Janes F-15
Dennis Nielsen
Yesterday I got myself together and bought Janes F-15, and you know what:
I LOVE IT!!!!
So far I have not found any bugs or had any computer crashes or lockups, and
I played online all night and still no problems.
I wonder how many F4 guys can say that???
JANE RULE!!!!!!
Hammer
sure you use lots of Maveicks and GBU 15's :-)
Gary Edmondson
from a patch or two (or three... or four...), and that includes F-15.
That aside, you're right, F-15 is awesome. So is Falcon 4.0. You would
be sadly mistaken to rule out another sim based upon some kind of
brand loyalty. There is room for more than one topnotch hardcore
flight sim and flight sim publisher. Keep 'em coming Janes and
Microprose!!!
Mike
You got that right :-) I was playing with FS98 with its 737. It
climbs better above 25,000 feet fully loaded with fuel, several times
heavier, and has a lower fuel flow than Jane's F15 (the game, of course).
Of course not even a weather radar was modeled, let alone opening the
cargo door and tossing out some unruly passengers :-)))
Chris Linstruth <c...@cello.qnet.com> wrote:
: Give us another flight model. F-15C? Isn't there version with more
: powerful engines?
: --
: Chris Linstruth - c...@qnet.com
SJames03
fully loaded with fuel, several times
>heavier, and has a lower fuel flow than Jane's F15
That's why I don't do the realistic flight modeling with F15. I fly a 737 for
a living, and like you said, it can kick the shit out of Jane's F15 flight
model in a time to climb to FL350 if both are fully loaded if you have Janes
"realistically" model the F15. I don't have a problem with the fuel flow, it
*ought* to be lower than an F15's..... after all, we do try and make a profit
with the thing :) But while any fully loaded combat plane is a relative sled
compared to a clean one, Jane's goes a little overboard in its model. A loaded
airliner should not outclimb a loaded fighter or fighter-bomber in full AB.
Our thrust to weight is 44000 lbs pushing 140000 lbs versus a F15's about 50000
lbs pushing somewhere in the neighborhood of 80000 lbs. So the 1:3 (approx) is
outclimbing the 1:1.6 yeah, right.
Sean Long
SJames03 <sjam...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990113001212...@ng-cb1.aol.com...
At max gross weight, an F-15E with -220 motors just about needs min AB just
to stay airborn at 25,000 ft... Air refuelling above 23,000 ft with 3 fuel
tanks and no bombs requires up to full AB on one motor. Many airliners
today can easily exceed 50,000 ft if allowed, yet the F-15E with -220 motors
can barely reach 50,000 ft in max AB even when only loaded with 2 fuel
tanks, 2 500-lb bombs, and 6 missiles (a very light loadout for us). The
only 2 times I got to 50,000 ft, I had 2 empty wing tanks, less than full
internal fuel, 2 500-lb bombs, and 6 missiles, and the only way to get to
that high was to climb to about 46,000 ft and pull the nose back to zoom
ballistically through 50k. I suppose if I had another hour to try, I maybe
could have stabilized at 50K, but as it was, I went through 50k at about 160
knots and it took 10,000 ft to get the nose back up again.
As a matter of fact, a few stages of AB are inhibited at high altitudes in
some speed ranges with the -220 motors to prevent compressor stalls and
flameouts, so sometimes you just can't get there from here.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Troy A. Fortmann
SPAM.micron.net says...
> (Snip)
> ... so sometimes you just can't get there from here.
>
Hey, Sean:
Let us not forget that thrust is not the only thing that matters ...
there is that thing called a wing to consider. I would suggest that the
F-15E has a smaller wing area per pound to be lifted and a lower Cl per
degree of AoA compared to a 737. Therefore, it should be no surprise that
a maxed out 737 may be able to beat the F-15E to 50k. On the other hand,
the subsonic-optimized 737 wind would never see 1.4 mach unless it was
being pushed with a Saturn V engine.
Troy ...
(The other F-15 guy)
Pierre Legrand
RLtm F-15E pilots speak up....it will never matter. Some have decided
thru whatever means that the F-15E should do a certain thing...be it
accelerate straight up, or whatever and no amount of evidence save a
ride will convince them otherwise...
Ummm maybe I dont believe.....umm yea thats it I dont believe....I
think I need a ride...yea thats it I need a ride to be convinced
myself....and uh yea not only do I need a ride but I need to drive a
bit....hehehehehe...Ooh I see a real good idea being sparked...PAPA
DOC rides in a F-15E and proves that all of his hours staring at a 17"
monitor are worth more than a hill of beans...and he also proves that
the F15-E doesnt accelerate straight up...(cause I will have to
try)....OOOH ME this is getting me hyped.
PAPA DOC
>
>> (Snip)
>> ... so sometimes you just can't get there from here.
>>
>
>Hey, Sean:
>
>Let us not forget that thrust is not the only thing that matters ...
>there is that thing called a wing to consider. I would suggest that the
>F-15E has a smaller wing area per pound to be lifted and a lower Cl per
>degree of AoA compared to a 737. Therefore, it should be no surprise that
>a maxed out 737 may be able to beat the F-15E to 50k. On the other hand,
>the subsonic-optimized 737 wind would never see 1.4 mach unless it was
>being pushed with a Saturn V engine.
>
>Troy ...
>(The other F-15 guy)
Pierre PAPA DOC Legrand
Pink Flamingo Pilot...
pleg...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~plegrand/PINKFLAMINGO.htm
Sean Long
Troy A. Fortmann <tfor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.11068cc24...@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...
>> ... so sometimes you just can't get there from here.
>>
>
>Hey, Sean:
>
>Let us not forget that thrust is not the only thing that matters ...
>there is that thing called a wing to consider. I would suggest that the
>F-15E has a smaller wing area per pound to be lifted and a lower Cl per
>degree of AoA compared to a 737. Therefore, it should be no surprise that
>a maxed out 737 may be able to beat the F-15E to 50k. On the other hand,
>the subsonic-optimized 737 wind would never see 1.4 mach unless it was
>being pushed with a Saturn V engine.
Yea. I thought about bringing up relative wing efficiencies and the flight
regimes each was optimized for, but then decided I'd leave it out. It's a
good point I agree.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Kyle Duggan
Troy A. Fortmann wrote in message ...
>In article <h71n2.1$bV5...@skin01.micron.net>, sean...@PLEASE.NO-
>SPAM.micron.net says...
>
>> (Snip)
>> ... so sometimes you just can't get there from here.
>>
>
>Hey, Sean:
>
>Let us not forget that thrust is not the only thing that matters ...
>there is that thing called a wing to consider. I would suggest that the
>F-15E has a smaller wing area per pound to be lifted and a lower Cl per
>degree of AoA compared to a 737. Therefore, it should be no surprise that
>a maxed out 737 may be able to beat the F-15E to 50k. On the other hand,
>the subsonic-optimized 737 wind would never see 1.4 mach unless it was
>being pushed with a Saturn V engine.
>
>(The other F-15 guy)
Ok, thats nice. But is anyone scared that the real 737 pilot DIDN'T think of
this? Just thought the stuff stated by you and Sean Long, he should know it
also....
------------------------------------------------------
Kyle "Wedge" Duggan
jed...@usa.NOSPAMnet
"Crush the infamous thing..." - Voltaire
Troy A. Fortmann
says...
> (Snip)
>
> Some have decided thru whatever means that the F-15E should do a
> certain thing...be it accelerate straight up, or whatever and no
> amount of evidence save a ride will convince them otherwise...
>
Right on the mark -- like normal.
> (Snip)
>
> Ummm maybe I don't believe.....umm yea thats it I dont believe....I
> think I need a ride...
>
I never did understand that USAF Ride Program deal. It always seemed like
too many rich and famous -- and never the average taxpayer. I once did an
Incentive Ride for a crew chief. We blew through 16,000 lbs of fuel and
logged 0.6 hours. I think he became a believer. :-)
Later, Troy ...
**************************************
"... all glory is fleeting."
The movie Patton
**************************************
Joakim Karlsson
>
> Troy A. Fortmann wrote in message ...
>>
>>there is that thing called a wing to consider. I would suggest that the
>>F-15E has a smaller wing area per pound to be lifted and a lower Cl per
>>degree of AoA compared to a 737. Therefore, it should be no surprise that
>>a maxed out 737 may be able to beat the F-15E to 50k.
>
> this? Just thought the stuff stated by you and Sean Long, he should know it
> also....
You'd be amazed at how little pilots know about aerodynamics. I bet you
a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less
describe the relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
attack. ...Joakim
Michael Ross
about Instructors, and the fact that some students get poor training. He
cited several incidents in which he ran into students with this problem.
One of the best, or worst, was when he was about to give a lady some
aerobatic instruction. She had earned her Private certificate in exactly the
same aircraft (Beech Sport III) as they were going to fly, except for the
aerobatic certification. She had 75 hours in the type. As they were doing
the preflight, he opened the cowl, which had 5 fasteners on each side. She
looked under the cowl and said "Oh, is that the motor?" YIKES!
-Mike
Energy <Ene...@spd.alt.net> wrote in message
news:77jp52$3r2$0...@209.151.203.40...
>I am a sailplane pilot and at one time owned one....
>I one time witnessed a airline pilot almost bite it with a sailplane due to
>PIO's
>The pilot just lacked the experience with the plane, not that he didnt have
>the skills or knowlege...........I hope <g>
Troy A. Fortmann
> I am a sailplane pilot and at one time owned one....
> I one time witnessed a airline pilot almost bite it with a sailplane due to
> PIO's
> The pilot just lacked the experience with the plane, not that he didnt have
> the skills or knowlege...........I hope <g>
>
> >You'd be amazed at how little pilots know about aerodynamics. I bet you
> >a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less
> >describe the relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
> >attack. ...Joakim
pilots are people too ... just like bus drivers. :-0
Later, Troy ...
(A recovered USAF pilot -- Not even the leather jacket could keep me in.)
FY98 USAF Pilot Retention Rate: 27% (Shocking, Scary, Expensive)
******************************************
"Your worst day as a pilot is better than
the best day of a shoe salesman."
My RTU Instructor
******************************************
Troy A. Fortmann
sjam...@aol.com says...
> (Snip)
> So, again, real life: F15 beats 737 [in a climb] ...
Isn't that the unsubstantiated claim that started this thread? :-)
I don't know the correct answer. Based on Sean's inputs and my own
experiences, I could believe that a maxed out F-15E at mil power may lose
the race to 30K against a 737-400.
And I agree with you, it is just a game -- a great game. As pilots of the
real and virtual type, we can enjoy it for the entertainment provided and
the conversations generated.
Later, Troy ...
************
Go Vikings!
************
JD
<joa...@heron.mv.com> held forth on "Re: Janes F-15"
>You'd be amazed at how little pilots know about aerodynamics. I bet you
>a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less
>describe the relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
>attack. ...Joakim
It's even simpler than that. Ask a pilot why his prop driven
airplane requires right rudder <assuming clockwise prop rotation>
to hold it straight on take off and 8 times out of 10 you'll get
"torque" for an answer.
BTW, this is not to disparage pilots by any means. But even a high
level of expertise in that particular field of endeavor does not
automatically come with an in-depth knowledge of flight physics.
Regards, JD
jdk...@mindspring.com
Energy
how about L/D <g>
Energy
I one time witnessed a airline pilot almost bite it with a sailplane due to
PIO's
The pilot just lacked the experience with the plane, not that he didnt have
SJames03
the F-15E to 50k
Doubt that. A loaded 73 will crawl up to 330, and that's it. But that's not
the point of what I was getting at. In this game it doesn't matter what the
attitude is, so you can leave the wing's lift characteristics out of it, (which
is why I originally did, not expecting to do a complete aero dissertation).
Although I was not the original poster with the time to climb complaint, I
intended to put it in as simple a way as possible, thrust to weight, which in
comparing the two could be modeled in a simple level altitude accel run. Could
be. It's not an exact measurement of things, but it's close enough. (yeah
yeah, we'll leave off all the drag bullshit for now, but basically take a look
at the frontal view of a 737 sled and an F15E and see who is pushing how much
air aside to plow through it...) To make things somewhat equal with a weapons
load the 73 could extend its gear and STILL outperform the realistic settings.
I have had a combat load and mil power and it just ain't going above about 300
knots if I raise the nose so much as a few degrees. Just a simple climb to 2000
and level off and go to 20dme, and a 737, which is one of the slowest and a
real sled among airliners, still would beat this "sim"/game. I personally
don't give a shit one way or the other, really, unless Janes suddenly has Iraqi
737's with real world characteristics running away from the realistic modeled
15E's. I just don't have realistic weapons drag checked off. But I like it
for what it is-- a fun game to fly. Besides, it beats Falcon4, at least until
the patch for the patch comes out..
SJames03
Long, he should know it
ummm.... yes. Taught it too, at pilot training. The military insists you know
it; amazing, huh? Used it again at flight test. Didn't bring it up here
because these are usually generalized short postings, not thorough technical
discussions.
One person noticed he thought the F15E performed more sluggish than the 737 he
had on some other sim, and I basically agreed with him. Let's not make this a
bigger deal than that. I do think the drag factors on the Janes game are a
little high, but again, it's a game, not real life. Jane's was smart enough to
include a box that you can have their drag factors included or not, and having
them included does make the game more realistic if you want it that way.
That's why it's a good game.
So, again, real life: F15 beats 737, rock beats scissors, paper beats rock.
SJames03
>a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less describe the
relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
The military trained ones are well versed in this. The civilian trained ones,
having to pay for their instruction by the hour and so concentrating on more of
a "how do I do this...", not usually having an AOA gauge, not usually going
over 30 degrees of bank, nor 20 degrees of pitch, nor 1.5 g's, have a much more
basic knowledge, as you assert. Generally.
SJames03
airline pilot almost bite it with a sailplane due to PIO's
>The pilot just lacked the experience with the plane, not that he didnt have
>the skills or knowlege...........I hope
That's exactly it. It's a different feel. I have the highest respect for the
sailplane pilots; when you don't have an engine to power you out of trouble,
you get very good at feeling the plane, taking notice of things that a shuttle
pilot would dismiss.
The PIO's are common when going from a totally different plane to another. A
fellow pilot just the other day remarked how he was getting checked out in a
172 for the first time in 15-20 years, and the PIO was the biggest thing he
noticed. He thought it highly amusing that for the first few minutes he was
bobbling until he got used to the inputs required. It was simply because you
get used to putting "x" amount of force on the flight controls to move them,
depending on what you are flying, and in a 172 it is a very light touch. In a
heavy jet, it takes considerable force to make it do what you want, despite
3000psi hydraulics. Same thing if a guy who drives a semi jumps in a Formula
I car and goes into a hairpin curve-- he'll probably oversteer because he is
used to putting a certain force to turn the wheels this much, and in the more
responsive vehicle it would be too much.
SJames03
>Let us not forget that thrust is not the only thing that matters ... there is
that thing called a wing to consider. I would suggest that the F-15E has a
smaller wing area per pound to be lifted and a lower Cl per degree of AoA
be able to beat the F-15E to 50k. On the other hand, the subsonic-optimized 737
wind would never see 1.4 mach unless it was
>being pushed with a Saturn V engine.
This guy is full of bull. Wing loading doesn't mean crap when you have twice
the thrust to weight than the other guy. Then actually calling it "no
surprise" that a 737 can beat an F15 in a climb race is laughable; it can't!
And so Sean wrote:
Yea. I thought about bringing up relative wing efficiencies and the flight
regimes each was optimized for, but then decided I'd leave it out. It's a
good point I agree.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
And so now I have to talk to Sean...
Christ, Sean.... are you serious? You are going to agree that it is the "wing
efficiencies" of a 737 that allow it to outclimb an F15E????? The fact that
you honestly believe that scares the shit out of me considering that when you
fly you have weapons on board! :)
First off, do you really really think that a real life 737 can actually
outclimb a real life F15E? You must, or you wouldn't have "thought about
bringing up..." that bit about wing designs. You know how long it takes me to
get a 737 up to FL330 with a full load? About 25 minutes if I'm lucky, closer
to 30 is more likely, and I have seen 35. Don't you think that you can get an
E model up there in less time? Surely you can do better than 1000 fpm all the
way up.... And before you interject that fully loaded you can only go to this
altitude or that, then let's make it 10000' or something else. The fact is no
737 is going to outclimb you.
And that's the whole point of the original poster, and who I agreed with: the
Jane's realistic flight model has so much drag on the it that it would allow a
737 to outclimb it. YOU then swallowed something and actually believed that
since some yahoo says it's so, then it must be. A lot of people in this group
take your word on a lot of things, especially dealing with Jane's game. In
fact, it made me laugh when several people automatically believed you when you
insinuated that it was wing design that allowed an airliner to outclimb a
fighter/bomber, and the airline pilot who said the real world thrust to weight
ratios would not let this happen was ignorant of aerodynamics. First of all,
airline jets cannot outclimb military fighters! Or military ground attack
fighters. Hell even a slug A7 would outclimb an airliner.
Do you honestly think that if Iraq armed some 737s you would be outclimbed by
them? That despite those incredibly powerful motors behind you that the granny
riding in 1st class will reach altitude before you?
I can have the best damn wing in the world but if I don't have the horses
pushing me I ain't going nowhere. And, most importantly, give me the horses
and I can kick anyone's ass. How good do you think the "wings" are on the
space shuttle when it launces from the Cape? You think an F104 has a great
wing? The guy at the beginning of this post was on a roll bringing up all wing
loading and coefficient of lift (and then making an incorrect suggestion), when
in reality a 104 has such a tiny wing it is loaded up several times more than
an airliner, yet it will kick every one of their asses to any altitude any day.
Why... because of a better t:w ratio. The wing is not totally unimportant,
but when climbing a jet, you gotta have the oooomph behind you, and unless
someone has a grossly inefficient wing, whoever has a dominant thrust:weight
ratio will win. Agreed, if the thrust ratios are close, then the wing design
will play more and more, but if you could have just one or the other, it is the
motor that gets a jet up quick. On a plane that we both are familiar with, a
T38... think that's a better wing than a 737? Think you could take the Talon
up faster than a Delta jet? I've had a -38 on an FCF flight up to FL450 in
under 6 minutes, and that included doing a level yaw damper check. Last time
you flew American, were you up at cruise by then? They were barely getting out
of 10000.
All I wanted to do was agree with one guy who said Janes modeling of the
performance of an F15E left something to be desired, and this has gone into
such bullshit as some people thinking airline pilots don't know anything about
aerodynamics, aoa, etc, when in reality any current USAF combat plane outside
of a 130 will outclimb a 737, and especially any that have g-suits. And you
ought to know that :)
Seriously, Sean, I think you do a wonderful job in this newgroup. It is a
great help to everyone for someone current in the seat to be able to give real
life experiences about games as fine as Janes. I have enjoyed reading your
postings as much as anyone, except for this last one! :) Please do not think
I am torqued at you or anything... think of it like being in the o'club and
there's a little disagreement, you state your beef, then you buy each other
beers.
So, with that in mind, I'll buy the first one. cheers.
Sean Long
>One person noticed he thought the F15E performed more sluggish than the 737
he
>had on some other sim, and I basically agreed with him. Let's not make
this a
>bigger deal than that. I do think the drag factors on the Janes game are a
>little high, but again, it's a game, not real life.
Just so you guys know it's not just me, here's a quote (well, a near-quote,
better than paraphrase but not an exact quote, if ya get my drift) from an
experienced pilot in my squadron who is going to be teaching BFM at the USAF
weapons school in a few months:
"It seems pretty cool but JESUS CHRIST! I couldn't get that damn plane
slowed down. No drag mumble mumble too much thrust or something mumble
mumble."
Name withheld to protect the innocent :) The last time I tweaked the drag
factors with the guys in Baltimore, I didn't have time to test all
configurations, weights, and altitudes, but instead used several data points
to tell them to add or reduce the drag here and there. When the final
"gold" version came out, I was a tad suprised at how fast the plane felt.
It is somewhere between the performance of a real -220 and a -229 F-15E.
At cruising altitude and airspeeds (25,000 ft, 300-350 KCAS), a fully loaded
KC-135 will out accelerate us in level flight (up to it's max mach number)
unless we use full AB, and even then it will get a good jump on us while our
engines spool up. If the KC-135 decides to climb away from us at it's mach
limit, we don't have much of a chance until the tanker reaches one of it's
performance limits, either airspeed or altitude.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Sean Long
>
>And so Sean wrote:
>Yea. I thought about bringing up relative wing efficiencies and the flight
>regimes each was optimized for, but then decided I'd leave it out. It's a
>good point I agree.
>Sean Long
>WB: -eagl-
>
>And so now I have to talk to Sean...
>Christ, Sean.... are you serious? You are going to agree that it is the
"wing
>efficiencies" of a 737 that allow it to outclimb an F15E????? The fact
that
>you honestly believe that scares the shit out of me considering that when
you
>fly you have weapons on board! :)
LOL. Ok, we need to establish some things here. Have you ever flown a
modern fighter? A related question is have you ever tried to chase down a
KC-135 that for some reason pushes up the power and climbs during air
refuelling?
>First off, do you really really think that a real life 737 can actually
>outclimb a real life F15E? You must, or you wouldn't have "thought about
>bringing up..." that bit about wing designs. You know how long it takes me
to
>get a 737 up to FL330 with a full load? About 25 minutes if I'm lucky,
closer
>to 30 is more likely, and I have seen 35. Don't you think that you can
get an
>E model up there in less time? Surely you can do better than 1000 fpm all
the
>way up.... And before you interject that fully loaded you can only go to
this
>altitude or that, then let's make it 10000' or something else. The fact is
no
>737 is going to outclimb you.
I do not have any data on a 737. I do know for a fact that even a fairly
heavily loaded KC-135 will kick our asses unless we are in max AB and do our
best climb profile. Even then, the KC-135 will have a better climb angle so
we couldn't "hang with it". In mil power even when not too heavily loaded,
from 20,000 ft on up, our climb angle is only around 5 degrees nose high.
At 30,000 ft with 2 empty external fuel tanks and 2 500 lb bombs, mil power
is barely enough to stay in level flight. Turns greater than 20 degrees of
bank require AB. Again, with -229 engines, this whole picture changes for
the better, but with -220 engines, it's the sad reality.
>And that's the whole point of the original poster, and who I agreed with:
the
>Jane's realistic flight model has so much drag on the it that it would
allow a
>737 to outclimb it. YOU then swallowed something and actually believed
that
>since some yahoo says it's so, then it must be. A lot of people in this
group
>take your word on a lot of things, especially dealing with Jane's game. In
>fact, it made me laugh when several people automatically believed you when
you
>insinuated that it was wing design that allowed an airliner to outclimb a
>fighter/bomber, and the airline pilot who said the real world thrust to
weight
>ratios would not let this happen was ignorant of aerodynamics. First of
all,
>airline jets cannot outclimb military fighters! Or military ground attack
>fighters. Hell even a slug A7 would outclimb an airliner.
Bullshit. A loaded F-15E is the worlds shittiest, draggiest, pig in space
known to mankind. At least with the -220 motors it is. Empty out all but
10k fuel and jettison everything that causes drag, and yea we can climb
pretty good... Using AB. You raise the bullshit flag about wing
efficiencies and drag, and I say you do not know what you are talking about.
For example, at 25,000 ft and 330 cal, an F-15E with 2 full external fuel
tanks and ZERO other stores takes 10,000 lbs/hr fuel flow just to keep from
falling out of the sky. The tanker which weighs 10 times as much and as you
say, has 10 times the frontal area, is burning about 8,000 lbs/hr (if I
remember correctly, haven't ridden a tanker in months). The tanker can gain
efficiency by slowing down another 50-100 knots, but at 330 knots fully
fueled we're actually 20-30 knots below our max range cruise AOA so slowing
down actually increases fuel burn. To stay on the refuelling boom at 27,000
ft once the wing tanks start filling up even with only 2 (count them, 2) 500
lb bombs on the plane required the use of up to stage 2 AB on one motor
while the other one is used just under mil power for small position
corrections. That burns well over 10,000 lbs/hr fuel flow while the tanker
is actually using LESS. That is called efficiency. The L/D curves for an
airliner wing are optimized for climb rates and cruise efficiency, while our
wing is optimized mainly for transsonic and supersonic drag.
Here's a little tidbit: Above about 1.3 mach, our maximum acceleration AOA
causes the plane to pull about 2.5 G's. That's right, the F-15 wing is
shaped so weirdly that our best acceleration is achieved while pulling G's
once we get going that fast. No shit.
Now tell me that an airliner's wing isn't better optimized for climb. While
you think about that, think about the last airliner you saw take off. Those
buggers have an initial climb angle of nearly 30 degrees...? Robey can fill
in what an airbus climbs like at takeoff power. A loaded F-15E in max AB
can't handle 25 degrees very long if it has -220 motors. One more tidbit,
our max range airspeeds are probably 100 to 150 knots higher than those of
airliners weighing 10 to 20 times our gross weight. That alone speaks
volumes about how the wings are optimized.
>Do you honestly think that if Iraq armed some 737s you would be outclimbed
by
>them? That despite those incredibly powerful motors behind you that the
granny
>riding in 1st class will reach altitude before you?
Yes. Actually, I think one of the best climbing aircraft in the world today
is the U2... One recently set an altitude record, although they've been
operationally flying that high for decades. That sucker sure isn't a
fighter, but it can outclimb us. It's design philosophy is much closer to
that of an airliner than it is to a fighter, and it's wing is optimized for
min fuel burn climb to altitude plus max cruise altitude with min fuel burn.
>I can have the best damn wing in the world but if I don't have the horses
>pushing me I ain't going nowhere. And, most importantly, give me the
horses
>and I can kick anyone's ass.
Sigh... "enough horses" in the case of the F-15E is about 10,000 lbs of
thrust more than we have with the -220 engines. The -220 and -229 aircraft
perform dramatically differently. It's the extra drag of the CFT's and
LANTIRN pods that kills us, really. Except that I heard an F-15C guy
bitching once about a 135 that got a little too eager during a breakaway,
and left all the F-15's in the dust until it pulled it's power back...
> How good do you think the "wings" are on the
>space shuttle when it launces from the Cape? You think an F104 has a great
>wing? The guy at the beginning of this post was on a roll bringing up all
wing
>loading and coefficient of lift (and then making an incorrect suggestion),
when
>in reality a 104 has such a tiny wing it is loaded up several times more
than
>an airliner, yet it will kick every one of their asses to any altitude any
day.
An F-104 has no drag. The F-15E could carry an F-104 under each wing and it
wouldn't double our drag. At sea level, we have 50,000 lb thrust. Our
basic takeoff weight "clean" is 62,000 lbs. Not close enough to 1-1 to even
approach making up for all the extra drag we have.
> Why... because of a better t:w ratio. The wing is not totally
unimportant,
>but when climbing a jet, you gotta have the oooomph behind you, and unless
>someone has a grossly inefficient wing, whoever has a dominant
thrust:weight
>ratio will win. Agreed, if the thrust ratios are close, then the wing
design
>will play more and more, but if you could have just one or the other, it is
the
>motor that gets a jet up quick. On a plane that we both are familiar
with, a
>T38... think that's a better wing than a 737? Think you could take the
Talon
>up faster than a Delta jet? I've had a -38 on an FCF flight up to FL450
in
>under 6 minutes, and that included doing a level yaw damper check. Last
time
>you flew American, were you up at cruise by then? They were barely getting
out
>of 10000.
Last time I took an F-15E with wing tanks to FL 450, starting from FL 250 it
took 25 minutes. We had an entire 4-ship of F-15E's doing this stupid
dive-zoom profile to optimize our climb rate since our optimum climb was at
about 1.2 mach, and we ran out of airspace before I could get to 50,000 ft.
We just couldn't get there from here without going ballistic and topping out
with less than level flight airspeed. I think 2 out of 4 jets got up to 50k
that day, and we had about 500 miles of airspace to work with. I've been to
50k twice in my life, and both times were in "aw shit lets do it anyhow"
zoom climbs that ended with me descending back to about 40,000 ft before I
could get the plane back to level flight.
Since you had a T-38 up that high, I assume you were a UPT instructor? That
T-38 was an amazing plane... No drag whatsoever. As a matter of fact, a
T-38 can just about outturn (turn rate) a clean F-15E. We have better high
AOA performance, more gas (more AB time), can go faster (assuming we drop
LANTIRN and CFT's to get rid of ops limits) and can pull an extra 1.7 G's,
but that's it for our advantages. Oh yea, we carry missiles bombs and a
20mm cannon while a T-38 can carry a 20mm gun pod, BDU-33's, or some little
rockets.
>All I wanted to do was agree with one guy who said Janes modeling of the
>performance of an F15E left something to be desired, and this has gone into
>such bullshit as some people thinking airline pilots don't know anything
about
>aerodynamics, aoa, etc, when in reality any current USAF combat plane
outside
>of a 130 will outclimb a 737, and especially any that have g-suits. And
you
>ought to know that :)
You ought to know that without flying an F-15E and seeing for yourself what
a relative pig it is in certain areas, you can't make generalizations about
how well it does anything in particular. As a fighter, it can do a shitload
of things an airline can't do. However it sure doesn't get the gas mileage
an airliner gets, can't fly as high as some airliners can even when using
max AB, and gets outclimbed by our own tankers on a regular basis. It's a
matter of design goals. Sustained climb sure as hell wasn't a priority when
they just about doubled the drag of an F-15C by putting the CFT's and
LANTIRN pods on the jet.
>Seriously, Sean, I think you do a wonderful job in this newgroup. It is a
>great help to everyone for someone current in the seat to be able to give
real
>life experiences about games as fine as Janes. I have enjoyed reading your
>postings as much as anyone, except for this last one! :) Please do not
think
>I am torqued at you or anything... think of it like being in the o'club and
>there's a little disagreement, you state your beef, then you buy each other
>beers.
Don't get all condescending on me gramps :) The performance of the F-15E is
the biggest misconception around in the flightsim world. That weapons
school instructor I quoted before recently took a backseat ride in an F-15D
during a BFM/ACM sortie, and he laughed his ass off the entire ride because
every 30 seconds, they did something or other that our plane is absolutely
incapable of doing. The acceleration, speed, energy retention, turn, and
climb differences between the F-15C and F-15E are eye watering. This guy is
going to be teaching BFM at the weapons school, and about all he could do
for the entire sortie was chuckle because "his" plane, the F-15E, can't even
come close to what a purebred fighter can do.
I doubt this will change your mind, but all I can say is that until you've
been there, you really won't understand. I've said it once, I'll say it
again. The game Janes F-15 has less drag and more thrust, and retains speed
better in turns, than the real life F-15E I fly for a living. This is not
just my own opinion. On two separate occasions I took my "clean" F-15E and
did some amature-test-pilot turn rate and acceleration profiles, and
compared them to the game. The game turned and accelerated better. I
wasn't suprised because to me, the game "feels" faster and less draggy.
I readily admit I have NO DATA on a 737, but once again, our tankers fully
loaded with fuel can kick us in the ass. Oh yea, 2 months ago, I locked up
on radar a 767 crusing higher than I've ever flown in my life. I told my
WSO "hey lookit this guy", then broke lock because it was so depressing
watching him poke around in the bozonosphere :)
"Hey, you're full of shit... bartender bring us another round"
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Sean Long
>In article <19990114003451...@ng153.aol.com>,
>sjam...@aol.com says...
>> (Snip)
>> So, again, real life: F15 beats 737 [in a climb] ...
>
>Isn't that the unsubstantiated claim that started this thread? :-)
>
>I don't know the correct answer. Based on Sean's inputs and my own
>experiences, I could believe that a maxed out F-15E at mil power may lose
>the race to 30K against a 737-400.
30K is almost a "magic number"... Above that, we're in AB most of the time
if we're doing anything but flying straight ahead, even when clean.
An F-15C with only a centerline tank often bingo's out AFTER we do even when
we're carrying CFT's and 2 wing tanks, if the mission is A/A. We're just
tapping burners too much. The maintenance guys love that too... F-15E's
use up engines at a much faster rate than F-15C's because above a certain
power level and temperature, there is a second engine timer that starts
clicking off. F-15C's don't operate at that high a power setting as much as
we do, while we need to be stressing the engines that much just to employ
normally.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Troy A. Fortmann
sjam...@aol.com says...
> (Snip)
> This guy is full of bull. Wing loading doesn't mean crap when you
> have twice the thrust to weight than the other guy. Then actually
> calling it "no surprise" that a 737 can beat an F15 in a climb race
> is laughable; it can't!
The point of discussion was mil power -- not max AB -- versus 737-400
best climb. So if you ain't standing it on it's butt and using full grunt
to get there, wing efficiency, form drag, interference drag, and parasite
drag are highly significant -- as you acknowledged.
When comes to laughable, I said "may" and not "can". Until somebody
produces the performance charts for both aircraft and compares them, this
whole discussion is all supposition based our limited part of the picture
experiences. It is my speculation in the defense of the Jane's F-15E
flight model that the T/W of a porked-out F-15E at mil power could be
similiar to a 737-400 so that other factors like wing design and weapons
drag MAY result in unexpected outcomes.
Jane's claims to have used real-world data. It is your opinion that they
have not produced an accurate result. What I can say is that a KC-10
climbs pretty well compared to an F-15C with three bags of gas at mil
power because I have been there and done that. I also think the Jane's F-
15E flight model recreates my fading memories of glory days well. But
then again, what do I know because I am a "yahoo" that is "full of bull"?
Later, Troy ...
**************************************************
Advertising Strategy #12: If you have no sellable
benefits, appeal to emotion while disparaging the
other guy's product.
**************************************************
Troy A. Fortmann
SPAM.micron.net says...
> (Snip)
> Here's a little tidbit: Above about 1.3 mach, our maximum acceleration AOA
> causes the plane to pull about 2.5 G's. That's right, the F-15 wing is
> shaped so weirdly that our best acceleration is achieved while pulling G's
> once we get going that fast. No shit.
Through the fog of too many computer programming books, I remember that!
I got to pull out my Dash-1 just for old-times sake. :-)
Later, Troy ...
*****************************************
Sometimes reliving the past is better
than trying to live with COM interfaces.
*****************************************
Tom Chick
<sean...@PLEASE.NO-SPAM.micron.net> wrote:
>SJames03 <sjam...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:19990114032842...@ng-cc1.aol.com...
>>First of all,
>>airline jets cannot outclimb military fighters! Or military ground attack
>>fighters. Hell even a slug A7 would outclimb an airliner.
>
>Bullshit. A loaded F-15E is the worlds shittiest, draggiest, pig in space
>known to mankind.
Hope you guys don't mind if I butt in to test my new .sig.
-Tom Chick
*** ***
*** A loaded F-15E is the worlds sh*ttiest, ***
*** draggiest, pig in space known to mankind. ***
*** ***
*** -Captain Sean Long, USAF ***
*** ***
Sean Long
Um.... Copyright. Yea, that's it. You gotta pay me $500 a word to quote
me if it's not a reply. Yea, that's the ticket :)
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Tom Chick <tomc...@cutthispartout.primenet.com> wrote in message
news:369ed5a2...@news.primenet.com...
Johan Schmidt
<sean...@PLEASE.NO-SPAM.micron.net> wrote:
<Snip>
>I readily admit I have NO DATA on a 737, but once again, our tankers fully
>loaded with fuel can kick us in the ass. Oh yea, 2 months ago, I locked up
>on radar a 767 crusing higher than I've ever flown in my life. I told my
>WSO "hey lookit this guy", then broke lock because it was so depressing
>watching him poke around in the bozonosphere :)
>
>"Hey, you're full of shit... bartender bring us another round"
>
>Sean Long
>WB: -eagl-
Now this is one of the reasons I keep subscribing to this NG.
Sean, Thanks for Your useful, interesting, and sometimes just plain
entertaining posts in the past, and I hope You'll continue posting
them, even when someday maybe, You'll be the one in the 767
bozonosphere crate :)
B. Rgds
Johan Schmidt
For replies via email, please remove SPAMFILTER.
from the E-mail adress in the mail.The SPAMFILTER.
has been appended to foul junkmail robots.
[Standard Disclaimer]
All views expressed in this email are
purely my own, and not necessarily the views
of my company.
Also, if You follow any advice given in e-mails
from me, and something breaks, You own BOTH parts.
SJames03
considered.
1. While it is true that a pax jet will initially climb out at what seems to
be quite a steep angle, this is only because they have all their lifting
devices extended. Once at 1000 or 1500 agl, and they get retracted, that pitch
of 20 degrees gets drastically reduced, and so does its climb. The overall
rate is still quite low, as the speed is less than 200 knots. It looks steep,
but it is slow. It may have a good initial angle, but its rate is poor.
2. Saying a tanker can outclimb a receiver when they are both starting at
25000' is also misleading. The tanker is in its prime element, and yes, now
its big wing will let it outclimb most receivers; the ground attack jet is out
of its element, and is at a severe disadvantage. But in a race from brake
release, the fighter would be at that same altitude sooner than the tanker.
You don't see too many tankers setting time to climb records, despite their
more efficient wing. Again, the wing allows it to do some things better, but
in a race from 0' to 20000' or so, it is woefully underpowered to compete with
a fighter. The higher you want to go, the fighter will start running out of
steam, especially carrying gas bags and ordinance. But I never argued this. I
was always talking about the lower altitude climbs. Hell, I've never had the
plane in this game fully loaded above around 15000' just because of that. I
knew that if the performance sucked down there, going higher surely wasn't
going to improve things.
3. An A model tanker allows itself 2 minutes to roll down the runway, get
airborne, get to flap retract altitude, and get the flaps up. Total altitude
gain: about 800 feet. By contrast, the F15 Streak Eagle was at around 100,000
feet in the same time. Now, we aren't directly comparing a tanker with a
stripped down factory fresh chained to the runway until both burners are lit
light-weight propaganda stunt, but I hope like hell the principle of a superior
thrust to weight ratio kicking ass on a more efficient wing is made.
4. The U-2 counter argument. This is an extreme wing, and its thrust to
weight isn't too shabby either. Again, extreme thrust (Streak Eagle) smokes
extreme wing (U2). The space shuttle, when mated on the launch pad, doesn't
have any effective wing, and yet it will outclimb most everything out there too
based on its pure thrust to weight advantage. Exceptions can be found to
almost any argument.
5. I'm done with this. I will now shut the f*** up. (applause from all!) I
like this game better than any other flight sim, including Falcon4, and look
forward to a new add on scenario like Korea or where ever.
Sean Long
>5. I'm done with this. I will now shut the f*** up. (applause from all!)
I
>like this game better than any other flight sim, including Falcon4, and
look
>forward to a new add on scenario like Korea or where ever.
Awww, I wanted you to admit that I was right, you were wrong, then come up
with something purty to say about the sim to kiss up to CJ :)
I'm really glad you like the sim anyhow. I'm admittedly biased, but I think
it's one of the better products I've seen in PC flight sims. Falcon 4 has
the potential to beat it in many areas (acmi playback woohoo!), but without
a real patch I won't even start the campaign.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
SJames03
yeaaaahh..... I know you did! :) I think the basis for muddying the waters was
that I was asserting that a jet with a much better t:w ratio would kick ass on
another with only a better wing going for it, and the examples given were F15E
vs. 737. And you brought up the problems refueling, and how you got smoked by
the tanker unless you went to burner. It is only when you *are* in burner that
you have the thrust to weight advantage! In mil, you have what, something like
14,000 per motor, or 28,000 pushing a heavy jet that is almost 3 times that.
Almost. So in mil you are not much better off than that tanker, (or 737), and
with his wing, yes, he can probably kick your butt in a climb (as you have seen
numerous times, no doubt).
It is only when you go full AB and up your total thrust greatly that you
approach a superior thrust to weight ratio, which is the condition I was basing
my statements on. I suppose in hindsight it would have been clearer if I had
re-emphasized that the E model has to be in burner to fit into the category of
a better thrust to weight ratio, and that in mil it is very similar in
thrust:weight as a tanker or 737. I should have said, "burner climb F15 will
beat tanker.... true or false?" or something like that.... :)
I'm with you regarding Falcon's campaign.... that's why I re-installed F15 and
am back to enjoying it. In fact, I like it better now than before, for some
reason....
I think now we're on the same page...
Here you were talking about your jet in mil, and I'm holding it up as an
example of better thrust to weight (which is only true when you're in AB).
So, yeah, what you say I agree with, but then what I say I agree with, too.
Harri Pesonen
"torque".
JD wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jan 1999 20:30:04 -0500, Joakim Karlsson
> <joa...@heron.mv.com> held forth on "Re: Janes F-15"
>
> >You'd be amazed at how little pilots know about aerodynamics. I bet you
> >a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less
> >describe the relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
> >attack. ...Joakim
>
> It's even simpler than that. Ask a pilot why his prop driven
> airplane requires right rudder <assuming clockwise prop rotation>
> to hold it straight on take off and 8 times out of 10 you'll get
> "torque" for an answer.
>
> BTW, this is not to disparage pilots by any means. But even a high
> level of expertise in that particular field of endeavor does not
> automatically come with an in-depth knowledge of flight physics.
--
Harri Pesonen
http://www.sci.fi/~fuerte/
You should not underestimate the power of thickness - Kaoru Iwamoto
Troy A. Fortmann
reality:
The need for right rudder at slow speed in a taildragger prop aircraft is
the result of the rotating prop stream striking the fuselage in an
unequal mannner thus requiring a rudder input to counter-balance the
effect.
Later, Troy ...
JD
held forth on "Re: Janes F-15"
>I'm not a pilot so may I ask what is the right answer? I thought that it was
>"torque".
It's primarily the helical <corkscrew> propwash blowing back from
the prop and striking the vertical tail surfaces on one side <the
left side if the prop is rotating clockwise> which necessitates
right rudder input on take off. To be correct though, I should add
that prop torque does have a <very> small part to play as well.
Torque causes more weight to be placed on one wheel <the left if
the prop is rotating clockwise>, and the increased friction
between the tire on that side and the ground will cause a slight
pull in that direction. But compared to the propwash effect, this
is negligible.
Not a real big deal there... but interesting if you're so
inclined.
Regards, JD
jdk...@mindspring.com
Joakim Karlsson
>
> Joakim Karlsson wrote:
> >You'd be amazed at how little pilots know about aerodynamics. I bet you
> >a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less describe the
> >relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
>
OK, I officially excuse military pilots from my bashing. :) ...Joakim
Joakim Karlsson
>
> On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:47:39 +0200, Harri Pesonen <fue...@sci.fi>
> held forth on "Re: Janes F-15"
>
> >I'm not a pilot so may I ask what is the right answer? I thought that it was
> >"torque".
>
> It's primarily the helical <corkscrew> propwash blowing back from
> the prop and striking the vertical tail surfaces on one side <the
> left side if the prop is rotating clockwise> which necessitates
> right rudder input on take off. To be correct though, I should add
> that prop torque does have a <very> small part to play as well.
> Torque causes more weight to be placed on one wheel <the left if
> the prop is rotating clockwise>, and the increased friction
> between the tire on that side and the ground will cause a slight
> pull in that direction. But compared to the propwash effect, this
> is negligible.
There are four causes for propeller effect (left turning tendency):
1. Slipstream (the one you describe)
2. Torque
3. "P-factor" (The propeller blades are essentially rotating wings. The
lift generated by the propeller blades is what we think of as thrust.
The angle of attack of the ascending blade is less than that of the
descending blade. Consequently, the right half of the propeller, from
the pilot's perspective, generates more lift than the left side. This
causes a yawing tendency to the left.)
4. Precession (a gyroscopic effect)
Which of these effects is dominant depends on the speed and attitude of
the aircraft. As a combined effect, it's strongest in high power, low
speed regimes. This includes take-offs and flight at minimum
controllable airspeed.
This all assumes a propeller that rotates clockwise (again, as viewed
from the cockpit). This is normally the case on Western built aircraft,
whereas propellers on other aircraft (e.g., Russian) rotate
counter-clockwise. Presumably they need left rudder to counter propeller
effects. Gives a whole new meaning to leftist politics.
Crawling back under my rock now...Joakim
Joakim Karlsson
>
> Joakim Karlsson wrote:
> >
> > >You'd be amazed at how little pilots know about aerodynamics. I bet you
> > >a majority of pilots could not define angle of attack, much less
> > >describe the relationship between lift, lift coefficient, and angle of
>
> Oh, god ... Let's not have a bash the airline pilots thread. Airline
> pilots are people too ... just like bus drivers. :-0
I'm not bashing airline pilots, I'm bashing all pilots. :) And that
includes myself. ...Joakim
Sean Long
Harri Pesonen <fue...@sci.fi> wrote in message
news:369F7F3B...@sci.fi...
>I'm not a pilot so may I ask what is the right answer? I thought that it
was
>"torque".
There are at least 3 factors that require counteracting.
1) Torque. This isn't really the biggest one in general aviation, and
until you really get into big horsepower numbers, isn't your biggest
concern.
2) Corkscrew airflow. This has an effect, and often the aircraft designer
will put the tail on crooked or a wing on slightly crooked to counteract
this. This force not only acts on the ground, but in flight as well.
3) In a taildragger during takeoff, something called "P-factor" is a huge
player. Basically, when the plane is sitting nose-high but moving forward,
the mechanics and geometry of it all results in the descending prop blade
having much more AOA than the rising prop blade. This descending blade
takes a greater bite into the air, creating more thrust than the rising
blade. This results in a lopsided amount of thrust being produced on either
side of the engine. P-factor is a factor in 2 places - On the ground during
takeoff in a taildragger before the tail comes up, and in any single engine
prop plane at high AOA and high power settings (near the stall with the
power pushed up).
Explaining P-factor satisfactorily required diagrams with arrows and stuff,
but most good general aviation instructional texts should have a section
explaining what it is and why you should care.
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Troy A. Fortmann
Robey
>In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>ratio were BVR?
MudHens killed a single helo with a GBU (he was hovering according to
what I read)...which is one more than my Viper brethren got.
Robey
JD
<joa...@heron.mv.com> held forth on "Re: Janes F-15"
>Which of these effects is dominant depends on the speed and attitude of
>the aircraft.
Thanks. But we were talking about the take off roll only... with
the wheels still on the ground.
Regards, JD
jdk...@mindspring.com
Bob Howell
I've posted these questions several times since F15 was released
requesting a response from one of the moguls at Janes. Never got an
answer. Since you had a hand in the development of the sim, perhaps
you can answer.
Why did Janes make the decision to model F15 on the 220 engines
instead of the more powerful 229s? Was the decision made in deference
to historical accuracy; i. e., were there no F15 strike aircraft in
the Iraqui theatre equipped with 229s?
Second ... given that the flight model is based on the 220s, are not
these close quarters dogfight training and instant action scenarios a
little ridiculous? Now, don't take me wrong ... I LOVE this sim.
But, good God, I feel absurd going into an instant action dogfight set
up against the likes of an SU 27 ... then consistently coming out
victorious in close quarters combat. There I am struggling just to
keep this clunky beast from falling on the ground while chasing
someone in a fighter that is as maneuverable as a humming bird and has
400 nmph on me, not to mention acceleration. I feel like King Kong,
standing on the Empire State Building helplessly swatting at the
planes zipping around me like so many flies.
In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
ratio were BVR?
Bob Howell
JD
F-15"
>There are at least 3 factors that require counteracting.
>
>1) Torque. This isn't really the biggest one in general aviation, and
>until you really get into big horsepower numbers, isn't your biggest
>concern.
Sean... we were talking about the take off roll. Torque <which
imparts a rolling moment> is for all practical purposes a
non-factor there. The exception is the friction thing I mentioned
in another post.
>3) In a taildragger during takeoff, something called "P-factor" is a huge
>player. Basically, when the plane is sitting nose-high but moving forward,
>the mechanics and geometry of it all results in the descending prop blade
>having much more AOA than the rising prop blade. This descending blade
>takes a greater bite into the air, creating more thrust than the rising
>blade.
You got the effect right, but not the cause. This is in fact
another of those long standing myths in the aviation community.
Probably because it's *taught* incorrectly in so many ground
schools.
The truth is, when discussing P factor the AoA differential is
negligible. The primary cause of the effect is the longer
resultant of the descending blade as it traces a path through the
air due to the forward motion of the airplane flying with a
positive pitch angle. It follows then that given the same angle
between the prop shaft and the airplane's velocity vector,
P-factor would be more pronounced at higher airspeeds than it
would at lower airspeeds. It is, again, pretty much a non-factor
during the take off roll.
Different airplanes will obviously exhibit different
characteristics, but if I were asked to quantify the three effects
you mention <torque, prop wash, and P-factor> in terms of
percentage of total left turn tendency during a take-off roll in a
generic single prop airplane <assuming no wind> I'd probably give
something like 5% for torque <friction>, 5% for P-factor, and 90%
for prop wash. And I'm probably still overstating the effects of
torque and P-factor <g>.
Regards, JD
jdk...@mindspring.com
John Tasker
Robey <rf...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:36a014cf...@news.concentric.net...
>As I sipped my Newcastle Brown Ale Bob Howell asked:
>
>>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>>ratio were BVR?
>
>what I read)...which is one more than my Viper brethren got.
>
>Robey
>
And didn't the A-10 Guys get 2 Helos? Damn...those Viper guys must have
been pissed :)
Andrew See
>In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>ratio were BVR?
Try reposting this in rec.aviation.military, and they'll give you a
comprehensive answer, right down to the serial numbers of the jets and
names of the drivers.
CJ Smut Martin
>Sean,
>
>I've posted these questions several times since F15 was released
>requesting a response from one of the moguls at Janes. Never got an
>answer. Since you had a hand in the development of the sim, perhaps
>you can answer.
I'm not Sean, but I know I've answered all of these questions here and
elsewhere in the past. You must have missed it.
>Why did Janes make the decision to model F15 on the 220 engines
>instead of the more powerful 229s? Was the decision made in deference
>to historical accuracy; i. e., were there no F15 strike aircraft in
>the Iraqui theatre equipped with 229s?
Several reasons, actually (in no particuliar order):
1. Less than half of the current F-15E fleet is equiped with the -229 engine.
There are no plans to retrofit the rest of the -220 engined aircraft.
2. All Desert Storm aircraft had the -220 engine.
3. All of our original flight data for the F-15 was based on the -220 engine.
4. Modeling the -229 engine in the game would have really let people do
things that in real life would get them killed. The aircraft has a dynamic
pressure ("Q" factor) limit at low altitudes, in other words, if you fly too
fast you begin to melt the wings off. With the -229 engine, it is much easier
to get into this situation.
>Second ... given that the flight model is based on the 220s, are not
>these close quarters dogfight training and instant action scenarios a
>little ridiculous? Now, don't take me wrong ... I LOVE this sim.
>But, good God, I feel absurd going into an instant action dogfight set
>up against the likes of an SU 27 ... then consistently coming out
>victorious in close quarters combat. There I am struggling just to
>keep this clunky beast from falling on the ground while chasing
>someone in a fighter that is as maneuverable as a humming bird and has
>400 nmph on me, not to mention acceleration. I feel like King Kong,
>standing on the Empire State Building helplessly swatting at the
>planes zipping around me like so many flies.
Sean can obviously better answer this question, but F-15E crews practice ACM
as much as they can, against anybody they can.
>In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>ratio were BVR?
The only air to air kill by a F-15E during Desrt Storm was a hovering helo
splashed by a GBU-10 laser guided bomb.
-CJ
Sean Long
Bob Howell <howe...@NOSPAMearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:36a109fe...@news.earthlink.net...
>Sean,
>
>I've posted these questions several times since F15 was released
>requesting a response from one of the moguls at Janes. Never got an
>answer. Since you had a hand in the development of the sim, perhaps
>you can answer.
>
>instead of the more powerful 229s? Was the decision made in deference
>to historical accuracy; i. e., were there no F15 strike aircraft in
>the Iraqui theatre equipped with 229s?
CJ answered these questions better than I could.
>Second ... given that the flight model is based on the 220s, are not
>these close quarters dogfight training and instant action scenarios a
>little ridiculous? Now, don't take me wrong ... I LOVE this sim.
>But, good God, I feel absurd going into an instant action dogfight set
>up against the likes of an SU 27 ... then consistently coming out
>victorious in close quarters combat. There I am struggling just to
>keep this clunky beast from falling on the ground while chasing
>someone in a fighter that is as maneuverable as a humming bird and has
>400 nmph on me, not to mention acceleration. I feel like King Kong,
>standing on the Empire State Building helplessly swatting at the
>planes zipping around me like so many flies.
In a real war, you really never know who's gonna pop up inside your strike
package. Of course, everyone is looking out with eyeballs and radars trying
to stiff-arm the bad guys or kill them BVR, but sometimes someone still
sneaks through. The closest an F-15E was to getting an A/A missile kill was
on a mig-29 that blundered right through the middle of the F-15E strike and
passed about a mile in front of someone.
>In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>ratio were BVR?
One kill, not BVR :)
Sean Long
WB: -eagl-
Bob Howell
Martin) wrote:
>In article <36a109fe...@news.earthlink.net>, howe...@NOSPAMearthlink.net (Bob Howell) wrote:
>>Sean,
>>
>>I've posted these questions several times since F15 was released
>>requesting a response from one of the moguls at Janes. Never got an
>>answer. Since you had a hand in the development of the sim, perhaps
>>you can answer.
>
>I'm not Sean, but I know I've answered all of these questions here and
>elsewhere in the past. You must have missed it.
>
>>Why did Janes make the decision to model F15 on the 220 engines
>>instead of the more powerful 229s? Was the decision made in deference
>>to historical accuracy; i. e., were there no F15 strike aircraft in
>>the Iraqui theatre equipped with 229s?
>
>Several reasons, actually (in no particuliar order):
>
>1. Less than half of the current F-15E fleet is equiped with the -229 engine.
>There are no plans to retrofit the rest of the -220 engined aircraft.
>
>2. All Desert Storm aircraft had the -220 engine.
>
>3. All of our original flight data for the F-15 was based on the -220 engine.
>
>4. Modeling the -229 engine in the game would have really let people do
>things that in real life would get them killed. The aircraft has a dynamic
>pressure ("Q" factor) limit at low altitudes, in other words, if you fly too
>fast you begin to melt the wings off. With the -229 engine, it is much easier
>to get into this situation.
>
>>Second ... given that the flight model is based on the 220s, are not
>>these close quarters dogfight training and instant action scenarios a
>>little ridiculous? Now, don't take me wrong ... I LOVE this sim.
>>But, good God, I feel absurd going into an instant action dogfight set
>>up against the likes of an SU 27 ... then consistently coming out
>>victorious in close quarters combat. There I am struggling just to
>>keep this clunky beast from falling on the ground while chasing
>>someone in a fighter that is as maneuverable as a humming bird and has
>>400 nmph on me, not to mention acceleration. I feel like King Kong,
>>standing on the Empire State Building helplessly swatting at the
>>planes zipping around me like so many flies.
>
>Sean can obviously better answer this question, but F-15E crews practice ACM
>as much as they can, against anybody they can.
>
>>In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
>>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>>ratio were BVR?
>
>The only air to air kill by a F-15E during Desrt Storm was a hovering helo
>splashed by a GBU-10 laser guided bomb.
>
>-CJ
Thanks for answering. Yep, I must have missed your earlier posts on
the subject. My mind is at ease now that I know all the F15E aircraft
in Desert Storm were fitted with 220s. As far as I'm concerned, if
you are going to start making compromises, I want realism to me on the
bottom of the list. Now, I'm perfectly content with my 220s.
Bob Howell
Pete Marone
Sean Long <sean...@PLEASE.NO-SPAM.micron.net> wrote in message
news:gr2o2.2$IN....@skin01.micron.net...
>>In the actual Desert Storm conflict, just how many air to air kills
>>were accomplished by F15 strike aircraft and, of those kills, what
>>ratio were BVR?
>
>One kill, not BVR :)
Well, it could be considered Below Visual Range ;)
Pete Marone