mvsgas

Rolling just before pulling is attacking the limiter. Basically giving the computer to many variable to solve. The rolling does induce yaw, but the main thing is to attack the DFLCC limiters in attempt to defeat them. The most critical maneuvers are maximum command rolls coupled with either maximum aft stick or exceeding the maximum bank angle change limits. With all this information, you can see in the video they did everything they could to make that aircraft depart in yaw.

k-Z4fbj_9q4

Ok, so we ignore the video that does not tell us or ED anything and we sum it all up with actual number. Will the DCS F-16 be more likely to have a yaw departure under the following conditions?: - Above 25000 feet - Between .80 and .95 mach - Rapid onset of AOA after a roll - While flying close to the AOA/G limiters What will be the limiter for the DCS USAF block 50 circa 2007? - Looking around we find the USAF F-16 block 40/42 circa 2009 Cat 1 pitch limiter is 26°, Greek block 50 circa 2003 is 25° and circa 2015 is 25.8°. I do not know the limiter for a circa 2007 USAF block 50. There are many more factors to the limiters. (*) - Cat 3 limiter for the USAF block 40/42 circa 2009 and a Greek 50/52 circa 2003 is 16°-18°, 2015 Greek block 50 is 16°-20° What factor could increase the chances of yaw departures? - Center line store (center line tank with pylons on station 3 and 7 being worst case scenario) - 370 wing tanks - heavier left wing - asymmetric loaded inlet mounted pod - In Cat 1, more susceptible loading is a lateral asymmetry load greater than 300 lbs on station 1,2 or 3 with center line tank and asymmetric inlet mounter pod. - In Cat 3, and asymmetry load greater than 1500lbs on station 3 or equivalent * Talking about DFLCC: We can see the pitch limiter is different on different block at different times. Some of the questions are: - What else on the limiters and other functions may change depending on flight control computer and its software? -- For example USAF block 40/42 circa 2009 cat 1 roll limiter is not affected by rudder input while a Greek 2003 block 50 is. - What are all the ways to defeat the limiter? - How to avoid defeating the limiters? etc.

Lets say the module is release. The first thing we do is load up a centerline tank, 3 -120B and a pod on the right cheek. You try the same maneuver at 36k feet at mach .95 and nothing happens. You post the flight model is wrong because it does not behave like the video. ED post that this only happens on block 40. Can you honestly say otherwise with the information we have? I can't. If you can, would you please tell me how? I am not being sarcastic nor trying to be funny. I am honestly curious on how can any of us determine if it will be accurate or not by watching this video.

Ok, but is the departure an aerodynamic result or is it because of the load out? Is the departure due to the AOA/G limiter being modified or operational? In the video, the pilot said the departure was expected, but why was it expected? Was it expected because they had all the fuel on the right wing and none on the left wing? Was the departure because Fuel tank F1 and F2 empty while A1 was full? If we don't have all the information on how it happen and what cause it, how can we tell if ED modeled correctly or not? For all we know this only happens with a center line tank and a sniper pod at a specific fuel load with no AOA/G limiter.

There is a a lot of things that video does not tell us or ED. For example; which Flight control computer it had? Which software version it had? What are the differences between different flight control computers? What are the differences between the computer software? Being a test aircraft, did it used the operational limits or where they modified for the testing? Did they change the center of gravity for the test? What was the fuel level? At what speed does this happen? ( high transonic, above 35k feet is not very precise numbers). In the video it looks like a center line tank and a pod on the right cheek. What pod was on the right cheek? Which version of the AIM-120 was it carrying? Was that the main cause of the departure? I'm not sure of the tail number, it looks like 87-0352 a block 40, but being a test aircraft, it could have many or no modification. In short, whether ED decides to model this or not would be up to them and it would be impossible for any of us to determine the validity of it with the information available to us. Edit: To clarify, when I say: "which Flight Control Computer" I do not mean the differences between an A model Flight Control Computer (FLCC) and a Block 50 Digital Flight Control Computer (DFLCC). I mean there are different DFLCC installed with different software at different times on a specific block. For example Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) 1F-16-2594 change the DFLCC from part number 3757528-1 to part number 16VC0126-100. I could not tell you the differences and I doubt anyone else could.

He means the way F-16.net list the manufacturing version. So two seat would be F-16D block 52 The manufacturing is F-16C or D block 52 D, the last letter is a modification withing manufacturing of a specific block. Here is a list of all F-16C block 52 D This is is all F-16D block 52 D

They have never used block 42. Only block 15, 32 and 52. Here is a list of all Thunderbird F-16. http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/view_airframes_byadvancedsearch/acshort/F-16/fy/0/plant/0/status/0/version/0/program/0/airforce/11055/unit/11525/deployment/0/displayteam/0/actype/F-16/startnum/1 Not all block 52 have a contract year of 92, there are several 90 and 91 contract year. Only the avionics Technical Order (T.O.) are the same. So 1F-16CM-34-1-1 or 34-1-1-1 would be the same, most other T.O. will still be block specific, i.e. 1F-16CJ-2-78JG-41 (IIRC the their engine exhaust T.O.) as oppose to 1F-16CG-2-78JG-11 for block 40. CM is just a specific T.O. designation that somehow has become commonly used but not accurate.

Not sure what is happening, not sure what the problem is. For what I gather, you have problems with your missions. In my experience, every time there is an update, you have to re save all the older missions. So for example: I exclusively play Through The Inferno (TTI) missions. Whenever there is an update, I open the mission on the editor, and just re save it (I may change the date but nothing else).

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you please explain?

Not meant for carrier operation.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3657640&postcount=110

It's been like that since the module was introduce. This is normal behavior with Skid switch on.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3920366&postcount=21

left click on image to enlarge

Depends of the changes. Seen flight cancel before. Specially in places like Luke AFB where there where so many student pilots or Kunsan AB where conditions can change drastically.

For example: Block 40/42 You need the 1F-16CG-1, 1F-16CG-1-1 and 1F-16CG-1-2 and local supplements. Runway information (pressure altitude, temperature, wind speed, wind direction, length, slope, etc.), Ground Vehicle Friction Reading. Then there is the weights and COG. This also change by year. For example late 90 block 40/42 had a different braking system and different brakes. ( some of those numbers change while we where using those brake and there where local supplements at the time IIRC in Luke AFB, late 90 on specific squadrons) Anyway, I still think why not just wait for the module to come out.

I suggest waiting for the module to come out see if ED provide the info. In RL it can be complicated. You need several manuals, a lot of parameters and do some math crunching. IIRC, pilot have a computer that does a lot of this for them (at least back in 1998 ) Also, in my opinion would not be beneficial to find some of this manuals online since different blocks will have different weight, different engine and subversion of engines. Different landing gear and brakes with different limitations, etc. So, again, not benefit to learn this without the mod being out. It would just create more confusion. When the module is out, worst case scenario, you can just try it see if you can take of from location Y at X weight and Z environmental conditions.

You are pulling to much on the stick. Aim for the specific G as the AFI 11-246 mentions and it will look just as in the video. My initial tendency was to pull back on the stick as far as it will go but that is to much. Just use the accelerometer or the steady stall warning horn whichever occurs first. For example; the level 360° maneuver is not level, you only use 85° of bank and start gradually increasing G until reach 6g or steady tone. the first 180 should be with 1 and 3/4 degree nose up and the last 180 the same degrees down. See 6:48 in the video you posted. Note the pilots look like he is barely moving the stick