Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

F-15 in Siege of Beirut[edit]

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)

External links modified (November 2017)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Climb[edit]

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)

production will end in 2022?[edit]

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)

Looks like no, given the F-15EX. 98.203.155.60 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Switch photo[edit]

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.

Late-series F-15 in Nevada.

73.230.178.114 (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

No. The previous image shows the aircraft at a better angle, and without the dark background. BilCat (talk) 20:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Can Somebody please add F-15EX variant?[edit]

Its pretty important addition, now that US is going to buy it. F.Alexsandr (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

From the top of the Variants section:
This article is about F-15A, B, C, D, and related variants. For F-15E, F-15I, F-15S, F-15K, F-15SG, F-15SA, F-15QA, F-15X/EX, and other F-15E-based variants, see McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle.
BilCat (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, using one's eyes and reading can be very helpful. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
From press coverage it looks like it should be here not there, as it's a replacement for the air superiority variants not the ground attack variants. 98.203.155.60 (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The F-15E and its variants can preform both air-air and air-ground roles. The F-15E added the ground attack capabilities via airframe strengthening, upgraded avionics, etc. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not what it's being used for. Is it actually an F-15E variant, or is the article being structure as a F-15 (old), F-15E (anything new)? The E model is a variant, a "branch" if you will, and it makes more sense to have this article be the "trunk" that refers out to the various subtypes (except for the F-15E near-clones for export). Not sure what the logic is in putting non-E variants in the E article. 2601:601:9D00:591:E973:ADBA:96BD:17AD (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
It's obviously an E variant, hence the EX designation. Ultimately, it's an editorial decision, and the current consensus it to cover it in the E article, not in this one. Your welcome to disagree, and to try to change the consensus. Ultimately, it will probably get its own variant article, but that remains to be seen. BilCat (talk) 04:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

(undent) Everything new is going to include the technologies and lessons from the E model, so it's less "obvious" than it might seem. Given that the plane is probably reaching the end of its development life and there won't be too many more variants it's probably not a big deal, but people looking for the variant aren't looking for it under the article for another variant. Lumping and splitting aside on the F-15SE, if it's not going to have a separate article it makes more sense to leave the F-15E article to that specific variant, not all subsequent developments on the plane. If nothing else, being more upfront about the split in articles so that it's "F-15E and later variants derived from that model are in other article, this is only older variants" or similar might make sense. Whether the 2040 belongs in the other article is questionable, since it's a development from the SE which developed from the E. 2601:601:9D00:591:E973:ADBA:96BD:17AD (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle&oldid=1007257852"