Talk:McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Towed Array

I hear the F-15C/E has a towed array now. Is this true?

  • I saw on a website that it was a planned upgrade a few years ago. But has it been done ? I don't know. But the towed array decoy to be installed was in fact, the same as the f-18.
The decoy system is the Raytheon AN/ALE-50 Towed Decoy System.
  • No, neither version of the F-15 has an active towed decoy. And it's not likely that they will in the future, because the Air Force would rather put that money into upgrading other avionics.Double493 16:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Should we have every F-15 crash in this article??

It is unavoidable that aircraft crash in exercises from time to time. I don't think that an F-15 article should be spammed with three or four lines for every trivial F-15 crash. The Israeli incident is in this article, because it apparently landed with only one wing, the other 2007 crash is not particularly special. Necessary Evil 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Abnormal question

Can the F-15 release fuel? Just a silly question :) 84.250.110.93 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Do you mean dump fuel in order to land? Or do you mean the ability to act as a buddy tanker, similar to what some Super Hornets are set up to do? If you mean dumping fuel, then the answer is yes.Double493 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleated Comment

Who the heck deleated by Strike of Lightning comment? The F-15 had a major role. If it's the last part about Randy Prince comfirming it, I could delete that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.204.210.34 (talk)

Who were you then? And when was then? I don't see your IP as having edited the page in the ;ast few days. I know WIkipedia is a place where anyone can edit, but you really ought to learn the ropes a bit before trying to add to major airticles like this one. aTHere is a lot to know, as I'm sure the editor who removed you item will explaine to you soon. - BillCJ 00:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't exactly like to have any address to identify me by. I am a former Air Force pilot and am very cautios about what I do. Whoever did deleate it, please do explain. Once again, sorry. Also, I edited it on the 8th of August.

  • I agree with our pilot, Major John Doe. It did have a major role in that book. Also, I added to the Popular Culture on August 17, telling about the Major Role in Air Force One and it got deleated too. Please comment, Mr. Deleater

Thanks for the backup. By the way, I was a Captain.

Just to clarify, I wasn't asking about your real-word identity. I am cautious about mine on here too. I just meant that with the different IPs you'd been assigned, I didn't know which edit was yours. In actuality, it is easier to find someone's identity on here through your IP. That is one reason why registration is recommended. Another reason is that you always have the same wiki identity with a account name, no matter where in the world you might log on from (as long as one remembers one's password anyway!) In addition, most vandalism and nonsense on WIkipedia comes froms unregistered users, tho certainly not all. - BillCJ 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
As to the book and film appearences, we try to limit mentions to those that are notable beyond judt the medium in which they appear. THe Transformers apperance is there because of a vote, as I don't believe it is notable ether. - BillCJ 01:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, and sorry about the confusion. I'm new at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.0.100 (talk)


Is this true?

I wonder if this is true...I am a die hard aviation enthusiast and I have read lots of books on fighter jets and air-combat.

A few years ago I read a book named "The fighting Israeli Air-Force". I dont remember the name of the author though.

It was mentioned that during the 6-day Arab-Israeli war in 1973, the worlds most dreaded air-combat action took place between the IAF and the Syrian Air Force.

24 F-15 Eagles engaged around 150 attacking Syrian MiG-21's, MiG-23's and MiG-27's. The battle went on for a whole day and the author claims that for the loss of 1 F-15 due to a non-combat related cause, all the others returned safely back to base shooting down 105 Syrian MiGs.

Is this ciattion by the author really true?

Does anyone have an account of the actual events that took place on that day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbir (talk • contribs) 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I already answered this on Talk:F-15E Strike Eagle. Israel did not have F-15s in 1973. The F-15 was not operational in the US then either. -Fnlayson 15:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And the Six-Day War was in 1967. I know my memory isn't persfect, so I'm not criticizing that here. However, we'd certainly need to see the whole quote before commenting on its accuracy. - BillCJ 16:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you are probably remembering the 1982 Bekaa Valley fighting; this article says that 40 odd Syrian MiGs were shot down for little loss. Buckshot06 17:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops...!!! I apologize for the year of the war. But my question was, keeping in view the way modern day air-combat progresses, is it really possible for 24 jets to shoot down 105 enemy jets without the loss of even one? Unless its F-22 Raptor with BVR and stealth capabilities?? Coz it really seems that even though countries are using such high-speed high-tech jets to fight modern-day combats, the strategy of using SWARMS of aircraft for an attack is somewhat primitive. Any comments are appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbir (talk • contribs) 16:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The odds are not good, but that could be possible if the 24 fighters had better, longer range missiles, better/newer fighters and were better trained at dogfighting than the 105 fighters. They'd have to strike first successfully with missiles out near the edge of their range. And the larger force would have to be careful not to catch each other in cross fire while dogfighting. This is not talk pages are for, so I'll leave it there. -Fnlayson 17:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Improvements

This article is very short on references. Help if you can. -Fnlayson 00:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The WP Aviation review above states grammar does not meet criteria. I've improved some wording, but I'm not seeing anything other than passive verb usage. Any help here would be great. Thanks. -Fnlayson 02:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There were a bunch of us editing the references all around the same time. I'm going to step back for a bit and let it settle down. I still have at least two books to dig through. --Colputt 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been letting you have it tonight. Thanks a lot! I should be able to cover some more of the Development section with my sources. -Fnlayson 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I added a bunch of cites from Jane's and the Complete book of Fighters, only to hit an edit conflict. I'm gonna go work on 1930's airplanes. --Colputt 14:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm finished now, really, you can have it, I'm done. I'm not a wikiaddict, really, I can stop at anytime... --Colputt 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This is out of date. it says 103-0 on the kill record, but we just lost two a month ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.199.78 (talk) 05:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That record is for for air-air combat. Whose fighters were they going up against? What's your source? -Fnlayson 16:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


Development references

I'm trying to add references for the material in the Dev section. I can't find a verifiable reference that supports this sentence.

Later, in 1965, the fighter community was surprised when post-Korean War era MiG-17s shot down newer Mach 2 F-105 Thunderchiefs on a bombing mission over Vietnam.

This about all I can find Battle of MiG 17 in Vietnam. I'm not sure that is really needed to set-up the need for the F-X. -Fnlayson 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Nevermind, it doesn't seem too important if I can't find a reference for it. There's more than enough background info anyway. -Fnlayson 16:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Tailhook

F-15 tailhook

Here's the tailhook. --Dual Freq 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The tailhook is just for emergencies, right? Land based export version of the F/A-18 Hornet has a smaller tailhook as well. -Fnlayson 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Heck, I can photoshop a tailhook on a 747, that doesn't mean it has one!!! (couldn't resist... I've actally got a scar from 'dressing' the tailhook on an F-15. When it catches the barrier, it gouges the heck out of it) --Asams10 12:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
All kidding aside, the tail-hook is for brake and speedbrake failures that would overstress the relatively small brakes. They have cables strung across the end of the runway. We used to watch the barrier test at Elmendorf. They'd run up the engines on the F-15's and run at them the barrier at fairly low speed to make sure it wroked. The barriers were a source of trouble for our C-130's though. We had more than one antenna ripped off the belly of a 130 when the nose-wheel kicked up the barrier cable. --Asams10 12:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I've got a reference: [1] --Asams10 12:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That's a neat link. I've added you link and the above image to the Tailhook article since that seems to be the most appropriate place. I'm not sure that Landlubbers' tailhooks is an appropriate section title though. --Dual Freq 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Asams10 & Dual Freq. :) -Fnlayson 22:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


Write offs and totals

Does anybody have a total number of Eagles built / disposition / crash totals that we can add to the article. This F-15 Write offs article has a list of 135 F-15s that were written off, but the list ends in 2003, so its missing a few. I was wondering how many were built vs. how many have been lost and number of fatalities etc. Maybe someone could add a summary with those details to the incidents section or somewhere else that's appropriate. I suppose if there was an easy source then it would already be included here. --Dual Freq 05:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Total produced is 1532 without newer F-15K numbers. F-15A-E/J/I/S = 1368 from 1972-c.2003. F-15K = about 20 so far. Mitsubishi has made 164 F-15J/DJs as well. All but K numbers from 2002 Davies book. -Fnlayson 06:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. I assume it would be safe to add to the article that: over 1500 have been built with at least 150 written off, 2 (F-15E) of which were lost to ground fire in desert storm, 1 (F-15E) lost during OIF but none were lost in air-to-air combat. Ejection history has over 180 listed ejections (by my rough manual count) from F-15 so the total number lost seems like it will be a bit hard to nail down unless someone else has a source that actually says how many were lost. BTW, AMARC experience lists 117 F-15A and 10 F-15B stored in AMARC. Do we include the above numbers or are they too rough / WP:OR to include? --Dual Freq 22:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about adding much write-off information. A summary seems OK. Like "some 150 F-15s have been lost .. and over 1,500 produced since 1972." I haven't run across a fighter article that gets into this due to shoot-downs, accidents and so forth. The Incidents section here started as a better place for the 1 wing (maybe 1.25) incident. -Fnlayson 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


AESA Information misleading

  • The information in the article on AESA radar is misleading - the AF has no plans to purchase any more V2 radars for the F-15C/D; all future purchases will be V3. The total number of V3 radars has not been decided; the AF intends to equip all of the long-term F-15 C/D aircraft (177 aircraft) with V3 but only approximately 24 have been funded. The F-15E is slated to get an AESA radar manufactured by Raytheon starting in 2014; no designation has been chosen for it yet. Feckzhere (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • There was a mistake in the part about the new contract with Boeing. It's supposed to be the V3 version. Their contract is for all current F-15Cs. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Not to pick a bone, but the contract is not for all current F-15C/D; it's only for 24 at the moment, and for 177 max if the funding comes through. There are still over 500 C/D models in the USAF inventory (including ANG aircraft). The ANG is slated to get the first V3 aircraft (18 due to funding stream), only six have been bought for the ADAF although they are banking on getting more (for a total of 177 AD and ANG aircraft). Of course the total number on contract could change by the end of next week! Feckzhere (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, $70 mill probably couldn't cover 177 radars. Do you have a reference for the 24? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Apparently you found one before I did (not that I was looking really hard). Feckzhere (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Referencing & further improvements

The article is now completely referenced (unless fact tags get added). Thanks for all the help on this. Should we ask for peer review and work towards a GA nomination? -Fnlayson (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

F-15E Radar Upgrade

Boeing has selected Raytheon to develop a new AESA radar for the F-15E. It will be partly based on the F-18 APG-79 radar; no name has yet been selected for the new radar. It will be installed in all F-15E aircraft starting in 2013. Reference information can be found on Raytheon's web site in the "news" area. I don't know how to link to those references and am typically a terrible writer - I offer this information for someone to add if they wish. Feckzhere (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

  • The F-15E Strike Eagle article mentions an upgrade to APG-63(V)4 radars (bottom of Development section there). Here's a couple links on that.[2] [3] -Fnlayson (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Never dawned on my to look for an F-15E page (duh!). Funny that the Boeing article dated 1 Nov doesn't mention APG-63(V)4 whereas the flightglobal.com article does. Raytheon does have an AESA brochure that mentions (V)4 but does not connect it to the US F-15E. Boeing's web site makes no mention of the (V)4. I was at a meeting for the F-15E RMP at Robins AFB on Thursday with several Boeing personnel and (V)4 was never mentioned; I would be reluctant to base any conclusion on the flightglobal.com article. Feckzhere (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Raytheon makes the radar, so the others may not know exactly what they will name it with it being new. Or flightglobal.com could be guessing at the name. ;) -Fnlayson (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Lost Air Superiority?

Is the F-15 losing the battle against other aircraft? Yes, it is in a way. Its perfect kill loss record isn't going to last long. It has equals already in aerial warfare and it is not able to keep up with next generation aircraft. The French Rafale, Europe's Eurofighter 2000 and the Russian built Su-35 are better than the F-15. Newer SAM missiles threaten the F-15. Many pilots are switching over to the F-22. Can the glory days of the F-15 be over? Agknowledgequest 02:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

  • The F-15 is pretty good but still a 1970s era design. The USAF is starting to replace its older F-15s with F-22s. Nothing is perfect forever... -Fnlayson 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Saying that an aircraft is "better" than another one is a vague and frankly, not very useful, statement. You have to be specific. Are you talking about avionics? Instantaneous turn performance? Sustained turn performance? In some aspects, yes, the aircraft you list are "better." However, there are other ways in which the F-15 retains superiority. And, one has to consider pilot proficiency when assessing a weapon system's effectiveness. While it's ridiculous and arrogant to say that a pilot from a given country will always fly better than another pilot from a different country, it is possible to look at how they train overall, and to what level of proficiency.Double493 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
On the question of SAMs. Newer SAMs do not threaten F-15 or F-22, since no aircraft will ever enter teh area where these SAMs are operating, since it is suicidal. SAMs are death for aircrafts automatically, and in question of russian S-400, it is death at 400 km range. Fighters have nothing against SAMs whatsoever. 74.98.216.68 04:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Pavel Golikov. 14 August, 2007.
This is patently untrue. SAMs have never been, and never will be, "automatic" death for a fighter. There are always ways to overcome a given weapon system, or at least prevent it from doing its job properly.Double493 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
F-15 EW packages are constantly updated for new missile threats and radar signatures. We program them all the time to continue to be able to jam changes in radar bands identified in whatever area we're flying into. As for the other aircraft being 'better', while I can't comment specifically, I will share this. When our F-15s flew against the Eurofighters in Lakenheath, they made up disable many electronics systems on the F-15. They wouldn't let us use our TEWS system, meaning pilots had to manually fire chaff/flare. Sniper Pods also weren't allowed in A/G competitions. The Su-35/37 certainly has the maneuverability edge, but hte Mirage 2000 - doesn't really have a whole lot going for it. In the end, remember that you're comparing a fighter designed in the 1970s which is still able to hold its own against next-generation fighters. That's pretty impressive. Uranium - 235 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Speed

Who calculated the sped of F-15 for this article. Anyway, the person has no clue of what is MACh number, because Mach 2.5 is 2600 km/h, while 3000 km/h is mach 2.83, and only Mig-31 or Mig-25 reachedss this speed among fighters currently, F-15 is slower. I edited it according to the real numbers. If you want wiki to look credible, please do not make such silly mistakes. 74.98.216.68 04:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

  • The AF fact sheet and a few other sources list Mach 2.5+ and 1,875 mph. You provided no source for 1,625 mph. -Fnlayson 04:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
1,875 mph is approximately equal to Mach 2.841 AVKent882 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Depends on air density which varies with altitude/temperature. At medium altitude (4000-5000 ft), 1,875 mph is approx. Mach 2.5. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" (79th Edition, CRC Press) gives the speed of sound in its standard atmosphere table at 50,000 ft to be 968 ft/s. For Mach 2.5 that yields 1650 mph; which is consistent with most of the sources I have for the F-15's max speed: "Complete Book of Fighters", "Modern Air Combat", "Air Forces of the World", etc. All sources list Mach 2.5 (or Mach 2.54 with Mach 2.3 max sustained), but not all do a conversion to mph-- wise considering that Mach is the limiting factor and the speed of sound varies. I found a Standard Atmosphere tool online: http://www.digitaldutch.com/atmoscalc/ that matches the CRC results. I can see where the 1875 mph figure may have come from if you ignore the speed of sound at altitude, but the majority of sources at my disposal (including the calender on the wall next to me) accurately list 1650 mph for M2.5 (or 1676 mph for M 2.54). The F-15E article also uses 1650 mph for M 2.5. To be accurate 1650 mph should be used in this article as well if M 2.5 is used; if one insists on 1875 mph then the Mach should be changed to match, or Mach 2.83. I've never seen that Mach number used for the F-15's max speed, Mig-31, yes, but not F-15. As for the USAF's fact sheet, quite simply, they're wrong. Mach 2.5 is only 1875 mph at sea level. Their inability to do the proper conversion should not be repeated here. Obviously, the whole M 2.5+ thing leaves the door open somewhat, but is the mph conversion provided to give some insight into what the "+" means, or is it there to tell us what M 2.5 means? I think it's the later. As such, ditch 1875 mph.Nwilde (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the reason they said 2.5+ was because it was in excess of 2.5 Mach. As a result that could include any number above Mach 2.5. With 1,875 mph listed it is logical to conclude that it can do that AVKent882 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Top speed 3000km/h??? O_o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.93.99 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you confused the F-15E (top speed at Mach 2.5) against the F-15C, which is actually Mach 2.83... — DarkFalls talk 04:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The F-15s have the same top speed. The MiG-25 interceptor has the Mach 2.83 speed, not the F-15. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Aircraft that crashed in November 2007

I hate to disrupt the transformers discussion, but does anyone have a serial number for the most recently crashed F-15C. All I can find is MO national guard 1980 F-15C, so it must be in the 80-0002/0023 F-15C-27-MC Eagle, 80-0024/0038 F-15C-28-MC or 80-0039/0053 F-15C-29-MC groups. Looking at http://home.att.net/~jbaugher/1980.html a fairly large number of those have crashed as well. This seems notable as F-15's have been grounded worldwide. I'd like to see a c/n added for the a/c involved, then maybe I can find an image of it. --Dual Freq 21:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I've seen nothing but the F-15C was 28 years old, which you already have... -Fnlayson 21:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Aircraft 80-0034 according to this page: http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/PROJECT/YEAR_Pages/2007.htm Hope that helps, are they all grounded and why? Cheers Nimbus227 21:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Pretty much all the F-15s except for the new F-15K & SGs are grounded. The crash seems to have been a structural failure. They are grounded while they can get to root of it. -Fnlayson 21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I use that site a lot. Just read the article and the Flight International clip, sounds like they might have to limit the 'g's if operators are not already (if it is proven that it was a fatigue failure). I used to work on Lightnings, Buccaneers and F-4 Phantoms with many of them being restricted to low loadings due to their old age. The Buccaneer had the biggest problems with cracked wing spars. Hope they get thing fixed soon. Nimbus227 22:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the s/n. I've looked at that site before, guess I didn't figure they would be updated so soon. Any idea where they get the information from? --Dual Freq 22:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Airliners.net has two images (can't use here) but a search of the DoD images hasn't yielded much. Its probably in there somewhere, I did find 80-0035, but not 80-0034. --Dual Freq 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Updated info on the crash investigation/grounding: the grounding has been lifted today on some F-15A-D models, the rest of the fleet is still grounded until a determination can be made as to their airworthiness. Feckzhere (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:F-15 takeoff.jpg

I have just gone through the steps to request that Image:F-15 takeoff.jpg be deleted. The source no longer exists and the only other place I could find a copy of this image was at about.com. A military web site that had a similar url said something about trying to work with what they had and I could not find a way to search the site.

I don't want to delete it, but I am bored and frustrated trying to find a legal source for it. I also do not understand this article enough to pick from the plethora of other images that are at the commons and probably are legal to use.

So if one of you ladies has a comment about the deletion or would like to choose another image.... -- carol 09:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • These are still US-POD images even if the web page that's the source has changed. I'm sure these can be found through DVIC though... -Fnlayson (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the second look. I really did search for these images before going through the crapsteps to request deletion. I admit, I had some difficulty coming up with search words that would limit the search results and other problems because it is not my field of expertise. Then, I am very confused when the really gorgeous photographs do not make it into one of the military's special archives. -- carol 00:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a pain trying to find images by searches automated plus manual looking. I'll look some more... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:F-15 vertical deploy.jpg

Same story, different image. This one even has different uploaders on the records around the commons. I took a few extra steps in the request for the deletion of this image. -- carol 10:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:ASAT missile launch.jpg

Ditto. It is also interesting that the one gallery now gives 20 pages of images when I search for F-15 there. Good thing I have the browser incidence that only has 4 gallery pages still active.

Smells like 20+ pages of searching for the girls to do when they have sometime.... -- carol 11:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Fixed. Found on DVIC. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ifcs22.jpg

This one is hosted here and I can't find it online else where. Image:Ifcs22.jpg -- carol 11:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:F-15 Eagle drawing.png

I did the same thing with the deletion requests to this image. Here is the most important thing about that, it could so easily be redrawn as an svg and be so much more beautiful and readible. I gathered images that I needed to do this for one of my gone but not forgotten vehicles -- front, side and rear view. I will probably use GIMP to set the paths and then see about importing that SVG into inkscape, but that is the software and 'work flow' that I am familiar with.

The reworking of this image by a wikipedian into an image format which can display at higher and lower resolutions and be accurate and perhaps even a different version with the names of the visible areas labeled -- this kind of image seems to be often warmly accepted here and other wiki areas. And I personally would have so much more respect for an image contribution like that than a highly suspicious looking 'army field manual' from a 'global security' organization.

30 to 35 years ago, there were so many peers around me who loved to pencil these kinds of images (instead of listening to the teacher lecture and other things). Has culture changed this much? I do not love these aircraft as much as I love my old vehicles -- and perhaps one day I would get around to making this svg.... -- carol 00:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The only reason Globalsecurity has the image is because they copied the public domain source. Much of GlobalSecurity and FAS is public domain because they mirror a lot of US government files. --Dual Freq (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I am going to take a photograph of my middle finger and say that I got it from the USDOI Fish and Wildlife Service annual employee magazine, put it on my '.org' web site, say that I am certain it is PD-USGov and you are going to believe me? -- carol 03:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said before, though you don't seem to be listening, Field Manual 44-80 is a US Army field manual, it was published by the US Army. The only reason they have it is because it is Public Domain. Why don't you contact GlobalSecurity and tell tehm they can't use public domain US Government field manuals online. --Dual Freq (talk) 03:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am reading what you are writing. I am not saying that that group cannot use public domain, I am saying that what they are saying is from the fed here isn't.
Also, it has been decades -- perhaps centuries by now even -- since the United States Government numbered their documents like that, if they ever numbered their documents like that. There are some things about the government which you wouldn't expect or imagine until you have been within it for a while. Keep It Simple Stupid is not one of their goals and that 'field manual' was kept simple. Not a product of the United States Government. -- carol 03:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The document was published by the Army as Field Manual 44-80, its Public Domain. The PDF still has the Army markings on it. As for numbering, a current US Army site 44 collections has a conversion and apparently now the manual is call FM 3-01.80 dated 1/17/2006 and titled VISUAL AIRCRAFT RECOGNITION. I wouldn't think that is any simpler of a name than FM 44-80, but you're the copyright lawyer. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, been away. I looked for that manual earlier and found a newer similar version from 2002 that had the same figures. VARC -Fnlayson (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Found it at FM-44-80 on usmc.mil -Fnlayson (talk) 05:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, military web sites are popping up today like mushrooms in the fall. It should be interesting to see how many of these locations still have internet access in a few months. -- carol 06:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus-driven decisions are the route to follow especially when the issue is not clear-cut. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 06:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC).
Is there a mis-step in my actions? -- carol 13:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No Service entry error

Perhaps you should stop arguing over whether or not it has a tailhook and fix the MAJOR error in the first paragraph. The F-15 Eagle entered service in the United States long before 1989. The F-15A first flew in 1974, and the Israeli air force had it by 1976, so how is it that it was not in service until 1989? Fix it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.204.161 (talk • contribs) 15:07, January 13, 2008

Perhaps you should re-read it since it says the F-15E Strike Eagle entered service in 1989. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable accidents

I thought this was an encyclopedia and not wikinews. What is notable about the most recent accident? It isn't the first mid-air, it isn't the first fatality, it seems like just a mid-air collision during a training exercise. Can someone please explain why this accident is notable, while the others that precede it are not listed? Certainly some of those are fatal as well and / or mid-air collisions as well. How are we going to stop this from being a list of recent accidents? --Dual Freq (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Gee, I explained this to one user that added it a couple times and thought things were OK. But a couple hours later I see that's very much not the case. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It is a loss. The list can and should be all inclusive if it says it is, otherwise what's the purpose? There's an arbitrary decision to keep it out of the article being made rather than a discussion and concensus. Two F-15C's in today's dollars is about $200 Million dollars. --Asams10 (talk) 12:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But it says notable accidents. There's been collisions with two F-15s and various other losses during training over the years. It's generally been standard practice to not list them at all for fighter aircraft. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Current mid-air collision does not appear notable. However, this edit removed the sidewinder incident downing an F-15J. That seems like it is a one-of-a-kind incident that is noteworthy to mention. It may be the only downing of an F-15 by an air to air missile, that in itself makes it notable. A random mid-air collision does not seem notable and its inclusion is a clear example of an inclination to include recent events without regard to historical perspective. If the "ten-year test" were applied to this incident, would it pass? I doubt it. I'd like to see the F-15J shootdown re-added and the mid-air removed unless there is something very notable about it that can be demonstrated. The ejection site lists numerous ejections from F-15 aircraft indicating many lost air frames, do we include all of these too? --Dual Freq (talk) 23:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
One of a kind? No. An Alaska Air Command F-15 shot a sidewidner at another F-15. The sidewinder detonated and severely damaged the F-15. We later repaired it. The problem is the all-or-nothing quandry, not the notability of any single aircraft. Perhaps a splinter article that has a comprehensive list of losses. --Asams10 (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Military aircraft tend to crash, hit each other and also shoot each other down (by mistake) and I would say that the threshold for notability is pitched a lot higher for aircraft like the F-15. The recent mid-air is not notable. The F-15J shootdown could be notable if it was unique which Asams10 has shown it is not. Not sure that the Israeli accident listed is particularly notable either. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The Israeli incident is notable and at least the Discover (maybe History) channel has done a special about it. I remember reading about it when I was a mechanic. We had numerous high-dollar incidents such as planes popping half an engine out over the tundra, running into mountains, shooting each other down, collapsed landing gear (hmmm, wonder what that giant fuel tank does when the right main collapses!). Each was notable in its own right. --Asams10 (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed with the above. I had added and re-added the accidental F-15J shootdown because I had thought it was a one of a kind thing. Now I know better... -Fnlayson (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

The article does accuratly describe the aircraft's great thrust to weight ratio as allowing it accelerate in a vertical climb, but gives the impression this is always the case. For example I have no doubt that these F-15s took off and showcased that very trait but as you can see they aren't carrying any stores. (I'd bet less than normal fuel too, since they weren't going to spend all day in the air and less fuel equals less weight.) Anyway I was trying to come up with a way to rephrase:
The thrust output of the dual engines is greater than the aircraft's weight, thus giving it the ability to accelerate in a vertical climb.
to point out that such performance isn't possible with a full a/a load including drop tanks, ie combat conditions and couldn't come up with anything, does anyone else have suggestions? Anynobody 06:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I believe reference 6 covers that whole paragraph. The 2 engine thrust output is easily more than the empty and loaded weights for the C model. The loaded weight cover a typical weapons load, & fuel. The A model should be similar. It was lighter and the older engines put out less thrust. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to help

I think the Rafale, Typhoon and Super Hornet are similar a/c to the Eagle, and thereby justify inclusion. If I am right, then please look at the reverts by unregistered User:Harsh1125 and then a few minutes later by unregistered User:Alwaysstranger. Obviously I'm not prepared to go 3RR, so if anyone can help. please do. If I am wrong about them being similar, please give me a bollocking. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:54, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Chinese fighter is more F-16 sized. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

For anybody that's not sure, per Aircraft project guidelines comparable aircraft are those of similar role, era, and capability. Similar does not have mean exactly equal here. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

F-15D conversions not grounded

During the November grounding time, as we inspected our F-15Es that were later authorized for release, ACC did NOT ground our converted D-models or even given them a second look-over for some reason, whereas the next fighter squadron down had all C and D models grounded for four months. Uranium - 235 (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What were your F-15Ds converted from? Maybe they were new enough not to be in suspect time frame or there was some adjustment to the design of the frames around the cockpit. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll have to go check our tail numbers next time I'm on the line, but I'm pretty sure the D-models we have are far older than any E-model. Early 80's stuff. At any rate, it seemed really weird that they didn't ground them for a more detailed look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.21.103 (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


Popular Culture

"Read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft/page content before adding any "Popular culture" items. The aircraft must have a MAJOR or "especially notable" role in what is listed. Random cruft, including all Ace Combat, Battlefield, Video Games, dogfighting films, military channel appearances, Transformer toylines, Metal Gear Solid appearances and anime/fiction look-a-like speculation will be removed."

It said no anime or fiction look a like appearances. Why you put the F-15 eagle appeared in the Popular Culture section? You know that G1 is a anime fiction look a like appearances.(TougHHead 22:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC))

Sorry, but what is G1? The only animation left is the Transformers appearances, with sources. I DID remove that, several times in fact, as have other editors, but it remains by consensus. See Talk:F-15 Eagle/Archive 1#Pop Culture References for part of the discussion. If you wish to run the poll again, go for it, and hopefully we can get it removed this time. - BillCJ 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked on Google to try to figure this one out too, my best guess is The Transformers (TV series)#Generation One comics G1 seems to mean generation one. I'd be perfectly fine with removing the reference to transformers as well. --Dual Freq 23:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Firearms articles have had a similar, longstanding battle against children with too much time on their hands. The concensus reached is much stricter than that here. Basically, the toy depiction needs to have had a significant impact on the firearm. For instance... uh, no toy depictions seem to have EVER had an impact on a firearm. The same is true of toys and airplanes. Nobody seems to have had a toy transformer and went out and redesigned the aircraft. This isn't censorship, it's merely letting toy crap stay in the toy articles and away from REALITY. My 2 cents. --Asams10 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Respectively, I believe something odd is going on here (now, that's an understatement given this is Wikipedia!). See: [4] where this argument is being drawn out in a similar fashion. FWIW Bzuk 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC).
Concur with to much time on this kid's hands. And, I'll be the 4th editor to say I concur with removal of all transformers references. Maybe I'm a bit too extreme with my pop culture criteria, but to me a plane needs to have a staring role, like the C-119 in Flight of the Phoenix or F-14 in Top Gun. I really don't see that here. Because of the persistence in our young transformer fan friend, we probably need to do this consensus thing at each of the articles, but this is a good place to start. Thoughts? AKRadeckiSpeaketh 06:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dude the Decepticons are really called the Seeker Jets. Have you ever watched G1?

Also here is a list of guys that are F-15 Eagles.

  • G1 Starscream
  • G1 Skywarp
  • G1 Thundercracker
  • G1 Sunstorm
  • G1 Air Raid
  • Talon

Have you also known that any animated series is not allowed on Popular Culture?!!(TougHHead 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC))

It's supposed to be about the aircraft, Wikipedia is not a fan site. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
TougHHead, I just dropped a note on your talk page. This article is about the aircraft, not about characters in a kids show. The trivia material you've been dropping in aircraft articles is neither appropriat nor welcome. What you do over on the actual transformers articles is between you and the project folks that oversee them, but consensus here in the aviation section is that such material shouldn't be included. I now ask you one final time to respect that and stop with your disruptive editing. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
There are limits to what can be listed here. We agreed to list the main F-15 fighter Decepticons from G1. -Fnlayson 01:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sort of amazes me that one of the most visible appearances of the aircraft in any popular media is still being debated, while the IMAX film far fewer people have seen has never been challenged. Is this because the material in question is a cartoon? If so, I think the people arguing for deletion need to examine their objectivity - CaptainVlad 08:09, 27 November 2007

  • You make a fair point. Some may think this will open the door for look-a-like cruft. It certainty gets plenty of editors who add any and all related Transformer info to the entry. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps it does, but I feel certain the wiki-community could handle it. It'd be better to remove the entire pop culture section than to omit valid data because one dislikes the source material. Edit: I just did precisely that.- CaptainVlad
      • It's inconsistent for us to go through a vote on removing 1 item and not for removing the rest of the section. It's only 1 line left, not bothering anything.. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought: I understand that you want to keep references to Transformers out of the article because the Transformers' various series, depictions, and media are not relevant to the aircraft itself. However, I must also note that this IMAX film you mention did NOT have any impact as well. As with Wikipedia standards, I move that ALL pop culture references be removed as Trivia is highly frowned upon by the general user base.

While I can understand that said movie may have an educational and historical purpose, the fact is that no one ever used that as a reason to, as mentioned above, update or redesign the aircraft itself. If there is going to be a bias against cartoons because they are for "children", then objectivity is lost and the whole purpose of this debate is an argument of fallacy. If you are going to allow pop culture references, DO NOT DISCRIMINATE. Pop culture is pop culture, and is considered by most nothing more than trivia. If you want one item removed, due to being "unnotable" as claimed, give an objective reason. Otherwise, reconsider your stance on the entire issue.

I might also note that this is not the first time I've seen a Wikipedia Project with this kind of debate, and frankly it's getting out of hand. Articles are being deleted and rewritten on almost a daily basis due to edit wars of this kind. I'll say as a Transformers fan, I don't particularly see a purpose in mentioning it. I already know this, as do more of the Transformers Generation 1 fans. Additionally, I find it ageist and bigoted that you assume that the individual attempting this add to be a child. This particular series of which they wish to add notice is over 20 years old now and most of the people who know about it are in their 30s by now. But I digress.

My first point of motion is that this movie be removed. It is, by definition, NOT pop culture, as it is neither wide spread or well known about. Second, all pop culture should be removed as per Wikipedia standards. And third, a major discussion should be taken up with the Project moderators and a central Wikipedia representative, that a final and ENFORCED decision be made about this particular issue. I appreciate the work that the aviation project has done, as with all projects, but as I have previously stated, objectivity is lost when editors put their personal feelings into what should and should not be included in the content of "their" articles. --65.202.127.1 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand your point, and I and other editors would gladly remove ALL such references if we could. However, there aren't any "project moderators" and "central Wikipedia representatives" who can make and enforce such decisions. Administratiors and b-crats are there for behavioral problems and "admistrative" issues such as page moves. Others have tried to propose such a ban on all pop-culture mentions in unrelated articles, but it has never gone very far. What the WP community has come down hard against is any sort of list articles for pop-culture, tho those tdoing the cracking down could care less about it in "ordinary" articles. Instead, we as aircraft article editors have the thankless job of "herding cats" in trying to keep such sections relevant, and to prevent them from balloning into long lists of every appearnce or mention of an item ever made in any media, seeming includign cave drawings! ;) Most of the editors I know do try to keep their personal feeling out, but when those adding such content do so without the apparent use of their brain (bad grammar, run-on sentences, minor mentions, inability to discuss at a reasonable level, fanatic promotion of their favorite product on multiple pages, etc.), it can make the task frustrating, and feelings will come to the fore in such situations. But until a ban is implemented on all popculture appreances, such situations will continue to occur. - BillCJ (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Other thoughts regarding the ongoing controversy about Transformers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A consensus was reached to remove the Transformer entry from pop culture section.

The following submissions were made after the call for a consensus, and even if there was a call for a new appraisal of the issue, it appears to be a moot point given the lack of consensus for a change.I have repeated the comments below (adding my own pithy remarks...): The above proposal was: Proposal to delete all references to Transformers from article as being non-notable, and irrelevant to the article. The proper places for this are the Transformers articles.

  • Support It's about the plane - the transformers article can include info on transformers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewLeeson (talk • contribs)
  • Support - If it's notable, it's ONLY notable to the transformer's article. It's a toy. --Asams10 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I have always been leery of having too many pop culture references unless they are substantive and notable, but I realize that a case can be made for the Transformers being significant to an element of the populace. FWIW, I consider Transformers as a peripheral not primary cultural reference, nonetheless, I can be convinced otherwise... Bzuk 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Support removal - Whole-heartedly agree that the article is about the plane. I'm really tired of kids trying to turn this into another part of the ever-growing fan-forum for Transformers. I would change my mind and support limited inclusion if and only if a verifiable, reliable, major media source is provided that discusses how the F-15 has had a major impact on this pop culture subject. I know that this is a hard-to-fathom concept for the fancrufters, but what we're really about around here is reporting what other reliable sources report, and I really don't see any major media sources discussing any relationship between the Eagle and the Transformers franchise. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Concur with above reasons, and with the archiving and opening of a new discussion section (which the other 2 editors beat me in doing!) For the record, I didn't know how use the "archive" template back when I closed the discussion for lack of consensus, so sorry for the confusion! - BillCJ 19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Given Transformers popularity, I feel the mention is notable. However, I'm getting tired of editors trying to add any and all Transformers to the entry and others' ignoring the previous census here. -Fnlayson 19:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support removal, as above, this article is about the real airplane, not a toy cartoon. There are plenty of articles that focus on these toys / cartoons. Keeping them listed here only encourages further addition and nearly continuous discussion about how many to include and which ones were important enough to include. There is nothing cited that indicates a significant pop cultural association of the F-15 with the transformers of 20+ years ago. (Note that the article about real Transformers does not mention the toys cartoons, keeping the real world separate from the cartoon world. This article can do likewise.) --Dual Freq 19:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • On the last part, where are you getting the toy stuff from? The entry only mentions 3 Transformer characters in same manner as the Transformers article. -Fnlayson 19:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Cartoons, comics, manga, anime and the toys based on them, same difference. Transformers, the article about electrical transformers doesn't mention any toy/cartoon/comic etc. I'm just saying, there is no mention of transformer toy/cartoon cruft in the article about electrical transformers which I would think would be a much more likely target for transformer cruft. Maybe the dab link in that article is enough to placate the hordes of fan boys. However, inclusion of this one sentence is not enough to get them to leave this article alone. Maybe complete removal will be more successful. Look at this talk page and the article edit history, both are dominated by this time wasting pop culture section. --Dual Freq 21:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak keep [2 edit conflicts] As long as there are going to be "popular culture" sections, there should be a reference to Transformers, though it need not go into detail of the character's names, the side they fought on, etc. A single short sentence like, "The F-15 was featured prominently in the children's TV show Transformers, G.I. Joe, ..." but REFERENCES are a must! —Preceding unsigned comment added by BQZip01 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support removal - pop culture references are strongly discouraged, and these references (and information) adds little to the encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved? Why?

The article just got moved? I thought WP:Aviation naming conventions were clear on this? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I was doing a history merge to fix an old cut and paste move. It's back at the correct title now. Graham87 06:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Gotcha. You didn't move fast enough. What, did you have an AB blowout? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

FX and F-15 development History

You guys are missing loads of information about the history and development of the FX and F-15 development.

For starters the FX program originally started out as a multi-role design to replace the F-4 (and possibly even some of the F-111's roles though not all). This was before the USAF fell out of love with the F-4 Phantom. The FX was supposed to be optimized air-to-air and air-to-ground, better performance current interceptors and fighter bombers (F-106 and F-105 in particular) an internal M-61, and TFX grade electronics/avionics. The planes that came out of this were gigantic though, they weighed upwards of 60,000 lbs, had swing-wings, and none of all the proposals (and there were like 500 submitted) were optimized for either air to air or air to ground. It's engines also had too high a bypass ratio (1.5 to 1 about) -- engines like this tend to lose more thrust at altitude than a turbofan with a lower bypass ratio or a turbojet.

Major Boyd came in at this point. He came up with the Energy Maneuverability formula and the USAF wanted to use his knowledge to get a good plane out of the FX. Also since he was a bit of a maverick, and was highly opinionated and hot-headed they probably figured if he screwed up they could bounce his ass out of the Air Force. After they did all sorts of trade-off studies he first came down to a twin-jet that was between 30,000 or 40,000 lbs, light wing-loading and optimized for sustained high-g maneuvering around 300 to 400 kts. Since Boyd favored simplicity, the MiG-21 was becoming a gigantic pain in the ass in Vietnam, he eventually started settling on single-engine light-weight designs with 25,000 max weights a light to medium loaded wing optimised for sustained maneuvering around 400 to 500 kts and had a 25% performance boost over the MiG-21. The designs were at least partially based on the Advanced Day Fighter studies which started in 1965. The engines that were to power either of these designs had lower bypass ratios which produces more thrust at altitude.

In 1967 the MiG-25 started influencing the studies. I think the MiG-25 may have been seen before 1967, but when it made it's appearance at the Domodedovo Air-Show it was listed as the MiG-23 which had never been seen before. I'm not sure if the MiG-23 was known to be a fighter. Since MiG-23, MiG-25 and such are NATO designations, the Russians call the MiG-25 the Ye-155 -- I think that some people thought that the MiG-23 was a variant of the MiG-25 or that the MiG-23 or MiG-25 were one and the same. This wasn't the only source of confusion -- a month earlier the Six-Day War took place and even despite the Egyptian defeat (who were Soviet allies), it didn't seem to make any impression on the Soviets which had Western Intelligence wondering if they were missing something, not getting something (maybe the Russians had something up their sleeve?). You then combine that with the MiG-25's appearance at the airshow listed as the MiG-23 and some people figured that was it. Granted it conflicted with previous intelligence that the MiG-25 was just an interceptor but with all the current information coming in they decided to take a look at what they knew. The MiG-25 had large stabilators and tailfins which often are reflective of high maneuverability. It certainly wouldn't be the first interceptor to have a great degree of agility (The F-102 and F-106 for example were highly maneuverable and probably would have been good dogfighters if they had a gun, the right missiles and radar), and wasn't the first interceptor to be a fighter either (The F-4 for example was an Interceptor and a Fighter-Bomber). They put it all together and thought the MiG-25 was a high performance fighter as well as an interceptor. I don't know if there was any worry as to the FX's ability to outmaneuver the MiG-25, but the FX design as it was at this stage couldn't fly fast enough or high enough to catch it.

Post MiG-25 the FX designs changed a lot. The original speed requirements were bumped up to match the MiG-25 and the designs now went completely to twin-engines. The new engines now not only had to be efficient at low-speeds (high pressure ratio) and have good fuel-burn (turbofan), they had to be able to fly as fast as a MiG-25 could without melting. To enable this to work the engine was made out of a variety of advanced materials, elaborate air-cooling, a system to vary the fuel-to-air ratio at high mach numbers to keep the turbine limit from being exceeded (which was actually pioneered in the J-58), a variable inlet-guide vane (i'm not talking about all the variable stator vanes, just the inlet guide vane) to lower the pressure ratio (lowering the AoA on the compressor lowers the pressure ratio). The P&W F-100 had a pressure-ratio around 25-to-1 and a bypass-ratio of 0.72-to-1. The design became a little bit larger (~40,000 lbs with 4 x AIM-7) and from what it would seem the designs went back to a light wing-loading (unlike some of the earlier, single-engined, 25,000 FX designs which used a light to medium wing-loading) which favors sustained agility around 300 to 400 kts (instead of 450 to 500 kts which the light/medium wing-loading design would favor -- oddly the F-16 used a wing-loading and optimum speeds for sustained agility which seemed more in line with this)

I don't know at exactly what point the FX studies centered on a single-seat design. I don't know for example if it started from the very beginning, or by the time Boyd took over, some time between when Boyd took over and when the MiG-25 made it's appearance at Domodedovo as the MiG-23, or after that.

I also don't know at what stage the Air-to-Ground capabilities of the FX/F-15 were deleted. This seemed to definitely occur after the stage where the FX-studies were revised to deal with the MiG-25, however I'm not sure if McDonnell-Douglas's design was selected yet or not. Regardless the desire to delete the Air-to-Ground capability was not entirely just to save weight or make the plane a dedicated Air-to-Air Fighter, it was largely politically motivated as the plane was getting very expensive and the LWF was already going to have air to ground capability.

Also, the GAU-7 wasn't the only weapon design that the F-15 was supposed to have that for one reason or another was cancelled. Examples would include the following - AIM-82: Since the F-15 was supposed to be the ultimate air-superiority fighter, the USAF decided to develop an entirely new missile for it rather than modifying the AIM-9. It was an all aspect short-range air-to-air missile. Inter-service rivalry got in the way of this one -- the USN was developing another missile (The AIM-95 Agile) for the same exact purpose to arm it's F-14's. - AIM-97 Seekbat: Because of the worries of the MiG-25, they wanted a long-ranged missile that could take it out. The AIM-97 was based on the AGM-78 Standard ARM but used an IR-Seeker (considering it's long range I'm not sure if it had a radar seeker for long range and IR for short) The AIM-97 was a gigantic missile -- 15 feet in length and 1,300 lbs.

AVKent882 (talk) 04:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but unusable without verifiable, reliable sources. - BillCJ (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, you could probably find the bulk of what I said on the internet. The book where I got the early FX program data from was called "American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors". Regarding the AIM-97 Seekbat, that was actually mentioned on another wikipedia article, as was the AIM-82, and AIM-95 Agile. AVKent882 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It is true this article does not cover the original FX RFP released in 1965. I've had writing a bit about that on my list for a while now. My books don't cover that period that well. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The book I was using to derive much of my data was from "American Secret Projects: Fighters & Interceptors" however, there were internet sources that briefly made mentions of it (however not much of it is hugely comprehensive AVKent882 (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • The Jenkins F-15 book covers that well enough (book already used in article). Note that we can't generally cover all the details in-depth that books do since this is an encyclopedia with policies like WP:Summary style. Also we need to use reliable sources, which limits online sources. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll try to write up a paragraph on the first RFP in one of my sandboxes by mid-week and let you look at it. You may want to add something from the Fighters & Interceptors book. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
The more complicated the topic, the more complicated the article should be allowed to be. Now I suppose I would understand that one could go too far in terms of obsessive detail... AVKent882 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, I've written a paragraph covering the 1965-67 (RFP, study, etc) period. See the top paragraph at F-15 origins for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought once Major Boyd got involved with the FX program the target T/W ratio was to be 1.4-to-1, not 0.97-to-1 unless you mean 0.97-to-1 dry... AVKent882 (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I summarized the references. I've got 2-3 books that say a T/W of about 1 before the 1967 RFP was released. Nothing about mil power T/W. Boyd did not get all his wishes it seems. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
Was this T/W ratio based on the full weight of the aircraft? Because while the F-15 weighed around 40,000 lbs when carrying 4 x AIM-7 sparrows, the airplane was originally designed to perform both Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground roles (something which actually remained even after McDonnell Douglas was selected as the winner of the FX program and the plane was under development), and still technically the F-15A's maximum takeoff weight was around 56,000 lbs. AVKent882 (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It is stated in the article now. The T/W are at mission weight, or loaded weight. I'm done with this.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The main requirements for the last phase before selecting MD should be added I think. A T/W = 1, Mach 2.5 top speed, max fighter mission weight of 40,000 lb and single seat cockpit are the main ones as I recall. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Any problem with me adding the paragraph on F-X in the 1965-67 timeframe mentioned above (see top paragraph at F-15 sandbox). -Fnlayson (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I added some C/D model changes and upgraded info then added the first RFP paragraph mentioned above. Hopefully that balances things out. Has there been any other upgrades that should be mentioned as well? -Fnlayson (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


F-15SE stealth version

http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2009/q1/090317a_nr.html Should somebody put some of this information in? About a stealthy upgrade version? -OOPSIE- (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:F-15E Strike Eagle#F-15SE Silent Eagle for discussion on this, as it is currently being covered in the F-15E Strike Eagle article. - BillCJ (talk) 07:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
^ Thanks. It helps to ask first. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coherence of article?

"F-X program

F-15A cockpit.There was a clear need for a new fighter that overcame the close-range limitation of the Phantom while retaining long-range air superiority. After rejecting the U.S. Navy VFX program (which led to the F-14 Tomcat) as being unsuited to its needs, the U.S. Air Force issued its own requirements for the Fighter Experimental (F-X), a specification for a relatively lightweight air superiority fighter.[7] The requirements called for single-seat fighter having a maximum take-off weight of 40,000 lb (18,100 kg) for the air-air role with a maximum speed of Mach 2.5 and a thrust to weight ratio of nearly 1 at mission weight.[8] Four companies submitted proposals, with the Air Force eliminating General Dynamics and awarded contracts to Fairchild Republic, North American Rockwell, and McDonnell Douglas for the definition phase in December 1968. The companies submitted technical proposals by June 1969. The Air Force announced the selection of McDonnell Douglas on 23 December 1969.[9] The winning design resembled the twin-tailed F-14, but with fixed wings. It would not be significantly lighter or smaller than the F-4 that it would replace.

The Eagle's initial versions were designated F-15A for the single-seat configuration and F-15B (originally TF-15A, but this designation was quickly deprecated, as the F-15B is fully combat-capable) for the twin-seat. These versions would be powered by new Pratt & Whitney F100 engines to achieve a combat thrust-to-weight ratio in excess of 1 to 1. A proposed 25 mm Ford-Philco GAU-7 cannon with caseless ammunition was dropped in favor of the standard M61 Vulcan gun due to development problems. The F-15 retained conformal carriage of four Sparrow missiles like the Phantom. The fixed wing was put onto a flat, wide fuselage that also provided an effective lifting surface. Some questioned if the zoom performance of the F-15 with Sparrow missiles was enough to deal with the new threat of the high-flying MiG-25 "Foxbat", but its capability was eventually demonstrated in combat."

and then I see a picture of a cockpit. This article seems to have its pictures badly placed! may I ask why this is so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zengyiz (talk • contribs) 11:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, the images were a paragraph too high to properly correspond to the text. Fixed now in any event. You did not need to copy 2 paragraphs of article text to make this point, imo... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Notability of accidents

The notability of F-15 accidents has been discussed here before at Talk:F-15 Eagle/Archive 2#Notable accidents. The general consensus there is not every crash is notable. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Latest CRS report

The latest report puts the (non-E) Eagles in American service at 470. Which number is better supported? http://opencrs.com/document/RL33543 Hcobb (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The Air Force Association is a more direct source. The 630 listed in this article includes reserves and national guard numbers and is dated 9/2008. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Transformers reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Further discussion is not related to improving article, which is what this page is for. See WP:Talk page guidelines for more.

Regarding the Transformers reference under popular culture, please see popular culture entries for the F-14 and the F-22, which both include mentions of animated use and appearances of these craft, including the F-22 in the most recent Transformers movie, Revenge of the Fallen, for the same character. If those references are allowed, why is it not allowed here? It comes off as snobbery and exclusion of information because someone doesn't like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've got this great location for to stick references for Transformers characters. Why don't we put them on the pages for those Transformers characters? Hcobb (talk) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, HCobb, if these people can't read, understand and comply with the LENGTHY hidden notes in the Pop-culture section, I doubt they can read and understand your comments either! - BilCat (talk) 21:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hcobb, I have to concur with Bill... most editors other than the seasoned or regular ones (like you and me), which also includes those persistent vandals, live for the moment. They won't be bothered take the time to read through anything you or I will say, no matter what~! Well, there are those who have sex and there are those who make love... they're easy to spot from a mile away, they always do~! --Dave1185 (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The hypocrisy here and childish insulting is beyond belief. Apparently there is someone - a single person, or a clique of people no different from a high school group - who have something against there being a Transformers reference in what they apparently view as their own private F-15 Wiki page. Again, I challenge you to explain in any way that makes sense why the Transformers reference in the POPULAR CULTURE section of this listing is ANY different from that for the F-22 and the F-14. I doubt you can. It's your own opinion influencing the entry on this page. And as long as things like this are allowed, Wikipedia will NEVER be a reliable source for information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer to why the F-14 and F-22 appearances are listed there is in the hidden notes you've apparently not read, or at least not understood. Rather than making wild accusations of snobbery and cliquish behavior, try using your brain to actually THINK. There really are sound, well-thought-out reasons for why Pop-culture sections aren't to be a list of every appearance and mention of an item in media, based on Wikipedia policy. However, you've given no real indication that you are really aren't interested in the policies and guidelines, or you would have read, understood, and followed the advice in the hidden notes before you first posted here. - BilCat (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

You obviously have a personal grudge, and therefore are unfit to be editing this page. You have no idea who you are insulting, and you are insulting and condescending. The fact that you are apparently squatting on this page to make sure it passes your own personal litmus test is evidence enough. I looked at the discussion pages on both the F-14 and F-22 and saw no reference regarding the popular culture references that are apparently allowed on both of those planes, and for unknown reasons not on this one, besides your own personal opinion. Yes, I do not know how "hidden" notes are supposed to be found or read, since they are apparently hidden. No "wild accusations" of snobbery and childish and cliquish behavior are made or needed as the proof is on this page in your own words and others. Including a one-sentence reference to a significant and long-lasting pop culture appearance and use of the F-15 will not bring about the downfall of western civilization, nor result in an overly long pop culture section. Given your behavior, I have no interest in your lecturing on policies and guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

  • For our dear bewildered IP editor... below is the hidden notes you've missed out, please read~! --Dave1185 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The use of the F-15 in the original Transformers cartoon, toy line and comic is not a minor appearance. If we were talking Gobots, maybe that could be argued as minor. Transformers should count as a major cultural appearance. Again, the language you posted says "all" anime and fiction will be removed, but that has NOT been done in the case of the F-22 and the F-14. Why the mismatched standard?

The problem is, everyone who adds a pop-culture item believes their item to be "a significant and long-lasting pop culture appearance", and that is why the lists do grow if not trimmed regularly. I would prefer not include such sections at all, but others feel they should be included, within certain limits, so I abide by that consnsus. Those limits are based on policiy, but consensus on the individual pages is allowed to add items that may not totally qualify, even though thay have cited refernces. I agree that the Macross F-14 and Transformers F-22 references should probably be removed, but the consensus as been to keep them there. - BilCat (talk) 21:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Then how can you rationally justify not having a single sentence reference here, if not for your own personal opinion?

  • Quite right and given that many IP editors are generally not well acquainted with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies on responsible editing, they tend to stray into such territories. But when you look at real world books written by real authors, such as the famous Bill Gunston and others, you won't find them mentioning any pop-cultures in their books. What baffled me is the fact that IP editors tend to ignore such subtle fact and pursue their own view that pop-cultures be added into Wikipedia despite the fact that Wikipedia isn't like a social-networking site like Blogspot, Facebook or Twitter. --Dave1185 (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the issue that is not being addressed, is how the mention is permissible for the entries on two other craft, but not this one. A single user here appears to be making this no better than his personal blog by excluding that which he disagrees with or has no interest in. Is this a wikipedia page on the F-15 or Bilcat's personal F-15 page?

I am still waiting for some justifiable explanation of why a significant, notable media appearance of the F-15 is being blocked from this page while identical and/or similar references are permitted for two other aircraft. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Been explained already. And there's plenty in the 'Other thoughts ..' section at the top of this page. There are also multiple discussions on pop culture entries in the archive pages (/Archive 2, /Archive 1). -Fnlayson (talk) 14:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but nothing in that section at the top here explains why it is removed/blocked from this entry, while allowed for the F-22 and F-14. What makes the F-15 different? It can be argued that the "notable media appearance" of the F-15 in relation to Transformers is far stronger than the F-22s, as it was used only in two movies and toys, where the F-15 form has been used for more than two decades in comics, cartoons and multiple toys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add the Transformer's appearances. It's time to move on. - BilCat (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle/Archive_2&oldid=1142337991"