Hummingbird

Forgot to add in the MW50 So it's actually 208 gal/h for 1823 hp (1850 PS), which is quite comparable to 198 gal/h for 1720 hp.

I don't think you actually understand what's happening in that maneuver...

I'm not sure the drawings there are totally to scale. As far as I've been able to tell when comparing real life examples side by side the Mk.XIV ddefinitely had a bigger rudder than any previous marks, and for th Mk.22/24 it went even larger. It was definitely a response to increased power though, something which I remember outlined in RAE reports.

As far as I know the Mk.XIV featured a bigger rudder from the get go, and it was increased even further in size for the Mk.22/24 as more and more power was squeezed from the Griffon.

Mk.XIV featured a bigger tail for that purpose

I'm afraid this bird is a long ways off, as the RAZBAM seems to lack the coders necessary to handle all the modules they've got in the works. Remember we're currently waiting on: 1. MiG-23 2. F-15E 3. EE Lightning Whilst the Harrier & Mirage still need tuning.

Didn't mean it like that, only that it is basically the Allied version of the K4, they being very similar in most regards.

Doesn't help that this beast of an airplane is matched up against a Spitfire IX instead of the XIV, the latter of which basically is the answer to the K4. Hopefully at some point the Spitfire XIV hits DCS.

Based on some of the responses I do wonder wether some of you actually watched the whole video. Might surprise you.

Well it can, but on the EF the engines are very close together, which means TVC won't be able to enhance roll as much as for example on a wide nacelle fighter such as a Flanker. But honestly I don't think it's necessary either, as the EF already rolls plenty fast Adding TVC will mainly help remove AoA restrictions and improve low speed handling, whilst it will also help basically eliminate trim drag in maneuvers.

JAS-39C Gripen, go!

Well I think part of the reason countries are less interested in it than expected is due to the extra drag it will generate, i.e. you're sacreficing some sustained performance for a higher permissable AoA & improved low speed characteristics, the latter of which aren't really vital for the air superiority role. Also should TVC be added later it might make the AMK redundant.

In terms of parasitic drag the missile armament on the F-14 is so well integrated into the airframe that indeed it won't make as much of a difference when they're gone as it will when the F-16 is clean of its missile armament, that is true. However the F-14's armament is also heavier, which itself affects the L/D ratio via more of a decrease in wing loading when said armament is gone. So all in all I'd say the F-14 might possibly benefit a tiny bit less going from its 4x4 load out to clean than the F-16 does going from its 2x4 load out to clean, mainly due to the considerably higher parasitic drag of the F-16's external stores, but once the weight difference of the armament is also taken into account it's by so little that it's still basically a wash like Cpt. Dalan says.

I'm afraid you're not reading the DI chart correctly, because: 4x AIM-120B (DI=4 a piece) [stations 2,3,7 & 8] 2x AIM-9L (DI=4* a piece) [stations 1 & 9] (EDIT*: 6 points can be removed from DI as basic aircraft includes 2x AIM9's on the wingtips, basic DI being 2) ____________________________ DI = 18 for stores only + 2x AIM9 launcher (DI=0 a piece, integrated with wing tips) [stations 1 & 9] 4x LAU-129/A launcher rails + adapter (DI=6 a piece) [stations 2,3,7 & 8] 2x NJETT wing fuel tank pylons (DI=8 a piece ) [stations 4 & 6] _____________________________ DI=40 for pylons & launchers only Total Drag Index = 58 With AIM-120C's instead of AIM-120B's the DI should fall a bit. EDIT: re-checked and you can remove 6 DI points for the two wingtip AIM-9L's (4x2), so DI will be 58 instead of 64.

F-14B/D's max STR at 10 kft with 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, 55,620 lbs is 14.1 dps (not 13.9) @ M=0.62 . F-16C Blk.50's max STR at 10 kft with 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9, 26,000 lbs is 14.2 dps @ M=0.86. That's straight off of the charts. F-14B 55.6klbs / 10 kft: F-16C DI50 26klbs / 10 kft:

Well, if we assume 50% fuel and the typical A/A load out, i.e. 4x AIM7 + 4x AIM9 for the F-14B/D, and 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9 for the F-16C, then their max sustained rates are actually almost identical (14.1 vs 14.2 dps @ 10 kft), they just occur at very different speeds. The F-14's max STR happens around M=0.6, where'as it occurs around M=0.85 for the F-16C. In a dogfight this means that the F-14 has the advantage that its max STR turn is a tighter radius lower G turn, and hence the F-16 shouldn't stay in the horizontal with the F-14. as that will eventually let the F-14 reverse in behind it. Meanwhile since the F-16's max STR happens at a noticably higher speed it has the advantage of being able to more easily transition into the vertical with a significant speed advantage, and hence an F-14 flying at its max STR will find it nigh impossible to follow a faster flying F-16 suddenly switching to the vertical. EDIT: 14.1 & 14.2 dps, not 16.

Once both FMs are accurate to real life performance then the F-14B & F-16C Blk.52 are going to be very tough matches for each other in a guns only dogfight, it basically coming down to who'ever can suck the other into his/her favorite domain.

@HeatblurDevTeam, I'll hold back with the testing until you guys give the go ahead then.

No, the EF has the lower wing loading, esp. once you start loading up the aircraft. And wing loading certainly has something to do with sustainable turn rate as a lower W/L means less Cl required pr. G and thus less drag generated as well. Remember the drag equation: Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) Cd = Cdo + Cdi D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2 Now guess where most of the drag comes from in a turn?: From the lift generated, i.e. the lift induced drag (Cdi). Next we got trim drag, and sincethe EF features a longer coupled canard config it also requires less canard deflection for the same pitch moment, which in turn means less trim drag. Oh no, not this again....

Well since we have the RL performance charts we can easily tell wether it's accurate or not, and atm it isn't But there's a whole seperate thread dealing with this, so I'll leave it at that.

Thing is sweep angles under 52 deg don't generate particularly strong vortices by themselves, which leads to early break up. The Rafale's LERX solves this and the canards help strengthen them further when riding the lift limit. On the EF the strakes help strengthen the strong vortices already forming on the wing, however at low speed & high AoA they are not as strong in the end as on the Rafale thanks to the LERX + close coupled canards combination, hence the EF ends up with a lower max controllable AoA and thus Clmax as result. (i.e. the Rafale's tightest turn will be tighter, and it's landing speeds will be lower) However within the controllable AoA range the EF experiences lower trim drag thanks to the longer coupled canards, and since a lower Cl is required for the same G on top, this results in very high efficiency in a sustained turn where you're not riding the lift limit, but instead the Ps=0. (i.e. the EF's max STR should be higher)

Keep in mind that lift and drag go hand in hand. The advantage the Rafale has in sweep angle is mitigated by the disadvantage in W/L which means a higher required Cl pr G. Furthermore the actual L/D ratio of the aircraft in various conditions depends on other factors than just the AR, as mentioned W/L, thickness ratio, trim drag, LE + TE devices etc all influence this. So you cannot claim the Rafale has a higher L/D ratio under all conditions.

Right, then we agree that in DCS something is up

There's a lot more to L/D ratio than just wing sweep mate