Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle/Archive 1

message: Where is this material coming from?  If it's from your own work or from a government website, fine (though it needs some work to meet the NPOV), but if it's from a private website or other source you need permission from the copyright owner --Robert Merkel
Robert, I didn't think the B-52 article was very far off factual/historical, but since you commented on the F-15, I came looking for it. This doesn't look like a military writeup, more like a McDonnell-Douglas PR piece, so it might not be public domain, and it crowds the NPOV policy more than a bit. I'll scout around and see if I can find something better, possibly in the .mil world. If not, this can be fixed.-- Stranger
I don't have lots of time, but googling for "they proved their superior combat capability with a confirmed 26:0 kill ratio" pointed to a number of places where this phrase is found.  It looks like the original source may be http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/Mission-history/F-15C.htm -- Greg McMullan, new wikipedia onlooker; 2002-08-30 1316 EDT
The information is coming from an Air Force website. The author did nothing to the information. He just copied and pasted. I am also going to change the year it entered service which is very wrong. -- Thetinguy  P.S. link to airforce page: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101  2005-08-25 10:55 AM EDT
:Actually, the 'entered service date' was for the F-15E, which was confusing.  I reverted the change and fixed it up to be more clear.  The F-15 entered service in 1972, the F-15E in 1988, and the opening paragraph should reflect this better.  The F-15E is being mentioned seperately because it is a significant derivative of the F-15.  - Chairboy 15:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright violation

message: deleted from the Strike Eagle page, will incorporate
The F-15's superior maneuverability and acceleration are achieved through its high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing-loading. It was the first U.S. operational aircraft whose engines' thrust exceeded the plane's loaded weight, permitting it to accelerate even while in vertical climb. Low wing-loading (the ratio of aircraft weight to its wing area) is a vital factor in maneuverability and, combined with the high thrust-to-weight ratio, enables the aircraft to turn tightly without losing airspeed.
The first flight of the F-15A was made in July 1972. In November 1974, the first Eagle was delivered to the 58th Tactical Fighter Training Wing at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., where training began in both F-15A and B aircraft. In January 1976, the first F-15 destined for a combat squadron was delivered to the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va.
The single-seat F-15C and two-seat F-15D models entered the Air Force inventory in 1979 and were delivered to Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, Japan. These models were equipped with production Eagle package improvements, including 2,000 lb (900 kg) of additional internal fuel, provisions for carrying exterior conformal fuel tanks, and increased maximum takeoff weight of 68,000 lb (31 t).
The F-15E is powered by two Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220 or -229 engines that incorporate advanced digital technology for improved performance. For example, with a digital electronic engine control system, F-15E pilots can accelerate from idle power to maximum afterburner in less than four seconds, a 40 percent improvement over the previous engine control system. Faster engine acceleration means quicker takeoffs and crisper response while maneuvering. The F100-PW-220 engines can produce 25,000 lbf (110 kN) of thrust each and the F100-PW-229 engines 29,000 lbf (130 kN) of thrust each.
--Mmx1 03:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  additon 

message: Any thoughts on how to add info about the genesis of the F-15 design?  Specifically, I want to put in a mention of how the F-15 design requirements were initially driven strongly by leaked capabilities of the Mig-25 that turned out to be optimistic.  Early reports had the Mig-25 as a super fast air superiority fighter, and books I've read have described the early F-15 development to be driven to beat this looming shadow.
:Chairboy:  You neglected to sign your comment.  As for your question, I'd love to see it included.  I've cleaned up the history section a bit and I think you could slide the MiG-25's influence on the VX requirement in just before the sentence about the three companies who submitted proposals. Dabarkey 03:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only fly vertically, but accelerate to supersonic speeds while flying vertically. --Molon Labe 22:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design history 

message: I remeber that in one of the university classes I have attended the lecturer brought up as an example a programmin error in the early F-15 software. It supposedly caused the plane fly upside down south of the equator when in autopilot. Any truth to it, and should it be mentioned in the article? - The Merciful 11:05, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've heard a similar tale about a jet fighter, but I dunno whether it was the F-15.  If it's true it'd definitely be worth adding. --Robert Merkel 23:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I've done some googling, and have found some references to this actually being an F-16 (which is fly by wire, unlike the F-15) and that it showed up during testing, not production. - CHAIRBOY 05:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software error in early F-15? 

message: Could someone add operators section like it done on F-16 page?
i will start it, the F-15C is a one seater aircraft, but the F-15E has two seats. the point of two seats is simple. the pilot does not have to worry about Firing (if the guy in back is a WSo)and can concentrate on evading and more important things like that. and the guy in back,(generally they are WSO weapon systen operators, or RO radar operators.)only has to worry about blowing stuff up, or targeting enemy targets, stuff like that. hope other people post on this section, it is a great topic to reasearch. cheers Zeetoboy 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operators 

message: Is there an F-15 variant called F-15S/MTD? I 've been dying to know since I saw it in Ace Combat 5.
I heard of a certain advanced called F-15S/MTD. It was an improved design with canards, better radar, etc. It was never put into production.
--Chin, Cheng-chuan
See the article F-15S/MTD.  Andrew Rodland 09:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-15S/MTD? 

message: It seems to me like the NASA picture of the F-15 specifications is wrong. The picture shows two little wings near the engine intakes that do not exist, does anyone agree with my opinion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.143.24.223 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that NASA image really doesn't belong.  If someone can find a more typical 3-view, it would be better.Spejic 06:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Robert, that picture of the F-15 (i think) you are referring to is the F-15 ACTIVE. I have added a bit of information on the ACTIVE in the F-15S/MTD section (and revised it a bit) since they are different projects done on the same aircraft. If anyone feels like making an article on just the F-15 ACTIVE, go ahead. --User:zeroyon 8:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archiver's note: Before my reshuffle of the page to be in chronological order (see this revision), it looked like the above text about the photo was written by Robert Merkel. Graham87 06:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: photo

message: I changed a picture of the F-15, and gave the new one a caption beneath it. I figured I'd mention it here in case anyone really wants the old pic reinserted. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 14:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed a picture 

message: We have two Air Force sources that give conflicting information on the range of the F-15:
http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=101 says the max range is some 3400 miles with drop tanks.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f15c.htm says the max range, specifically of the C model, is some 1000 miles less.
Why the difference? The first link is not explicit in referring to one model over the others, so that may play a part, but this is confusing at best.--chris.lawson 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specs 

message: I'm assuming the heads up display was added later. The description
does not say which version it is talking about.--Gbleem 15:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1972 heads up display 

message: Hey folks, I spent the weekend decoding the the whole FX/VFAX/VFX affair after trying to find an acceptable citation for Mmx1, who insisted on reverting every edit without an acceptable citation that claimed that the F-14 was somehow deliberately designed to be a maneuvering air superiority fighter. Somehow the reading of one of many references that only spoke of the anti-bomber mission was proof to him that AS wasn't part of the equation. Anyways, enjoy, and let me know what you think. I was growing up in the 60s during this period, and I'm still amazed the brand new F-15 that came out is still the best fixed wing fighter out there (oops, I think I gave my preferences away...) Every book or video on the F15 has to start with a story of air combat and what happened over Vietnam, and I threw in mention of America's most famous fighter designer, Robert (boo hiss) McNamara. --matador300 23:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  F=15 gets a backgound history like the F-14, F-111 

message: Does anyone know if Israeli F-15's have shot down any Syrian jets in the present war? Necessary Evil 21:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only know of a rumor about pair of kills (Syrian MiG-29's) that were shot down in September 2000 when they harassed an IDF/AF ELINT B707. I don't know if these kills were confirmed much less the incident as a whole though. Cat Balou 14:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up-to-date killings 

message: I'd be really interested in hearing about the F-15A and C model's air-to-surface capability, if any at all exists.  Also, I don't see any mentions as to the F-15's absolute, tongue dragging, engine nuking top speed.  The Mig-25 and Mig 31's top speeds are governed to mach 2.83, but in a jam can go to mach 3+ if they don't mind replacing the engines entirely.
JaderVason 23:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the original models had limited A/G capability. Mainly this was limited to 500-lb bombs and training bombs. As with the F-22, the requirement was added late in its development in order to make an expensive air-superiority fighter more palatable to Congress. The F-16, which was in development, was touted as a multi-role aircraft with excellent A/A and A/G capabilities for half the price, so providing the F-15 with a basic A/G capability was deemed desirable to secure its funding more firmly. (The F-15 was a higher-priority USAF program than the F-16.) The reason the S/W was deleted was because the USAF wasn't training its pilots for A/G; there were much more capable, specialized ground-attack aircraft available. The robust, slab-sided F-15 fuselage, however, was well-suited to hanging hardpoint-equipped fuel tanks on and offered excellent range, which is what led to the Strike Eagle variant (along with dissatisfaction over the F-111's performance). Askari Mark (Talk) 00:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a pound... 

message: I guess I look at things a little differently - to me, if (1) it's definitivly stated that such-and-such a thing is such-and-such a plane, and (2) this can be verified, then I don't have any problem with listing cartoon/comic appearances. Games I can see the point of exclusion, as there's so dang many of them - unless the subject is central to a plot point - but, as I said, cartoon appearance? Leave it in. - Aerobird 19:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you said, it's a CARTOON! What real F-15 can turn into a robot? Which F-15 was purchased by the cartoonists for conversion into the robots? How are the Transformers any more notable than any othr cartoon apprearence of the F-15? (I don't know of any others right off, but if we leave this reference in, they WILL appear!) - BillCJ 19:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly my point - I don't think they shouldn't appear as long as they're verifiable as F-15s. But your mileage may vary. - Aerobird 21:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I hadn't heard the the new Transformers movie was live action, and that they were using actual F-15s in the movie. I assume this because Top Gun was mentioned, in which the studio rented actual Tomcats from the Navy, and Tom Cruise and the other actors actually rode in the back seat of F-14s for much of the flying footage. - BillCJ 02:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that Transformers was a huge pop culture phenomenon in the 1980s, whether you were a fan or not (I wasn't; it was a little before my time), and to say that any reference to it here is verboten simply because it's a fictional depiction is a pretty weak argument.--chris.lawson 02:45, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You'll noticed that point is not mentioned in my proposition. What is mentioned is Notability, which I do not believe this merits. Btw, I owned the F-15 Transformer! Would still have it today, excpet I had to leave it behind in a move back from overseas. - BillCJ 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously one person's cruft is another person's trivia. Considering the pop phenomenon Transformers has been, as long as there IS a "Pop culture" section, it should probably be permitted. Frankly, though, I'd prefer that these sections go away — articles on the films and games and toys and whatnot are Wikipedia's coverage of "pop culture" and should be covered there, not in articles on primarily historical topics. This is, of course, a perennial issue, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Official policy on "Cultural references" sections in articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: How the heck is a Transformer based on the F-15 not a notable pop culture instance? I pretty much agree with Mark -- as long as there is a section for it, this pretty much has to be here as it's by far the most widely known fictional reference (i.e., excluding video games) to the F-15. If that section goes away, so can this mention.--chris.lawson 04:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I am for getting rid of the whole Pop culture section. But Rome wasn't destroyed in a day. As for notability, if the F-15 was the only robot in the cartoon/movie, then this might be a differet situation. However, it is but one of a good number of robot models featured. I have no problem with these models being listed in the Transformers article, that is the place for it. - BillCJ 07:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the fact that other vehicles were featured in the show is irrelevant.  A-4 Skyhawks were in Top Gun, but eliminating that movie reference from the F-14 because of it wouldn't make sense.  Transformers is still the most popular and widely seen fiction featuring the aircraft...and the three characters that changed into them were in almost every episode so they featured heavily.  As for the entire pop culture section, I'd much rather keep it.  There are more aspects to vehicles than their operating statistics and real-world history...the frequency of their appearances in media can show how pervasive (or popular) the design is, etc..  Also, I don't see how the source material being a cartoon affects the relevance...animation is no more fictional than live-action film.-- CaptainVlad 10:35 10 January 2007
It seems to me, the Transformers cartoon is most certainly notable and the F-15 was a notable character in the series.  I can't think of a more notable pop culture reference.  Along the same lines, I oppose removing "Pop Culture" and to a lesser extent, "Trivia", sections.  I am not in favor of WP following the old-fashioned printed encyclopedia example just because that's how it's always been done.  Printed encyclopedia publishers have serious physical and economical realities that require them to be extremely conservative.  There is virtually no such limits for a purely web-based encyclopedia.  If the pop culture section becomes ridiculously large or too trivial, then I would support spawning a pop culture sub article and trimming.  With a small pop culture section that has only notable and cited references, it adds dimension to the article that a printed encyclopedia would never touch.  But not because they don't want to, it's just economically irresponsible.  --JJLatWiki 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I've deleted the section about the Yugoslav MiG-21s shooting down two USAF F-15s; because there is no factual proof that such shootdowns ever took place. If someone can in fact find proof do so, otherwise; please do not write up fictious material like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.140.35 (talk • contribs) 
Here's the removed paragraph:
: On the other hand, in March 26, 1999 an american F-15E was shot down by a MIG-21. The plane crashed in village Donja Trnova, 15km southwest of Bijeljina, Republic of Srpska. The crew was killed. Another F-15 was shot down by a Yugoslav Mig-21 in April 6, 1999. The plane crashed near Avala mountain. 
The editier that added it said it came from NATO bombing of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Yugoslavia#Air_war.  It is not cited there either, by the way. -Fnlayson 03:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslav MiG-21s Downing two F-15s? 

message: Saw with my own eyes a lot of F-15s heading up Hula valley to hit Beirut in August 1982. Don't understand why this is not in article. Believe was in Jerusalem Post next day, explained how they were using the radar shadow of the Golan Heights on the way up, and coming wide over the Med on the way back.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.28.136.41 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  F-15 in Siege of Beirut 

message: There's a bit of a problem here. The article claims, under 'Design: Overview', that 'The F-15 can climb to 30,000 feet (9100m) in around 60 seconds.' It can't, obviously, that's absurd. The article goes on, 'The thrust output of the dual engines is greater than the aircraft's combat weight, so it has the ability to accelerate vertically.' Again, this is absurd. And the 'Specification' section gives a 'climb rate' of 50,000 feet per minute, which is again absurd. That is the peak climb rate which the aircraft momentarily achieves on climb-out at max afterburn. It is not the sustained climb rate, which is 20,000 feet per minute or less. As Wing Commander Brian Carroll explains, the F-15 in combat trim takes about 2.5 minutes to 36,000 feet, the same as the English Electric Lightning, which was designed and first produced 20 years earlier. http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/lightning/memories.php On YouTube you can see cockpit video of a Lightning T5's altimeter hitting 60,000 feet per minute (1,000 feet per second, 680mph in the vertical) during a time-to-climb exercise in South Africa. The Lightning was clean, without missiles, and was light on fuel, but on the other hand it was a two-seater with a wide wind-resisting canopy. In service, a combat-loaded Lightning would easily break Mach 1 in dry power in a 40-degree max-rate climb, leading to complaints from the public about the bang, if the pilot didn't watch it. As for the F-15's engine thrust equalling combat weight, of course it doesn't. The Pratt F100-220s develop at best 47,540lb thrust in max afterburn. At combat load the F-15 weighs 55,000 - 68,000lb, giving a thrust-to-weight between 1.15 and 1.43 to 1. (The Lightning's, at take-off weight of 41,700 - 45,750lb with a thrust of 32,600lb from twin RR Avon 301Rs at max afterburn, was 1.28 to 1.40 to 1.) The F-15, of course, would be carrying a lot more fuel and armament, and much more sophisticated radar, than the Lightning -- that's what 20 years of progress at a time of very rapid technical advances will do for you -- but it certainly can't climb any faster, and to claim max initial climb rate as sustained climb rate is to deceive the reader. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Climb

message: That photo being used there isn't really that good of an in-flight photo. So, I have come to ask you if I can replace it with this new photo. 
73.230.178.114 (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The previous image shows the aircraft at a better angle, and without the dark background. BilCat (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Switch photo 

message: its true that The high cost of the F15, the lack of stealth, the only 3 exports, and production of the more versatile F-35 will lend to the end of F-15 production?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalininos (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like no, given the F-15EX. 98.203.155.60 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  production will end in 2022? 

message: What does "gross weight" mean in this article under "specifications"?  Without any additional qualifiers "gross weight" has no fixed, precise value.  This seems to be a problem on many aircraft pages (for example, F-16, F/A-18, Su-33, A400M).  It seems to always be less than the max takeoff weight, so it isn't the maximum gross weight. Citizen127 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That gross weight is roughly the typical operating weight. The template has a note field for labeling etc., which should be used. One F-15 book I have (F-15 Eagle Engaged) lists a typical weight of 42,100 lb, which is basic operating weight plus pilot and unused fuel. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross weight (vague) 

message: File:F-15, 71st Fighter Squadron, in flight.JPG|Current, 2007, rear threequarter view is a bit odd.
File:F-15C Florida (17149377921).jpg|Proposed. 2015. Shows shape of aircraft better, imo
 (Hohum @) 19:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better lead/infobox image? 

message: Can you please published about the comparison of McDonnell Douglas F-15K Slam Eagle and McDonnell Douglas F-15E Eagle , I would be thankful . Archangel Oxcart (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison about 70s planes