Hummingbird

More weight in the nose shouldn't really make a difference, if the S turned better then it was probably just because the E was heavier than the S in general. Great video btw. An F-4S would be awesome too btw.

Who cares about the branches & insignias, it's all about the technical stuff :D

Well the F-4E was the better dogfighter, and not just because it came with a gun :) The slats helped the turning performance quite a bit, and AFAIK apart from the weaker radar the F-4E feautured more toys overall.

This Except I want the F-4E not the F-4N or J :D:D

Thanks for the update BIGNEWY, I just really hope future doesn't mean many months.

Yes the FM should take precedence over all else IMO as well. But BIGNEWY promised an update on this when he knows more. Hopefully that is sooner rather than later at this point.

Yeah there is a correlation issue here, but since the Ps plots are for TMN I think they are the most "accurate", as in only they are comparable with the EM charts of other aircraft which are also graphed for TMN.

Spike would look smaller if it included decimals and we had the milisecs, so I think that's the main reason. Also around 400 kts the engine is probably at its peak in performance.

I agree that the FM should be the no.1 priority in any flight sim, hence it would be nice with some updates to the DCS F-16 FM soon, that's for sure.

F4U-4 would be awesome to get at some point. Best US fighter of the war IMHO.

Yeah that doesn't sound very confidence inspiring for the pilots :S

Great to see you guys testing this, here's some extra info to use: F-16C Blk.50 acceleration times @ SL (std. day, 15 C) @ 24,000 lbs (DI = 0) [GE engine]: 200 kts / M 0.30 = 0 sec (starting speed) 250 kts / M 0.38 = 2 sec 300 kts / M 0.45 = 4 sec 350 kts / M 0.53 = 6 sec 400 kts / M 0.60 = 8 sec 450 kts / M 0.68 = 9 sec 500 kts / M 0.76 = 11 sec 550 kts / M 0.83 = 13 sec 600 kts / M 0.91 = 15 sec 650 kts / M 0.98 = 17 sec 700 kts / M 1.06 = 20 sec 750 kts / M 1.13 = 25 sec 800 kts / M 1.21 = 33 sec (limit speed) You can probably guess what manual the figures are from.

I'd imagine it was only when firing and the action cycles the rounds, atleast that's the typical reason if we discount broken belt linkages which I haven't read the F8 suffering from. Also like Sgt.Pappy I'm sceptical it was a 100% thing, being more inclined to believe it was more of a tendency. Otherwise it should've shown up immediately during testing.

Definitely sad that they postponed the F-4E, was the module I bet most were looking forward to after the F-16. Now I'm just looking forward to the F-8J by Magnitude and hoping it might be in open beta next Christmas.

F-8 pulls off quite some alpha in some of those vids! Also had a look at a Vne chart for it recently, and it's gonna be an excellent dogfighter for the cold war servers.

14.2 vs 14.1 deg/sec max STR is so close it's basically the same, the F-14 however has the advantage of a tighter radius at said STR, not to mention a higher ITR. The F-16's main advantage vs the F-14 is a noticably faster rate of climb and acceleration (& thus energy recovery), not to mention carefree handling. So a dogfight between the two would be close providing both pilots were well versed flying their aircraft. That said IMHO the F-16 is the overall best dogfighter of the teen series, having the highest STR, rate of climb & acceleration of them all, however that doesn't mean it's the best in every way. An F-16 jock will still have to take care not to fight the other guys fight, like e.g. getting into a 1 circle fight with an F-14 or very slow with an F/A-18.

Again without an EM chart you simply don't know. Posting gun cam pics alone doesn't prove anything. You can make rough physics based guesses ofcourse, but that's about it.

Well said Dee-Jay

Let's remember that the EM charts are the records of exhaustive flight testing, not theory. So their accuracy can't really be questioned. The caveat being that these tests were with relatively fresh aircraft, so yes it's very likely that service aircraft won't always be able to achieve exactly the performance the charts show. But that's something you can't really start playing around with when making a sim, here you have to stick with what the charts say as you quite simply have no average figure for service aircraft.

Not going to argue which aircraft is better at BFM, but just a couple of points: The F-16 features relaxed static stability by design, and as such also gets lift from its horizontal stabs as it only needs a brief down stab to initiate the turn and after that some upward stab (thus positive lift) to prevent the aircraft from tightening up by itself. Also 6 G/s onset rate isn't that great, the F-16 will put on G's faster than this and so will the Gripen I'm sure. The Eurofighter for example is capable of onset rates in the 10-11 G/s region. 6 G/s is simply the old NATO std. for centrifuge ROR profiles, but it either has been or is being changed with newer centrifuges being capable of matching the onset rates of the real aircraft. As for the M2000 winning 9 times out of 10 vs the F-16 in WVR, that is simply untrue. The M2000 might have a higher ITR, but if it misses its first shot it's now purely defensive as the F-16 can keep turning at a high rate whilst the M2000 can't.

Trust me I wish we could've stuck to simply discussing the performance of these aircraft objectively and try to learn from each other. I don't get why insults are ever necessary on a forum about aircraft... but for some it must be like politics.

Sorry but the crate actually matters, hence why we're not flying around in biplanes anymore. 1) No, because you're supposed to know what the best maneuvering speed of your aircraft is by heart. 2) No, the sketch/illustration was/is not deliberately misleading or misleading at all, it shows what it says it shows. You just need to stop making up stuff about what it was intended for. I p*ssed YOU off? Yeah, sure. Doesn't take a genius to see who came in with an attitude. Throwing a hissy? You fail to understand that this is a sim, i.e. the aircraft should behave as close to the real one as possible. Hence like I said in that thread, I don't care what the normal procedure is, when you pull the override it should function as it does in real life. That someone wanted to turn that into a whine about "you're trying to tell a real hornet pilot how to fly the hornet!" is just proof of how some people are only here to pick a fight or attempt to sound clever instead of actually reading & attempting to understand the contents of others posts. So if I scared anyone off (which I still don't believe I did) then said persons need to grow a pair, sorry. I came at you? Haha, you were clowning an illustration for no reason as you ASSUMED it was showing something it was never meant to. Don't blame me for your lack of decorum. Your next example at completely ignoring what was written and just wishing to throw a few insults. What I actually said is that all fighter pilots care about their optimum STR & at what speed it occurs, something I know for a fact and have several F-16 jocks to confirm. Aaah, so you're so blinded by your desire to stand on said soapbox that you accuse me of wanting to stand on, that you actually missed the title of sketch you say? Gotcha. You might be surprised to learn that said EM charts aren't allowed to be posted on this forum, otherwise I would've simply posted those ;) (As I did many times before it was outlawed on these forums) Just for kicks, where exactly on the sketch is it you see it say that "this is all you need to know" ? Yes, you are being quite unpleasant indeed. But like a couple of good pilot friends already told me, there are unpleasant characters within every field.

I do believe there are definitely issues with ED's current implementation of the Vipers DFLCS, which shows itself in a number of ways: 1. G-onset rate is suspiciously low 2. 9.3 G's cannot be attained in the horizontal as defined pr. the real DFLCS laws 3. Negative 3 G's cannot be attained at all 4. Weird rocking in G-onset/pitch rate Personally I see issues 1,2 & 4 being connected, and I suspect an extra 0.3 G's allowed combined with faster stab deflection speeds might help solve it.

I agree that a counter deflection is to be expected, it just appears that the stab movement speed is perhaps too low which in turn forces the FLCS to initiate the counter deflection earlier and over do it, causing that odd momentary slow down in G-onset/pitch rate.

Observed the following in external view: WgWhK5Q5Yjk As one can see the stabilators initially make an odd up/down bouncing movement when applying & holding full aft stick, which explains the odd rocking in G-onset/pitch rate that the DCS F-16 currently suffers from. This could be linked to what @Syndrome previously reported as the horizontal stabilators lacking in speed of deflection, and thus in order to prevent a G-overshoot they have to apply opposite deflection sooner as the whole movement is slower than it should be. This would also affect how fast the G's can be put on (G-onset rate), and thus fixing this might also go some way to solving this issue.