hear here....

 

It confused the heck out of me also how ED can be so right, but my experiences shows different?

 

Mabe the island were all playing at has a higher gravity field?

 

guys... I'm not bitching here... just observing...and realized nothing

will be done anyways....

 

 

anyway... I gotta head to work...

enjoy the day everyone..

[GGTharos]

No, bflagg, it's max Mach 1.2 at sea level, mach 2.5 at altitude, like every other aircraft. Re-read your sources and unconfuse yourself ;)

 

And yes, it would be an implosion, not an explosion.

[britgliderpilot]

 

From the v1.1 blurb on the lockon.ru website.

 

If the F15 flight manual says the F15 can't do Mach 2.5 . . . . y'know, I think I'd probably trust it.

 

In fact, according to this the F15 in Lomac can go faster than it can IRL. The max Mach at high altitude has got a bit of a gap, but since we're talking about max speeds . . . . .

 

 

Pity we don't seem to have an official source for the Russian jets for comparison - but those big published figures may not always be accurate one way or another.

[britgliderpilot]

It says in the documentation that came with the game that F-15 was Mach 2.5+ so it should be able to do that. Russian planes like Mach 2.3 so they shouldn't fly faster. If what you all are saying is true than something is messed up.

 

The documentation was inaccurate for Flanker 2. It's still inaccurate now . . . . even more so for the release version manual, which in some cases is Just Plain Wrong.

 

I think the v1.1 manual still uses the Flanker 2.0 HUD descriptions for the Russian jets in places - mostly OK, but the crosshair ILS is of course completely wrong now.

 

 

The enclopedia data doesn't seem to have been updated much, if at all. It's a useful reference for ballpark figures, but isn't quite right.

[S77th-GOYA]

Which version of the F-15 with which engines is the flight manual made for?

 

Does anyone know exactly which engines are modelled for all these planes? No matter what they are, the thrust to weight ratio should allow for vertical climbs right after take-off.

 

Is it true that at low altitude, the MiG should be the fastest plane and the high altitude the 15 should be fastest?

 

Is drag of weapons stores (missles) modelled correctly?

[tflash]

Can anyone explain to me how we would exploit this much-vaunted Mach 2.5+ feature whithin the confines of the Lockon terrain? In an air-to-air engagement you're not trying to establish speed records, or are you? I don't think we are missing a big deal here.

 

It's true ED remains a little to vague about what specific variants of aircraft are modelled: it would be helpful to model a specific production block of an aircraft type, but then, it would demand much research and it would maybe prove difficult to have a balanced mix that allows fair gameplay. What would be nice however is a clearer statement about the timeframe of Lockon.

[britgliderpilot]

Can anyone explain to me how we would exploit this much-vaunted Mach 2.5+ feature whithin the confines of the Lockon terrain? In an air-to-air engagement you're not trying to establish speed records, or are you? I don't think we are missing a big deal here.

 

It's true ED remains a little to vague about what specific variants of aircraft are modelled: it would be helpful to model a specific production block of an aircraft type, but then, it would demand much research and it would maybe prove difficult to have a balanced mix that allows fair gameplay. What would be nice however is a clearer statement about the timeframe of Lockon.

 

 

There isn't a statement about Lomac's timeframe, because Lomac doesn't HAVE a timeframe. It incorporates aircraft from different timeframes . . . some aircraft are out of service, and some are to enter service. Some are missing entirely.

 

What matters is that aircraft fighting against each other are of similar vintage specification. IMO, it's not a big deal that the Su25T is newer than the model of F15 we have in Lomac . . . . but it would be a big deal if we had, say, an Su35 and an F15A.

 

 

General assumption for the F15 is of an early F15C. The early ones still had the same engines as the F15A . . . . the replacement engines traded a little bit of thrust for reliable operation with no compressor stalls.

 

I think this is from the radar modelling . . . pre-MSIP II I think is what those in the know have said.

 

 

The Su27 is the stock Su27S . . . . JJ_Alfa and the other Flankerheads know the details of that spec. These two aircraft are pretty much contemporaries.

 

 

I personally don't think that 0.1 more Mach would make a big difference in Lomac. Especially since it would take so much fuel to get there . . . . who launches from above Mach 2 anyway, just out of interest?

(and yes, I'm sure the Panthers do . . . . . who else? :p )

 

 

IIRC, the flight manual is for the F15A. Early F15C should be of almost identical performance. Later F15C will be different, but using the F15A performance envelope where no F15C envelope is available is close enough for me.

The big differences are in the avionics anyway. Oh, and a bit of fuel . . . . that count as "big"?

 

(edit 2 - if the AFM is brought in for the other aircraft eventually, one thing I would love to see implemented (if the aircraft is indeed susceptible to them) is compressor stalls. The Russian aircraft don't seem to be prone to them (see Cobras various), but having to be careful with your throttles in the -15 to avoid surges would add a little something extra)

[S77th-GOYA]

Can anyone explain to me how we would exploit this much-vaunted Mach 2.5+ feature whithin the confines of the Lockon terrain? In an air-to-air engagement you're not trying to establish speed records, or are you? I don't think we are missing a big deal here.

 

It's not top speed that's important so much as which plane can out run another. THAT is very important.

 

This is supposed to be a simulation so if there is a part of the real world abilities of one plnae or even all the planes, it should be addressed. I've read that even with one engine, the MiG has a thrust to weight ratio higher than one. It should be able to take off like a rocket. All the fighters seem undermodelled in this aspect.

[BuzzU]

If the Russian fighters were also slower than they should be, it wouldn't be important that the F-15 was a little slow.

 

As a bare minimum, they should be equal.

[britgliderpilot]

If the Russian fighters were also slower than they should be, it wouldn't be important that the F-15 was a little slow.

 

As a bare minimum, they should be equal.

 

According to that envelope diagram, up to 40k feet the F15 is as fast or faster than it should be.

 

Unless you've seen flight envelope data for the Russian jets as well, I'm kind of at a loss to see why you think the Russian jets are faster than they should be. Published figures? Encylopedia?

[BuzzU]

According to that envelope diagram, up to 40k feet the F15 is as fast or faster than it should be.

 

Unless you've seen flight envelope data for the Russian jets as well, I'm kind of at a loss to see why you think the Russian jets are faster than they should be. Published figures? Encylopedia?

 

I'm going by the tests in the first part of this thread. Should the Russian planes be faster than the F-15?

[britgliderpilot]

I'm going by the tests in the first part of this thread. Should the Russian planes be faster than the F-15?

 

Only the people who know the flight envelope can answer that. I wouldn't have expected the Su27 to reach Mach 2.5 - in Flanker 2.5 I only got to M2.4, haven't tested in Lomac - and I'd like to see a screenie of it doing so.

 

I'd also like to know how you could tell it was doing Mach 2.5 - the Su27 cockpit doesn't have a Mach-meter in Lomac.

[BuzzU]

Would it really matter what the gauges are reading if you test the planes side by side, and the F-15 is losing?

[S77th-GOYA]

I'm going by the tests in the first part of this thread. Should the Russian planes be faster than the F-15?

 

Easy there, you old coot. The tests showed that the Russian planes out accelerated the 15 and at the point of flame out both had higher speeds. If the 15 had more fuel it could have acheived a higher top speed. Of course, the Su could have gone faster too. I'll have to add a test with the 15 at full internal fuel and the Su matching it. Or maybe even add externals to the 15 and let it burn for even longer.

[BuzzU]

How do they get to top speed in RL?

[Yo-Yo]

 

From the v1.1 blurb on the lockon.ru website.

 

If the F15 flight manual says the F15 can't do Mach 2.5 . . . . y'know, I think I'd probably trust it.

 

In fact, according to this the F15 in Lomac can go faster than it can IRL. The max Mach at high altitude has got a bit of a gap, but since we're talking about max speeds . . . . .

 

 

Pity we don't seem to have an official source for the Russian jets for comparison - but those big published figures may not always be accurate one way or another.

 

F-15 max speed 2.5M figured in some magazines is the ABSOLUTE MAX speed. Rather speed limitation than energetically achived speed.

Referring to the attached charts one can see that this speed even clean and lightweighted F-15 can reach only at overreved to 102% engine an -10C from the standard day.

[S77th-GOYA]

In the attachment, what is meant by engine "trim"? Surely not throttle setting. Fan angle maybe?

[Yo-Yo]

I think it means rpm that automatics holds while at full throttle.

[D-Scythe]

Yo-yo, what about the Su-27? Why can it do Mach 2.5?

[britgliderpilot]

Yo-yo, what about the Su-27? Why can it do Mach 2.5?

 

I've yet to see that it can, but I'd like to see some details on this if they're available.

 

There's a graph of acceleration against Mach no. for the F15 up with the Mach/Height curve - comparing that with the Su27 data would be interesting indeed.

[tflash]

He, guys, I don't play multiplayer often, but what you could do I guess is do a chase flight on-line in clean config between an F-15 and an Su-27. First let the F-15 lead, then the Su-27. You could see by what margin the jets perform differently. Whether its realistic or not, I'm not able to judge

[Trident]

- Engine(s): Two F100-PW-100, on some sites that you can search for; the eagle is listed with F100-PW-220 engine.

This was started in 1983 and ended in 1985 as part of the MIISP 1st upgrade.

 

If this game is supposed to sloted in the mid to early 1990's (1985-1995) then why does the eagle have the smallest engine in the game, vs other fighter aircraft.

 

I fail to see how LOMAC's implementation of the F100-PW100 is depriving the player of any performance - as Britgliderpilot remarked this version is actually more powerful than the newer -220 (if marginally so). Since the sim doesn't really model flame-outs (which would be a good idea for a future AFM Eagle though, IMHO even the -220 should not keep running if you ever attempted something like a tail-slide in the F-15C) that plagued the former I'm at a loss where you're perceiving a disadvantage here.

 

OTOH, while I'm not qualified to judge whether the top speeds of the respective aircraft are incorrect, I do think that ED should model these realistically - if one is slower than the other IRL according to the best available data then that's how it should be in the game.

 

I also agree about the radar needing improvements however, preferrably by modelling a full-up APG-70 (sans the mapping modes), IFF interogation (not just for the F-15 in this case) and a more detailed TACAN instrumentation would be nice too.

[bflagg]

No, bflagg, it's max Mach 1.2 at sea level, mach 2.5 at altitude, like every other aircraft. Re-read your sources and unconfuse yourself ;)

 

And yes, it would be an implosion, not an explosion.

 

Hey GG, I've been trying to find the PW engine thread but it's gone.

It appears the this site cleared out it's old stuff (I only see 3 pages history).

 

 

anyway.. this is nothing to get my nickers in a twist..

 

why implode tho? Pressure will drop outside the Jet, but the pressurized

cockpit with still be at 14psi (thereabouts).

[S77th-GOYA]

Hey GG, I've been trying to find the PW engine thread but it's gone.

It appears the this site cleared out it's old stuff (I only see 3 pages history).

 

Go to the bottom of the main page and change your display options. ;)