Top Jockey

Thank you for your work!

Yes, but in a dogfight the situation is always changing... post # 608 : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140030&page=61~

Regarding the MiG, post #70 on this thread summed it up well about my disappointment with it. (Higher energy bleeding and lower pitch rates than the Su-27.) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257858&page=7 About the F-16, that's essentially my impression on it, but it does maintain high maneuverability at speeds of 400 kts also, still. Against "angles" fighters its energy has to be used judiciously.

This ^ The thing is (was) in experiments I've done in the past... my praised MiG-29 came out below expectations in ACM, even the Su-27 performed better. (Particularly in therms of maintaining energy while turning.)

Reading all this, I understand that the F-16's highest Sustained Turn Rate is achieved around 450 kts speeds. But if that is only possible with the pilot's G effects turned off, what's the point ? Besides, wouldn't another airframe with a similar turn rate but at a slower speed (and thus smaller turn radius) have the advantage ?

... would be great.

I do not have any charts or tables, but in real life does the F-16C really have to be at a 450 kts speed to achieve its highest turn rate ?

Hello, I believe you've seen already the several threads about: - the F-16's flight model performance (in the sim) being below expected its real life capabilities, and; - the Hornet (in the sim) on the other hand supposedly being slightly above real life performance. edit This has been talked for a while now, because I really believe that something is off (even if only a little bit) with the F-16 flight model, as this aircraft was built from the start to excel at dogfighting... whereas in the sim that ain't showing as it should. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255421 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258416

Hello, In real life, the Viper and the Hornet do have different flight models. (And this is also implemented in the sim.) I believe it seems easier to maneuver the Hornet, because it does not have an AoA as limited as the Viper (which I believe is limited to 26 degrees). Also this capability allows the Hornet to have better nose pointing authority, which means in a specific moment the aircraft might be changing its nose position, although that alone doesn't mean that it's pulling much G's... even at low speeds.

Although I'm not going to write anything you don't know already, this is my 2 cents. I can see your point. But one has to keep in mind that the F-16's EEGS really was a pioner concept... with all the pros and cons it has. I see the F-14 and F-15's HUD symbology (gunsight) as cases of logic / ease of employment philosophy. Whereas the F-16's I believe was more centered on precision aiming... But I also agree that, when maneuvering it might become less instinctive to "read" and employ rapidly, particularly for beginners.

Preciselly this ^

Why would it not be implemented, if we already have it completed and working in the B version ? ( Was the TCS so much different between A and B versions of the Tomcat ? )

Hello, That's correct, I was refering to the US Navy F-14A as naturally this tends to be seen more as the "real deal", than the IRIAF version. (And is for me, the most legendary version of them all.) Only asked it, because if the US Navy we are getting is from 1985 onwards, it will also have the Sidewinder seeker-head moving symbol (when locked) on the HUD (introduced with AFC 713) like the current B version we have now. So my curiosity was if the HUD symbology and behavior would be similar to the B version or not (did it ever exist a version with the search pattern visible on the HUD ?) Being that it seems we may be getting older AIM-9 versions, and given that in some of these the search pattern was different, so could the avionics behave differently.

Obrigado e parabéns STNGersk! A continuação de bom trabalho. - Thank you and congratulations STNGersk! Keep up the good work.

One word: OUTSTANDING. The link is: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3308747/

Hello IronMike, By the way, will the upcoming F-14A version have somewhat different AIM-9 HUD symbology behavior / representation than our actual F-14B version, or will it be pretty similar ? Thank you.

In my case, the final pull is the one to close the remaining Anlge-off, to get steadily on his 6... otherwise I'll start to overshot him and he'll start a 1 circle fight. (The lead pull you mention for the gun solution, usually only requires a little and brief pull and the lost speed is easily recoverable; because prior to that our Angle-off was very small already...)

I thought you were recomending that procedure for the F-16.... Eitherway, it is possible to beat the A.I. JF-17 in BFM in the conditions I mentioned before on the F-16. It takes however, that one can't let being carried away into drop the speed too much in order to gain those last angles... because then the JF-17 will start its best sustained turn rate / energy fight, and the F-16 will take a lot of time to recover speed (and therefore its turning ability). When steadily on his 6, I can stay there until the fuel is over. (This being with roughly 3000 lbs of fuel, for both the JF-17 and my F-16.)

I see, many people already have the same impression. Do you believe that it might be because of the same reason, as Boeing asked ED not to feature the Hornet's flight model exactly as it is in real life ?

Oh now I understand you!

Hello sigfan86, I've always knew what kind of A-A missile is selected at a given moment. My issue was another: which was the specific HOTAS button to change from Sidewinders to Amraam and vice-versa, (besides the option at the SMS page).

There it is, missed that back there. Thank you Panther.

Hello, This effects a switch between the same type of missile, not between AIM-9 to AIM-120. How can one change from IR to Radar guided, other than clicking at the SMS page ? Thank you.

This is probably the most indicated thread. I've been trying the F-16 these days, so I'll post my impressions regarding what I felt about its performance in BFM. I've been flying it against "the new kid on the block" the JF-17's A.I. And I know it already: the A.I. flight model is not very realistic because of several reasons. ... the point is: I've also flown other types in similar conditions against the JF-17's A.I., and I noticed differences. Essentialy my "experiment" consisted at: - JF-17 (A.I.) : 2 x IR A-A missiles ; 3000 lbs internal fuel ; (pilot level 'excelent') - F-16 and other types (flown by me) : 2 x IR A-A missiles ; 3000 lbs internal fuel (or quantity for roughly the same amount of flight time as in the A.I. JF-17) - tried mostly 2 circle fights, started at 3.000 ft altitude at the merge , in which the A.I. JF-17 also went for the vertical frequently; - keeping my F-16 above 380 kts eventualy seemed to give me some advantage; - but when needed to cash energy for angles (otherwise he would go into scissors or 1 circle), my speed dropped to near 300 kts... at which point the JF-17 starts gaining speed much quicker than my F-16, and thus giving him an higher Sustained Turn Rate than mine... and I can't follow him anymore. And now you will all say: "Hey, but the in the A.I. pilot level 'excelent' the aircraft gains UFO like flight properties." True, but when I've flown the above conditions in the F-15, F/A-18, Su-27 and even in the Mirage 2000, it was somewhat easier / faster to get on the JF-17's six o'clock and also easier to stay there. Don't really know if it's supposed to be like this in real life, but it really is an anti-climax that way in the F-16.

I've been trying the F-16 these days, so I'll post my impressions regarding what I felt about its performance in BFM. I've been flying it against "the new kid on the block" the JF-17's A.I. And I know it already: the A.I. flight model is not very realistic because of several reasons. ... the point is: I've also flown other types in similar conditions against the JF-17's A.I., and I noticed differences. Essentialy my "experiment" consisted at: - JF-17 (A.I.) : 2 x IR A-A missiles ; 3000 lbs internal fuel ; (pilot level 'excelent') - F-16 and other types (flown by me) : 2 x IR A-A missiles ; 3000 lbs internal fuel (or quantity for roughly the same amount of flight time as in the A.I. JF-17) - tried mostly 2 circle fights, started at 3.000 ft altitude at the merge , in which the A.I. JF-17 also went for the vertical frequently; - keeping my F-16 above 380 kts eventualy seemed to give me some advantage; - but when needed to cash energy for angles (otherwise he would go into scissors or 1 circle), my speed dropped to near 300 kts... at which point the JF-17 starts gaining speed much quicker than my F-16, and thus giving him an higher Sustained Turn Rate than mine... and I can't follow him anymore. And now you will all say: "Hey, but the in the A.I. pilot level 'excelent' the aircraft gains UFO like flight properties." True, but when I've flown the above conditions in the F-15, F/A-18, Su-27 and even in the Mirage 2000, it was somewhat easier / faster to get on the JF-17's six o'clock and also easier to stay there. Don't really know if it's supposed to be like this in real life, but it really is an anti-climax that way in the F-16.