Hummingbird

Yeah, that indicates a substantial advantage in both instantaneous and sustained turn rate.

Very big bragging rights I'd say as just keeping SA whilst having to constantly monitor that small G meter far down on the right is a monumental if not impossible task on its own. A real pilot would atleast be able to feel the G's and by that method stay within limits, but us simmers are forced to look down and away from the bandit to constantly check if we're within the G limits. Hence why I believe this whole G limit thing is a bit silly, but I can also see the argument from the other side, i.e. that they're wanting to keep things more inline with a real life training scenario. It's just I think we lack too many of the cues that a real pilot would have for this rule to really make sense in a competition. Anyway with that in mind if I was competing I'd stick with a fighter that simply doesn't allow you to pull more G than the max allowed. Do that and you've already given yourself a massive advantage over any of the guys who don't, and hence my prediction is that the M2000 & Viper are gonna be near the top. (M2000 is safest bet with currently rules & performance of aircraft in DCS IMHO)

Why are you neglecting the F-14D ? Also 9 G maneuverability only gets you so far, esp. if we introduce heaters where a quick min radius turn followed by the ability to sustain a high rate at medium to low speed becomes important, and the Cat beats the F-15 in this respect. This is one of the reasons even the F-14A generally came off better in WVR fights between the two in the beginning. Besides the F-14 was designed with the same ultimate load limit as the F-15, hence what'ever G the Eagle pulls the Tomcat can match it and sustain no damage. The 7.5 and later 6.5 G operational limit imposed on the Tomcat was there to prolong airframe life due to the much higher daily stresses faced by a carrier operated fighter and the fact that each Cat had to last a lot longer than expected due to purchases being cut short. In terms of design the airframe was stressed tested to 13+ G before something broke, and in service there were many instances where it was taken above 10 G, with 'Okie' Nancy famously hitting 12.5 G by accident once, and yet not a single sign of stress damage was found afterwards. Finally the Iranians were pretty clear about why they chose the F-14 over the F-15, and better agility was one of the reasons:

Definitely did Gero, was great!

Great stuff Gero, that was an awesome read! Curious though, did you ever get to fight a rafale in your time? Once again many thanks for taking the time to address the questions as best as you can/are allowed.

Yes 9.3 max, however currently it struggles to hit 9.0 G in DCS (very reluctant to pass 8.8 G), not being able to hit it instantaneous until a good deal later than it should (illustrated on the chart posted before) Another thing is that reaching 9 G in the DCS Viper seems to happen veery slowly (low G onset rate), making it feel sluggish in pitch. What's your take on this?

Keep in mind 12.5 G's was by accident and certainly not ever something he (or any other tomcat pilot) would ever conciously attempt to pull. That said the amazing part is that the aircraft showed no signs of stress damage afterwards. But then again Grumman did stress test the airframe to 13+ G's before something broke, so it was definitely an overengineered piece of kit in that respect. That said a 8 G limit for the FOH competition wouldn't bother me, esp. since you don't ever need to exceed this to win in the cat, it's best maneuvering performance being at way lower G's. It's just that since it was designed to the same limits as the F-15, I would've personally limited these two to the same 9.5 G, but 8 G doesn't bother me either.

@Mover Isn't the F-16 able to sustain 9.3 G's? That's what the DFLCS control laws suggest at least. Asking as there's an ongoing debate as to wether or not the DCS F-16C Blk.50 should be able to reach and hold 9.3 G's symmetric, something the DFLCS logic and other -16 jocks says it should. DCS F-16 as tested vs HAF EM charts: Would be great with your view point on this.

7.5 G was the original operational limit the Tomcat was designed for as a carrier operated fighter (hence this is where the EM charts stop), however as purchases were cut short individual airframes had to last longer and thus it was decreased to 6.5 G. However as mentioned the F-14 features the same ultimate load limit as the F-15, which itself was cleared for 9 G due to not having to deal with the daily stresses of carrier operations. So if you're breaking the F-14, then you're breaking the F-15 at the same G as well. As for how many G's F-14 pilots would pull in combat, I believe that if they felt they needed to pull more than 7.5 G, then they would do it - that's what the majority say themselves atleast. Keith "Okie" nancy on the subject (he went to 12.5 G, by accident, without any signs of stress damage btw):

We do have actual F-14 pilots we can ask... just saying,

Gero Finke, former fighter pilot & instructor in the Luftwaffe (F-4 & EF2000), and now head of TrueGrit's development team bringing us the Eurofighter for DCS, has very kindly agreed to answer a series of questions concerning the flight characteristics and relative performance of the Eurofighter compared with some of the most known other types now in service. The questions asked will solely concern the relative flight performance of the EF as known or subjectively observed by Finke, without any need for specific figures (so as not to reveal anything still classified), but merely seeking an answer as to wether the EF is better or worse than the aircraft it is being compared to in a specific performance parameter. There will therefore be no questions relating to performance of weapons & detection systems, which is generally classified material anyway. Onto the questions! Based on your experience, or the established performance you know about, how does the EF perform (better or worse) in the following respects as compared with other frontline fighters such as the F-16, F/A-18, Rafale & F-22? (Compare where you can) 1. Sustained turn rate ? 2. Instantaneous turn rate? 3. Climb rate? 4. Level flight acceleration? 5. Nose pointing ability (AoA limits)? 6. What is the toughest aircraft you've ever encountered in the EF during simulated (in real life, not simulator) WVR maneuvering combat? 7. Are - 3/+9 G hard limits in the EF, or can they be overshot? And if so by how much? (if you are allowed to say) 8. Is there any event whilst flying the EF that stands out and that you remember in particular? Note: Before anyone else responds keep in mind Gero needs some time to answer the questions, so please be patient waiting on the answers..

Not sure if it matters, but the Tomcat was actually designed with the same ultimate load limit as the F-15. So in terms of taking over G damage, that wouldn't happen to an F-14 before it would to an F-15. As to wether RL tomcat pilots cared about exceeding the operational limit (6.5 Gs), my impression from reading a lot of accounts as well as speaking to a few former cat pilots is that in combat said limits went out the window.

Not the article, this report is (Where the Rafale isn't being compared btw): https://rusi.org/sites/default/files/whr_1-15_maximising_european_combat_air_power_0.pdf In short the article isn't sponsored, it's just a fair comparison as far as I can tell, and it makes sense based on the raw figures we have of both aircraft.

Read like a fair comparison in my opinion, and as listed is written by a research analyst from the Military Sciences at Royal United Services Institute. So he's probably more informed on the aircraft than most of us here.

A good read: https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon-versus-rafale-the-final-word/

If "cheating" is what it takes to simulate realistic performance, then so be it, I'm all up for that. It's much better than a system that doesn't work at all because it's thrown into a digital world where things that could never happen in real life (latency etc..) occur regularly, resulting in unrealistic performance.

Why do you ignore that this concerns an early F-16 with a different engine?

What I find odd is that atm the AWG-9 is the only radar ingame which seems to suffer from these very frequent losses of tracks, esp. in TWS where it's really REALLY bad (I've basically given up on long range TWS shots at this point) What's more is that it USED to work, hence why I believe it's rarely a server or latency issue.

If the MW50 system is broken then obviously the aircraft will underperform. So how about establishing wether that's the case first before you guys start a pissing match about who's the better pilot?

From the latest round of testing: So it's from ~0.54 to ~0.77 mach that ITR is too low (as well as below 0.3 mach for some reason), and then ofcourse the max G should be 9.3 instead of 9.0. In terms of STR it's below 0.46 mach where performance is lacking, where'as above this it follows the available charts quite closely. Worthy of note: The lift curve and Ps=0 curve intersect at 2.5 G's @ 0.31 mach in DCS, where'as on the real thing it's at 2.8 G @ 0.31 mach.

I know, but it seems way slower to pick up targets now, and it loses them a lot too for some reason. Infact the AWG-9 loses targets extremely often ingame, it's by far the worst performing radar atm.

Well it's not good if it aint working with guns :)

The F-16's DFLCS allows for 9.3 G's symmetric, anything above that is an overshoot, and I believe above 9.8 G's symmetric indicates a DLFCS error. That said 10+ G's with cross control is apparently normal. Anyway as for the EF, with an onset rate of 15 G/s there has to be a temporary allowable overshoot, and 9+0.5/1.0 G should in theory be enough.

In addition to what people I saying here I've also noted that since these issues started PAL mode has also been A LOT slower to pick up targets and loses them a lot too in MP .

Sorry but suggesting the R&D department is shut off from the world just isn't credible, they would naturally use real life test results to compare with, calculate & verify performance with improvements to parts. To suggest that they were using calculated performance curves for an aircraft that had by then been in active combat for over 3 months is absurd to say the least. There can be little doubt they had long since established the performance of the series aircraft at that point, and to use anything but real life performance in comparison with a calculation of projected performance with a new part is ridiculous, period.