Hummingbird

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.

Yeah, already reported this a while ago along with the lack in G-onset rate.

The wait is indeed hard, along with the F-4E & EE Lightning it's the module I want in DCS the most at this point, and thankfully all except the latter are atleast confirmed to arrive at some point.

A skilled pilot makes all the difference if the opposing one is lacking, there's no doubt about that or arguing against it. The sketch I made is meant purely as a visual illustration for those who arent savvy with EM charts and/or simply don't have the information at hand. In short it is meant as an easy to read illustration for those with an interest in knowing about the the sustained turning capabilities of the aircraft alone. The rest is up to the pilot.

Well it doesn't really, they are both virtually the same in STR whilst the F-14 just manages it at a lower speed. Furthermore they both mount the F110 GE engine, the F-14 just has two of them but at the same time also contains over twice the internal fuel capacity of the F-16. (16100 lbs vs 7200 lbs) So I wouldn't expect the AB duration to be much different between the two. If it is noticably different due to the different intake design etc, then the fact that the F-16 is at ~35% (not 25, that was a typo) fuel capacity whilst the F-14 is at 50% should make up for that difference. In other words the F-16 shouldn't have an AB duration advantage in the configuration/weights compared.

First of all I think we should concentrate on the weights & performance of the real aircraft and not the DCS ones if we want to seriously compare these aircraft, as e.g. the DCS F-15 seems to be missing its wing pylon weight etc.. That said to have a smaller radius at the same max STR is advantageous as it gives you the ability to break a 2 circle 'head on' stalemate by forcing a 1 circle fight, where you then have the definitive advantage. Furthermore it also allows you to burn off excess energy/speed more freely as you know you will do better sustained at a lower speed than your adversary who in order to match your initial instantanous turn rate will quickly be dumping speed/energy himself, and thus he quickly ends up below his optimum STR speed at which point he is then entirely defensive. Incidently this is also what we're often seeing with F-14 v F-15 matchups ingame as well, i.e. if the F-15 doesn't make use of the vertical and attempts to enter into a strictly horizontal turning competition with the F-14, then the eagle relatively quicly ends up getting plucked by the cat. Btw: The sketch is NOT meant to convey that a merge will always happen at the best STR speeds of the individual aircraft, esp. since it almost never does, ae depending on the initial speed at the merge the first turn is either going to be one of a higher or lower rate than the max STR. The sketch is merely meant to illustrate the amount of space each aircraft is operating within once settled at the optimum STR.

The only thing crap here is your attitude, coming out swinging and denigrating anothers' friendly attempts at helping people understand a subject. It's pretty obvious that the illustration is for loaded aircraft in a light fighter configuration at 10 kft, keeping things as apples to apples as possible, that is: F-14B = 55,600 lbs, 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, otherwise clean (50% fuel) F-16C Blk.50 = 26,000 lbs, 4x AIM120 + 2x AIM9's + 2 empty fuel tank wing pylons (DI = 48-50, 25% fuel) F-15C = 41,000 lbs, 4xAIM7's/120's + 4x AIM9's, otherwise clean (50% fuel) F-4E = 42,777 lbs, 4xAIM7's, otherwise clean (50% fuel) In short: NOT sea level and not completely clean running on fumes either. Why you want to muddy the waters with completely clean aircraft running on fumes and going downhill (Ps=-), at SL no less! (don't think you quite thought that one through buddy), I don't know. The relevant information is obviously for a combat loaded aircraft as well as its Ps=0. Best rate, as in instantanous rate wasn't even talked about until you brought it up, esp. since it's a momentary state. Finally I've never argued with any actual pilots about how to fly a Hornet, so not sure what you're on about there. Hence I doubt I have chased anyone away.