Korean F-15 with GE129: kinematic beast?

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post14 Jul 2020, 08:50

https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?b ... gle.com%2F

Flight Demonstrations

ROKAF was very keen on having the capabilities of the competitor aircraft demonstrated. Hence they orchestrated a detailed flight evalutation lasting for 3 weeks for the F-15E. ROKAF respresentatives were shown the PDM facilities at Warner Robins AFB, EW testing facilities, the APG-63(V)I radar house and simulator training. USAF IP's then flew the F-15E with ROKAF pilots in the front seat and conducted air-to-air and air-to-ground sorties. For the evaluations taken place in October 2000 at Elmendorf AFB, Boeing leased 3 F-15E aircraft from USAF. The aircraft were stripped from non-export equipment prior to evaluation flights.

On one mission, the first two LGB's the Korean pilot released went right through the target. The CFT's were removed to demonstrate compliance with a brake release to climb to 30,000 ft in two minutes - the F-15E achieved this in 80 seconds, a performance that elicited the response from one ROKAF pilot that the jet climbed too fast. Acceleration from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 had to be accomplished in 20 seconds and the F-15E did it in 8 seconds. Just a bit feeling to add behind this latter data: the speed difference between Mach 0.6 and 0.95 is somewhat more than 400 km/h (or more than 250 mph). A 1001 hp Bugatti Veyron does only half of this (0-200 km/h in 7.4 seconds).

-----------------------

My comments: the average subsonic accleration exceeds published data of Mig-29/Su-35 by 30%-35%, WTF
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5600
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Jul 2020, 14:07



From the comments:

"I'm not even BS'ing you here. This was my jet in Alaska, F-15E 90-0250 with PW 229 engines and no pods or CFT's. It was one of two flight demonstrators for the Korean government. We did everything from ICT's, flight demos and even let them fly her. The planes that were chosen for the flight demo portion were rented by Boeing with their maintainers and test pilot. It was awesome. I guess the Koreans thought so too, because they now have the F-15K!"
"There I was. . ."
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post14 Jul 2020, 14:56

Since the demo and the performance figures quoted were with an USAF F-15E with the CFTs remover, shouldn’t this thread be titled: “F-15 with PW-229: Kinematic Beast”.

I know that there has been previous discussion that the GE-129 has even higher dynamic performance than the -229, but has the disadvantage of weighing ~300-400 lbs more per engine (plus more ballast in the nose for W&B), which becomes 8000-9000 lbs additional lift (and drag) in a 9G turn. And the latest -229 engines have 50% longer life, certified for 6000 TAC cycles between overhauls.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 907
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post14 Jul 2020, 15:06

gta4 wrote:Acceleration from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 had to be accomplished in 20 seconds and the F-15E did it in 8 seconds.


BS or a typo. At sea level (which is where you get best subsonic acceleration), this requires average excess thrust (T-D) of over 50,000 lbs, assuming a nearly EMPTY aircraft. So this is typo, or just BS.
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 87
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post14 Jul 2020, 19:11

disconnectedradical wrote:
gta4 wrote:Acceleration from Mach 0.6 to 0.95 had to be accomplished in 20 seconds and the F-15E did it in 8 seconds.


BS or a typo. At sea level (which is where you get best subsonic acceleration), this requires average excess thrust (T-D) of over 50,000 lbs, assuming a nearly EMPTY aircraft. So this is typo, or just BS.


This does seem pretty ambitious. While I don't have the official engine performance curves, the -229 will be putting out around 36,000 lbs thrust at SL, 0.6 Mn, up to 37K on a 40F cold day. This will increase to something like 45K at 0.95 Mn at Sea Level as the ram inlet pressure increases. I don't know what the drag is at those conditions, but you are looking at total fuel flow rates on the order of 3000 lbs per minute, so you will be empty really quick.
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 927
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post15 Jul 2020, 08:36

From RAF pilot interview (Eurofighter World April 2012), In WVR the GE powered F-15SG is a tougher opponent than Mig-29 and F/A-18.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4157
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post23 Jul 2020, 13:28

Hopefully the F-15EX our guys will be getting has similar performance.

I'm sure the F-15C guys mouth's are watering about now, thinking about trading in their old mounts for this beast. It should be the most "advanced" F-15 of all. Biggest indicator will be in the Israeli's buy it IMO. And they just may, given the very first pics of Egyptian (new build) SU-35's have emerged out of Russia.

I just wish they had taken the time to add more internal fuel, and perhaps some thrust vectoring (although I understand its usefulness is highly debated). Oh well, you can't have everything..
Offline

nutshell

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 487
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 13:37

Unread post27 Jul 2020, 20:39

mixelflick wrote:Hopefully the F-15EX our guys will be getting has similar performance.

I'm sure the F-15C guys mouth's are watering about now, thinking about trading in their old mounts for this beast. It should be the most "advanced" F-15 of all. Biggest indicator will be in the Israeli's buy it IMO. And they just may, given the very first pics of Egyptian (new build) SU-35's have emerged out of Russia.

I just wish they had taken the time to add more internal fuel, and perhaps some thrust vectoring (although I understand its usefulness is highly debated). Oh well, you can't have everything..


Doesnt the EX come with CFT which wont be removed?

The better engines i think it's just to account for the extra weight it carries.

Anyway, no TVC afaik for the EX. Cant even imagine a single reason to do so. Pretty sure the USAF has runaways long enough to rule out the most important reason for having TVC in the first place.

Well the Raptor doesnt count. It was meant to show US D* was the biggest and its balls were the one pushed against the wall the most! :D

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: eagle3000 and 25 guests

cron