Hummingbird

In my opinion it isn't unfair the Hornet can pull 9 G's, what's unfair is that the F-16 doesn't have an advantage at high G's due to the reclined seat + positive pressure oxygen mask. Furthermore the F-16 is currently underperforming, making it even more of an uphill battle for the Viper jock. As such, on our servers (BFM/ACM clinic), we currently limit the Hornet to the limits the aircraft allows without using the paddle. As for when these things get corrected, we might allow the paddle again (although I find it strange the F/A-18C outperforms the F-16 in STR at high speed), depends on what people in general say (we have a good bunch of RL jocks in there).

They have several SME's afaik, and a PhD in aero working the FM. Also the SME's probably have access to the EM diagrams, and thus can ensure a close match in terms of performance. That said, my worries are the same as yours, i.e. that performance won't match the real EM diagrams due to lack of data or secrecy. However I hope, and have faith, that this won't be as big of a problem as my fear says it could be.

ED have admitted the DCS F-16 FM is underperforming, their own charts posted in their aerodynamics paper shows it too, and they've reported that they're working on it. Currently the biggest problems plaqueing the DCS F-16 are 1. STR performance lacking below 0.5 Mach 2. ITR performance lacking between 0.45-0.68 mach, and again below 0.4 mach (in other words, it's mostly lacking here, and it's most likely connected with issue nr.3) 3. G-onset rate being too low (takes quite a while to hit 9 G's at the speeds where it's possible due to the FLCS being too limiting on control authority/pitch rate) Finally there's the global issue of G tolerance in DCS, where currently we're left having to deal with a rather whimpy pilot model only capable of just catching a glimpse of 9 G before he passes out. In real life the average USAF pilot is able to withstand 9 G's for 45 sec at a time, in a normal straight seat and without a positive pressure oxygen mask. An F-16 pilot enjoys the advantage of a reclined seat + a positive pressure oxygen mask, with the reclined seating position alone adding at least 0.8 G's of extra G tolerance according to multiple USAAF studies. Hence the average F-16 pilot should be able to endure even more than 45 sec at a time at 9 G. That becomes a problem if G effects are on, and/or if the F/A-18 jock is using the paddle, in which case he will outrate you going at any similar speed.

Actually AD, this is a flight simulator, in the study sim class no less, hence things are expected to be accurate. Only thing not expected to be accurate are classified weapons & detection systems.

BS. Show me one reputable source which claims a 16% mac instability for the EF, just one. And no, YOU don't count. So far every single expert referenced is DIRECTLY disputing your claims. Also I have no idea where your idea that MBB is incompetent whilst BAe are only semi incompetent comes from. But I'm sure it's based on nothing but your own personal idea of things as usual. I will waste no more time on you until you provide a source directly claiming 16% mac instability for the EF.

Can't wait for this Baby, going to be awesome on the Cold War servers!

You do realize he at no point supports any of your theories, right? Further I don't think you actually know what a personal insult is, because you've been throwing them around like candy since your very first posts on this forum the moment someone questioned your claims. Finally I'll leave you with this qoute from Martin Friemer (technical director of the EF project): "We aimed for 15% early on, but settled for 8%" So there we go, a third expert who directly disputes your claim. (not that it seemingly matters to you)

Will you ever stop making claims without providing anything to substantiate them? You're litterally arguing against every single expert on the subject we've referenced so far, pulling phrases out of context, misinterpreting them and assigning your own outlandish explanations to them. Can't be taken serious... Finally, Keith McKay is not a she. (2nd time you've refered to him as "her" now)

God give me strength.... As usual lot's of claims yet again without evidence. No, it's not. What Keith McKay actually says on the matter (with nothing taken out of context):

No doubt about that, it's already very lethal as is. I definitely don't think you'd want to challenge a Rafale to any form of scissors. In the EF you'd most likely be much better off trying to force a sustained two circle fight, where I doubt the Rafale will be able to keep up the same rate as the EF. (This is assuming a guns only scenario) With heaters, well the EF has the obvious advantage for now due to its HMD & IRIS-T combo :) PS: By the time the Rafale gets an HMD the EF might get the vaunted AMK upgrade, and then I can't think of an area, in terms of BFM, where the EF would be at a disadvantage anymore.

Glad you got something out of it 4NGRY, the material originally referenced by Etirion is definitely a good read: https://web.archive.org/web/20120311142044/http://icas-proceedings.net/ICAS1998/PAPERS/04.PDF https://web.archive.org/web/20120303185841/http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf To sum up the aerodynamic design of the EF it was from the beginning of the prototype stage designed to be very unstable in pitch in the subsonic flight regime so as to increase maneuverability and reduce trim drag, improving agility & sustained performance. This 8% m.a.c. instability in turn dictated the placement of the foreplanes/canards, as a high & close coupled design such as found on the Rafale provided no benefits at such levels of instability but would instead be lacking in the amount of pitch force needed to prevent the aircraft from departing at high AoA. Hence the lower and further forward position was chosen, providing the highest amount of controllability for the lowest amount of drag at that level of designed instability. The Rafale by comparison is likely more stable in the pitch axis, and thus a high & close coupled canard placement is of benefit in terms of lift production here. This in conjunction with the extra allowable AoA the Rafale enjoys is what should theoretically allow it a higher ITR than the EF, where'as the EF's layout is better suited for optimum STR. In short I'd expect the Rafale to be better in one circle fights, whilst the EF is the better sustained two circle machine.

:thumbup:

Can't wait to see Thinder arguing with the TrueGrit developers: Thinder: "DCS Eurofighter waaay too good! Real Eurofighter BAAD! Close couple canards BEST!" :megalol::megalol:

I admire your patience Etirion.... a shame you're wasting it on this self proclaimed expert though.

As I thought, Thinder has nothing to substantiate his nonsense. In summary the EF was not designed to be reliant on TVC, and the placement of the foreplane and choice in level of instability was not determined by it either, on the contrary it was the level of instability chosen which dictated the placement of the foreplane/canards. What earlier ideas there may have been in regards to TVC before even the prototype fighter started to materialize had no influence on the design of the final aircraft and is therefore irrelevant. Anyone with just a tad of reading comprehension can read it for themselves in the material provided by Etirion.

It's hilarious how you clearly didn't understand a word of what Keith McKay wrote :lol:

I wouldn't waste anymore time on him Etirion, the guy is litterally making stuff up as he goes. Careful study was done as to the proper placement of the canards on the EF: "Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft, there was little effect on maximum lift of either position, whilst for a less unstable aircraft, a high aft foreplane does provide some benefit on lift. Further, the low forward foreplane is more effective as a control surface, with consequent benefit for nosewheel lift, trim and manoeuvre capability. This increase in effectiveness is maintained, even at high angle of attack, where the effect is to provide more pitch recovery capability for high angle of attack recovery." In short the long coupled configuration was chosen as the short/close coupled one didnt provide any advantage in lift at level of instability chosen for the aircraft, whilst the long coupled configuration added increased controllability.

Well would you look at that, zero mention of TVC having any influence on the foreplane design at all. Who woulda guessed :music_whistling:

Christ, Thinder is at it again....... Just so it's clear for everyone, the EF features strakes to strengthen its vortices. That said vortices = lift & drag, they don't lower induced drag, that is just nonsense. Hence increased vortice production via canards is great for high AoA & instantaneous rate, NOT for sustained rate. There is no free lunch in aero.

In terms of instantaneous turn rate, I would agree due to a higher allowable AoA and the close coupled canards strengthening the vortices over the wings. However this is as mentioned at the cost of drag. (This is an advantage the AMK kit for the EF would probably eliminate however) As such the EF I'd wager has a higher sustained turn rate at any altitude, thanks to the higher thrust engines and lower induced drag of its design.

I believe we will get PIRATE as well, no reason why we wouldn't as I see it.

Well I'm hopeful now that the EF is arriving.

Hopefully the Rafale will come to DCS, it's a marvelous fighter that I think most people want to see and fly in DCS, myself included. It would also dispell the myth that it is better than the Typhoon at low alt, because it isn't, it just has different merits by comparison that makes it better in a one circle fight (higher accessible AoA), whilst the Typhoon has it in the sustained two circle department.

IMO that's the problem, it's a one sided account, and it doesn't come across particularly balanced either. Claiming the Typhoon is easy pickings at low altitude rings alarm bells as to the credibility of the statement, esp. since we know based on the design & specs that they're very close to each other.

Correct, missed you wrote 220 ;) For the GE-129 it goes from ~60,000 lbs/hr @ 0.4 mach, to ~98, 000 lbs/hr @ 1.3 mach. For the PW-229 it goes from ~59,000 lbs/hr @ 0.4 mach, to ~96, 000 lbs/hr @ 1.2 mach