LO's F-15 vs. the F-15 Streak Eagle

I cannot test this myself right now but,

 

Has anyone tried operating F-15C between 25000' and 35000' with -no- afterburner at a mass of 46000lbs or so? :)

 

This is supposed to be where the F-15 'lives'. :)

Due to contrail modelling this is a big no-go area in LO! Typical!

Start there and go full AB and pull up.

For that matter, try it at any speed and altitude you choose. The LOMAC F-15 will not accelerate in the vertical.

I can not imagine F-15 at 50 ft, 350 kts and 90 pitch, sorry... can you?

that is an f-15 doing a cobra!!!:megalol:

Climb rate examples:

 

 

Su-27UB.....................................1230 ft/sec

Mig-29A.....................................1000 ft/sec

Su-30MKK.................................1000 ft/sec

Su-35 (su-27M)...........................920 ft/sec

Mig-25 "Foxbat"...........................680 ft/sec

F-15C "Eagle"...............................666 ft/sec

 

 

Conclusion is obvious: Russian fighter jets climb better! ;)

 

If there was a relation between climb rate and engine performance then the Foxbat and the eagle would be best in climbing! (from this list)

Those numbers are wrong. F-15 can outclimb the Foxbat, and I simply cant picture to be so lame that it has only half the climb capability of flanker.

The P-42 beat the F-15 in time-to-climb by seconds ... the difference was not exactly huge.

Climb rate examples:

 

 

Su-27UB.....................................1230 ft/sec

Mig-29A.....................................1000 ft/sec

Su-30MKK.................................1000 ft/sec

Su-35 (su-27M)...........................920 ft/sec

Mig-25 "Foxbat"...........................680 ft/sec

F-15C "Eagle"...............................666 ft/sec

 

 

Conclusion is obvious: Russian fighter jets climb better! ;)

 

If there was a relation between climb rate and engine performance then the Foxbat and the eagle would be best in climbing! (from this list)

Is this guy serious? Is he making up numbers? Please tell me this is just a joke and he's making up numbers.

If the flanker surpases the F-15 in anything of that order of magnitude must be in propaganda. :D

Are we talking: F100-PW-100 here ?

Continue.

45000 ft climb, the same condition.

2 min 42 s (2.2+0.5 min) according the chart.

2 min 41 s in the Lockon test.

 

Gentlemen, please pay attention that the test flights (both real and Lockon) include takeoff, acceleration to the climb speed, low G maneuver and the climb itself. I want to say that the model fit the real prototype at all of these parts of flight.

 

For those who want to say that I performed many attempts to achieve these results that fit RL: I have no time to this business. There were only two attempts - one for training and one to record a track.

 

Though the discussion was very interesting the dark side of it that the BS release delayed for 1 day... :)

You're wasting your time. Swingkid already did what you did - and yes, Lock On in this respect was accurate to the second. However, that's irrelevant in this case.

Ok, I just ran some more tests, and...

I'm confused.

I don't see any evidence, that Lock On's F-15C engines ever produce more than 41000 lbf thrust, if that.

On the other hand, the time-to-height test matched very well.

What's going on?

...If there was any weight for which the aircraft could climb vertically at 350 kts, there should be a horizontal section of the curve here, to indicate altitude gained for zero distance traveled. There isn't one. The best it says you can do is about 5000' per 1 nm horizontal distance, all the way down to sea level. That can't be right, can it? How on earth can a 30,000 lb F-15 experience more than 17,000 lbs drag at 350 kts? What am I missing?

 

Anyway, Lock On's F-15C matches this chart fairly well, but the chart seems to describe an aircraft with only about 41000 lbf bench engine thrust.

This was the response by Rhen:

Interesting discussion you've got going here, however you are operating under several misconceptions:

 

1) There's no such thing as a 38,000 Lb F-15 with full internal fuel, unless it's stripped down. The basic empty weight (Aircraft + Unusable fuel + Oil + Pilot) is around 28-29,000 (varies with each aircraft, but we flightplan a generic aircraft). Add to that full internal JP-8 which is roughly 14,000 Lbs & that gives an aircraft weight of 42-43,000lbs. BTW, can you even remove the wing pylons in LOMAC and do they account for any drag or weight to the aircraft (this will affect the climb - at least IRL). Weight of the aircraft with BEW+wing pylons+4LAU-114racks+Full internal fuel is roughly 44,000lbs (my memory is a little stale here but I think my numbers are correct).

 

2) The above climb charts are based on flying the aircraft in a certain manner - the dash-1 specific climb schedule. Hold brakes, run engines up to 80% RPM, release brakes, throttles into burner, rotate at 120KCAS to 10 degrees pitch, airborne at computed takeoff speed (or basically whenever the aircraft decides to fly - we compute this speed), gear and flaps up after airborne, accelerating to 350KCAS, hold 350KCAS to M0.95, hold this or 40degrees nose up, whichever comes first.

 

3) if you're using that chart to find a specific time to climb, you must hold your pitch THROUGH that altitude - i.e. don't try to level off, but maintain M0.95 through the desired altitude, just stop timing when that altitude is achieved.

 

4) the chart is based on a Standard Aeronautical Day = 59oF/15oC, 29.92inHg/1013.25mb, with standard lapse rate of 3.5oF/2oC up to 36,000ft. Is this even modeled in LOMAC? If you're flying in the Crimea in the summer, you must use the bottom left temperature corrections above standard day temperature.

 

5) Did you remember to add 30 seconds to whatever the chart gives you as a time to climb IF you're looking for time to climb from BRAKE RELEASE. This is a critical point, as the number for the chart only gives you time from attaining 350KCAS to level off.

 

6) Yes the F-15 can take off and climb straight up - however, to do this we do the above procedure, but hold the aircraft close to the ground (anywhere from 5ft to 50ft pilot pref.) and accelerate to 350KCAS (or more for a more spectacular climb), then pull the nose smoothly into a 90opitch attitude. The engine thrust will fall off as you climb, parasite drag will begin to decrease with decreasing airspeed & induced drag is negligible (pilots are aware of these things - in a big-picture sense, but don't need to know the numbers, just the shape of the drag curve. )

 

That's about all i can think of right now.

Full thread here: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=15815&page=7&highlight=F-15+climb+rate

Sorry, isn't you a WRITER but not a READER? Or you want to ask Qs but not to read answers and analize?

In the posts above I made clear that all lamentations that F-15 does not fit its climb specification is a kind of bs because of the poor test methodics...

If I post a track where F-15 flies at 30000 ft even higher and performs a turn will it be a reason to stop complaining and read Shaw book for example?

 

The track is quite didactive :), I intentionally get out of the best climb speed and out of climb ability and had to regain it to regain climb rate. After that some maneouvers were performed after 30000 ft had been reached including climb, turns, etc up to ... ft alt.

 

 

Not to hurt somebody: gentlemen, before you start to discuss FM, please be acquanted with the typical AB/no AB flight envelopes for modern planes, energy theory, typical thrust vs M curves for AB/no AB, performance dependence on mass, drag, etc. In this material you can find the answers to many of your questions. :)

 

Numbers in pop-magazines are not the best source to adduce. The numbers to climb rate posted by TucsonSonny is an example of very incorrect data.

I have a clear sensation that you missed several of my posts. I have a brother who actualy flies 20 year old standard block 15 F-16 ADF's and if his plane is flying higher and faster than LOMAC's "acurate" straight level flight perfomance at high altitude in dry thrust then I should assume that our planes are the best in the world second only to the Raptor. ;)

 

Numbers in pop-magazines are not the best source to adduce. The numbers to climb rate posted by TucsonSonny is an example of very incorrect data.

I just have borrowed the data from the number 1 western fanboi sim (Free Falcon Tactical reference)

Call it a pop-sim :D

Climb rate examples:

 

 

Su-27UB.....................................1230 ft/sec

Mig-29A.....................................1000 ft/sec

Su-30MKK.................................1000 ft/sec

Su-35 (su-27M)...........................920 ft/sec

Mig-25 "Foxbat"...........................680 ft/sec

F-15C "Eagle"...............................666 ft/sec

 

 

Conclusion is obvious: Russian fighter jets climb better!

Blind nationalism at its worst. Sad.

OMG THE WEIGHT OF THE PILOTTTTTTTTTTTTT OMGOMGOMGOGMOMG THAT SAYS IT ALLL

No!! It's the weight and drag of the external warning lights!

Blind nationalism at its worst. Sad.

I am from Belgium (data is from Falcon tactical reference and I have nothing to do with it :D )

Again: about 1000 ft/sec and not from a pop-magazine!

Specifications (Sukhoi Su-30MKI)

General characteristics

Crew: 2

Length: 22.10 m (72 ft 51 in)

Wingspan: 14.70 m (48 ft 23 in)

Height: 6.38 m (22 ft 89 in)

Wing area: 62.04 m² (667.8 ft²)

Empty weight: 17,700 kg (39,300 lb)

Loaded weight: 34,500 kg (76,100 lb)

Max takeoff weight: 38,800 kg (85,600 lb)

Powerplant: 2× Lyulka AL-31FP turbofans with thrust vectoring, 131 kN (29,400 lbf) each

Performance

Range: 3,000 km (1,600 nm, 1,900 mi) unrefueled

Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,000 ft)

Rate of climb: >303 m/s (60,000 ft/min)

Wing loading: 556 kg/m² (113 lb/ft²)

Thrust/weight: 0.77

BTW, engines on export Su-30MKI are downgraded.

If the flanker surpases the F-15 in anything of that order of magnitude must be in propaganda. :D

You don’t get the point?

The Foxbat for example is capable of doing Mach 2.8 and has only a climb rate of 680 ft/sec.

You don’t get the point?

The Foxbat for example is capable of doing Mach 2.8 and has only a climb rate of 680 ft/sec.

You're NUMBERS are FAKE. Furthermore, you cannot use the performance of the Foxbat to "prove" that a) your data is correct or b) the F-15 has a low climb rate.

This kind of logic is laughable. Ha-Ha-Ha laughable.

And I would add even more: ahahahahahahaha...................................ha!

J/K ;)

And I would add even more: ahahahahahahaha...................................ha!

 

J/K ;)

Wikipedia Ha-Ha-Ha laughable ahahahahahahaha................................... ha!

I am a NATO member I AM FROM BELGIUM!

I am a western fanboi TOOOOOOOOOO…

Pleeeeeeaaase help me because I find all these numbers all over the net on WESTERN websites confirming that Russian planes climb better!

Please confirm by posting a couple of links that the F-15C has a 1000ft/sec climb rate because ME TOO I am freaking out!!!!!!!!! :D

As an aside, the Foxbat is fast but it doesn't have a good thrust to weight ratio.

PS:

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

And Yo-Yo, maybe I should have started with this question: Do you think the real F-15C can accelerate vertically at any speed/altitude? Same question for the MiG-29?

Wikipedia Ha-Ha-Ha laughable ahahahahahahaha................................... ha!

I am a NATO member I AM FROM BELGIUM!

I am a western fanboi TOOOOOOOOOO…

Pleeeeeeaaase help me because I find all these numbers all over the net on WESTERN websites confirming that Russian planes climb better!

Please confirm by posting a couple of links that the F-15C has a 1000ft/sec climb rate because ME TOO I am freaking out!!!!!!!!! :D

Um, most sources just simply state that BOTH the F-15C and Su-27's climb rate is >50 000ft/min.

Which illustrates a good point - because the actual instantaneous climb rate is highly variable throughout all portions of the flight envelope, for each aircraft, at different configurations/fuel loads. Thus, these general climb-rate specs you find in Falcon 4's TacRef or Wikipedia are absolutely meaningless unless you just wanna whip it out, take out the yardstick and see whose tail hook is bigger.

Is this guy serious? Is he making up numbers? Please tell me this is just a joke and he's making up numbers.

Perfectly normal for him.