From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: F-15E Performance
Date: 9 Jan 1993 12:02:56 GMT
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
NNTP-Posting-Host: obsidian.wpi.edu

In article <BOWERS.93Jan8115353@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:
>Hmmmm, acording to the literature I have (unclassified open literature
>stuff) the Streak Eagle (talk about the original stripper clean F-15)
>is capable of Mach 2.5 only between 45,000 and 62,000 feet.  At 30k,
>it will only go Mach 2.0.  And that is with _no_ stores.  Not even
>Sparrows.  Now the A models were a bit slower than that, and the C
>models quite a bit slower.  I can only imagine what a B or D or E
>model would be like.

Well, we had some friends of the family crash over the summer, and one of
their SO's was a Pratt employee who worked on the F100 and the P2??? which 
the F-15E uses. He said they were constantly increasing the output. Since
I was under the impression that the F-15E had a lot more thrust than the
F-15A, of course with more weight... But also that the later C's had more than
the A... According to Modern Air Combat the A and C had the same empty
weight, but the C had a higher max weight via a higher payload and more fuel.
(FAST packs and the like)

Arg... most of my 'good' books are lent out to a friend planning a RPG...

But, from Modern Air COmbat by Bill Gunston and Mike Spick...

Performance: Maximum speed (over 36,000ft / 10,973m with no external load
except four AIM-7), 1,653mph (2,660km/h, Mach 2.5)

I know that somewhere I read >Mach2 with 4 AIM-9 and 4 AIM-7...

I'll see if he's back from break and if so I'll check some other sources.
One of the ones he has is my Great Book of Modern Warplanes, that had a bit
on the Streak Eagle. That was a stripped down F-15A used for time to climb
records, for those who don't know. 

But glancing at others the normal max speed given for the F-15 is Mach 2.5
or simply > mach 2... I've only 'open' sources too...

>Also, the ability to get rid of a rack is a requirement, if a bomb
>load can't release on one side, the procedure is to pickle off the

Oh, I didn't mean to imply you couldn't pickle the racks, I thought that
would be obvious. I meant that it isn't normal practice, of course that
should be obvious to. Once the load is gone the rack isn't much of a problem,
no real reason to drop it.

>Which drag did FAST Packs decrease?  I quote (again from my open lit
>source):
>"...the F-15 with these conformal FAST PACKs has the same subsonic
>cruise drag as the total F-15 is without them..."  Transonic wave drag
>(due to high Mach numbers close to and exceeding 1.0) will go up.

They don't even mention drag in Modern Air Combat... But it is stuck in my
head from someplace. I remember the author using an 'amazed' tone.. like
"Not only didn't the addition of the FAST packs increase drag, it actually
REDUCED the parasite drag from the airframe!"...

I will try and find where I saw that... The problem is it was a few years 
ago and I tend to read alot... plus my books are spread across Worcester,
and a few are still in NY... ah, the life of a college student...

Of course this wouldn't be the first time I've come across errors in open
texts.... Since your source is dedicated to the F-15 it is most likely more
accurate than mine...

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military