Hummingbird

Well I have the fuel flow vs mach charts for both engines, and they're actually quite similar. What I would like is a similar chart for the F404.

No, I'm not trying to prove it's a bug, I'm asking a question.

Problem is I don't know what altitude/speed the SFC numbers I listed are for, hence I would need a fuel flow chart for the F/A-18C to do an exact comparison.

You're right sir J, what Im interested in is the combined fuel flow, which I'd expect to be higher for two F404's vs one GE-129.

What I find odd is how two F404's aren't using up more fuel pr. time than one GE-129 at the same speeds, that strikes me as odd. Does anybody have fuel flow charts for the F/A-18C engines?

Unfortunate indeed, would love to hear how these two compared from an EF pilot's POV. That said, did you and Gero find it hard to outturn the Hornet in turns at low speed, or did the EF handily beat the Hornet here despite the AoA disadvantage? Also is it correct that the EF's AoA limit is 24 deg?

So was wondering, running the F-16 vs F/A-18 ingame and with both in full AB the F-16 tends to run out of internal fuel way quicker in DCS. Looking at the RL max AB SFC figures I could find I don't understand how that can be the case: SL F110 GE-129 tsfc = 52.59 mg/Ns (1.90 lbf/h) F404-GE-402 tsfc = 49 mg/Ns (1.74 lbf/h) F110 GE 129 = 130 kN F404 GE 402 = 78.2 kN x 2 F-16C internal fuel capacity = 7,200 lbs F/A-18C internal fuel capacity = 10,860 lbs Fuel consumption difference = 18.5% Internal fuel difference = 32.8% In other words shouldn't they be rather close in time on AB? Currently the difference appears as massive. Is this a known bug or am I missing something?

We're still far short of realistic tolerances though, like very far.

Also I can confirm that there has been no change to the FM. Only pilot G tolerance has been touched upon.

Yeah, that's in rather stark contrast to the 9 G's for 45 sec in a upright seat that most pilots were found to be capable of sustaining in real life. The tilted seat in the F-16 would only improve on this, with the established effect being at least an extra 0.8 G in tolerance vs an upright seat. https://link.springer.com/content/pd...3030-8%2F1.pdf Excerpt: 1) "Tolerance. Average aircrew relaxed G tolerance in the F-16 seat is about 5.2 G (about .5 to .75 G less in aircraft without a reclined seat); the G suit can add another 1 G, and a good AOSM can add another 3.5 G or more of tolerance. When these are totaled, one can see that 9 G is a big challenge for most aircrew; there is little or no safety margin" https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e10...6e83c862ba.pdf Excerpt: "When the F-16-configured seat is used, the training profiles are set 1 G higher than they are when the conventional fighter aircraft seat (13* seatback angle, normal rudder pedal position) is used. The higher-G profiles are used with the F-16 seat because pilots report a 1- to 2-G subjective improvement in G tolerance in the F-16 as compared to other fighter aircraft, and because data obtained during centrifuge training when both types of seat were used revealed at least 0.8 G greater tolerances in the F- 16-configured seat than in the conventional seat"

Well that's a bummer

Well considering the majority can do 9 G for 45 sec in an upright seat, it should be even longer in the F-16 tilted seat.

@-TITS- Just curious, did you ever face the Rafale in training? And if so, how did you find it compared with the Typhoon in terms of inst. & sust. rate? Note: Only asking as Rafale pilots apparently don't hold back from comparing the two, so I thought it would be good to hear an opinion from both sides, if possible.

You're welcome. It's gonna be interesting to see wether there are any changes to the FM with the next update so the DCS Viper can finally match the real version. Hopefully there will be.

Yeah, so the biggest part of the explanation for that is the extremely high wing camber the Hornet generates with it's enormous slotted landing flaps drastically reducing the AoA needed for a certain Cl (critical AoA goes down as well). However as the airframe AoA needed goes down the chord line angle vs wind actually goes up = which is the effect of TE flaps. By comparison the Typhoon, due to its very low wing loading, doesn't need to make use of any high lift devices for landing, and as such the relative landing AoA is going to be a little higher:

You are saying it has a higher landing AoA than the Hornet? Where is the landing AoA specified for both under similar loadings?

That's interesting Gero, I didn't actually know the Libelle suit had been dropped. I thought a modified version with a different name was in operational use today, with the US also adopting it for the F-22 fleet.

Compared with?

The BFM Clinic is proud to announce a new ongoing event: 2 v 2 ACM (Air Combat Manoeuvring) Friday So you’ve read Shaw’s, you’ve beaten the Ace AI Mig 19 in BFM and you’ve joined the BFM Clinic discord channel, now what? Time to grab a buddy and throw down in the fighter world's version of TDM, that’s what! That’s right, you heard us. Every Friday at 2200 Zulu, put your ACM communication skills and tactics to the test against other teams of 2 to see whether you do actually stack up! Rules: Guns only No firing on initial merge No paddle pulling or decoupling of FLCS [F/A-18, Mirage] No use of F-14 auxilliary flaps above 250 kts [if flaps jam, it is counted as a loss] Please register your team in the discord in the following format: 1. Team Name 2. Lead Callsign and airframe type 3. WM Callsign and airframe type Link to Discord channel: https://discord.gg/e5RwdVE Note: Please put your country in brackets after your nickname when joining the Disc channel. Best regards LowBlow & Hummingbird

^+1

My point was that what the EF lacks in available AoA, it makes up for in actual lift to push the nose around, due to the low wing loading. It's the same reason the M2000 is also so dangerous in a slow speed scissors vs a Hornet, despite having only about half the AoA available - the low wing loading allows it the extra rate to make up for the lack of AoA.

Well it might not even be a problem at low speeds, where Gero mentions the Typhoon will still eat the Hornet. Reason for that is that a lower wing loading also requires a lower AoA to generate the same amount of lift.

Only instantaneous or also sustained?

Hi -TITS-, Thank you very much for that quick run down! Regarding question #5, the F-16 is limited to around 25 deg AoA, so not much: I've read the Eurofighter is limited to 24 deg AoA, so less but only by a little bit. Is that right?

Well it's part of the reason I don't really want to compete, as I know which aircraft are going to dominate almost solely because of this rule. Hence why I'm arguing against, but respect if they wanna keep it. The main reason though is that over ocean I lose bandits & SA due to using an inadequate 15" laptop screen, so I'm kinda limited to BFM over desert maps if not allowed to use dot mod. It won't be easy in the F-15 as it doesn't have a built in limiter either, hence the Eagle pilot will have to keep an eye on the G's as well, although his HUD G indicator makes this much easier than in the Cat. The aircraft that really benefit from this rule, enormously so, are the ones that don't allow the pilot to supercede the limit, such as the F-16, Mirage & F/A-18 (although the latters FLCS apparently has a tendency to overshoot very briefly sometimes). Well that's where my "objection", so to speak, starts, because the F-15 & F-16 (and I bet also the Mirage) weren't actually designed with a higher ultimate load limit than the F-14, they were just operated under very different operational conditions which dictated their higher operational load limit. Had the F-14 been selected by the USAAF (Grumman offered it), and orders for new airframes been kept going, it would've ended up with the same G rating as the F-15. Also I've basically never used auxilliary flaps in dogfights with the F-14 in DCS, I've always just kept it in auto. Mainly as if you're using the auxilliary flaps above 275 kts they jam, and then all the opponenet has to do is start using the vertical and you're done for. So I never really understood why people did it at anything but VERY low speed, where I suppose it's still allowed in FOH.