Figaro9

Can not confirm. ITR seems to be perfect I get rates according the rw charts (DI50, sl, 26000lbs) . Below logs Mach 0.590 22.4 dgs Mach 0.578 22.6 dgs Mach 0.573 22.6 dgs Mach 0.561 22.5 dgs Mach 0.555 22.4 dgs Mach 0.549 21.8 dgs itr f16 sl di50 .trk

Hmmm, maybe you should do that test again... turn rate was tweaked a while ago, I get exactly 12.3 dgs. Hornet turn rate is right on known figures.

Probably not :) This formula and simple math is for speeds below mach 0.4. Wings are full forward then and critical aoa hardly above 25 units.

From the f14 wing rock model: AOA(true) = 0.8122*AOA(ARI)+0.7971 F14 operating at Mach number less than 0.4: AOA(units)=1.0989*(AOA(true)+3.01) ‘The net effect of this conversion is to subtract five from the indicated AOA expressed in units to get AOA in degrees (i.e. 25units = 20 degrees)’.

Ja, und fast alle anderen auch...

Die US Navy hat kein ILS, andere Betreiber schon...

right. But even in war times it is the last option, not mindset

I get you mindset,thanks. Wouldn’t it the other way around? guys thinking it is about death or alive should stay away from dcs once they were killed according to your strange reasoning? A kill in dcs is a simulated kill and I am happy to go up again and try to keep that guy away from my six, I try to fight a better fight, that is what training/simulation is good for. This guy shares the same hobby, he is not my enemy, he is my partner who I treat with respect. With that mindset, yes, I can fly quite authentically. And that is what rw pilots do too. They train like they fight. They train not to over-g, so that they wouldn’t need to pull like bulls in war times.

Actually do hate that discussion. Obviously too different mindsets... 1: my dcs f14 does not need maintenance, so let us skip the ‚trivial‘ or somehow ‘academic’ g-limits... Let us enjoy its strengh and skip its weaknesses. Who cares about the nature of that bird in the sim? Where is the end of that mindset? My f14 does not need a rwy neither, let us take off from the ramp or taxiway? Nope. 2: If it is about death or alive, you would over-g your plane in rw (as in dcs) if you have a mig 29 at your 6. Probably. But how did she get there? What options do I have to bring back my plane safe so that we can fight the next day? Extend and run the 29 out of fuel? Pull 11g? White flag? This sim is not about death or alive. If I get shot, I go up again and try to do better, not to pull even more g. If I have to over-g, I probably messed up before. If somebody shoots me after over-g-ing his airframe, I think: Poor guy, I do not want to be in the room he gets his debriefing.... 3: My f14 is less competitive with the ‘academic’ 6.5 g-limit, its itr / corner speed is reduced compared to my freestyle g-limit. Sure, but it is still one of the best. No need to ignore its limits. I do not think it is accurate to pull like a bull and skip the limit. Why follow rules and procedures? It‘s the challenge to fly like they had to fly. Coordinated turns, controlled pull to the g-limit and simultaneously fight the bandit. World class. Probably not manageable for every simmer, but great if one tries at least. We have accurate pits, systems, fm and airframes, nice maps and servers. Perfect basis. Accurate flying is up to us. I was a flying props and jets rl decades ago. I never ever would have risked to over-g a plane. Doing it would probably end my dream. Every single mission was a test. For every maneuver we had some small margin and going beyond meant you failed. And you were not allowed to fail many times. Mil flying is about discipline, rules, procedures and precision. They let you fly their most expensive tools, do not them let them down. I like flying in dcs without all that rw mental pressure for perfection. Nobody blames you for exceeding the +-100ft altitude margin in a 5g horizontal turn or if you are late on gear down. Almost freestyle. But I try not to brake rules and procedures, not on purpose.

If g wouldn’t have an impact on the aircraft and its systems (and on lifetime, on operational readiness / maintenance and costs) why put a 6.5 limit into the books? It is not relevant if parts of the aircraft are 13g capable or not, it is about the whole system. As rw pilot you do not argue about the manual, you are trained to follow the rules. Furthermore, as best str is at ~M 05 and corner even lower, there is no need to exceed 6.5 g in almost every situation. This limit does not hurt the performance that much, those manual guys were smart. And yes, your adversary is limited too.

I know your mindset. But let me tell you that every plane has a g-limiter. Newer ones have computers, older or simpler planes do have a pilot. He is responsible for safety and operations according the books, period. Guess why f14 doghouse plot only show graphs up to 6.x g? Hm, you claim the graph of pamenchan is wrong and on the other hand you admit not to know if at tested parameters (25% fuel, sl, di=0) she could sustain 9g? Guess your a good pilot then and stay within g-limits... well done. @ dalan: I do trust the devs like you do, they have the knowledge, the programs and the help of rw pilots and experts to do a good fm. That is their job, and they do great. What I do not appreciate is the mindset of some guys who think a g-limit is just a joke, or politics. We know all their excuses... Guess we will hear some of them again very soon ;) I love the f14, its my favorite plane. If properly flown (g<6.5), she still would do great and her best sustained turn rate at sl would excel. There is really no need for over-g-ing the airframe. Nope, I do not have a f14 sl doghouse plot...

If that plot is totally false as you say, how can the fm of dcs f14b be the most accurate in dcs as you claim? this graph was done by pamenchan, comparing turn rates of different dcs modules at sea level. That is how the game worked that testing day. Only thing that is wrong in that chart is the 9g limit of the f14b, but that is the way gamers fly that ship anyway. In dcs, she turns the best at sea level at all speeds... that is a fact. Is this accurate to rw? I do not know any doghouse of a F14 at sea level, so I canˋt really comment on that. If that is accurate, she benefits from low (and clean) flying by far the most, since at higher altitude she is not dominating the dogfight skies at all

Swiss F18 have a strengthened structure and a shorter live time (6000h) compared to us jets. That is the prize. Over g-ing the aircraft means in rw immediately abort mission and rtb. Aircraft is out of flight line for quite a while. Your fellow pilots, leaders, mission planers, mechanics wouldnˋt appreciate your wild ride at all nor would the tax payer. It can happen, happend to me too, but you have to have a very good excuse for that... Just donˋt do it! But ingame, no body cares, cause it costs you nothing. I see non fbw aircraft pulling 10.8 g on pvp-servers all the time, some of them over-g-ing their structural limit by 4g+. Top gun.

Thanks hb for declaring drag and fuel state your drawing is based on. Now we can check your figures... The DCS F15 with declared config (4x9 & 4x7, 50% fuel, di23.8 ) weighs 39`547lbs (29`498+6729+33200), not 41`000lbs. Based on that she would sustain 14.4dgs, not 13.9dgs as written in the sketch. The DCS F16 Block 50 with di 50 and 50% fuel (not 25% as you post above, typo?) weighs ~ 25`200lbs (19`518+3422+~2250). According the charts you can therefore expect ~14.7 dgs (14.2+GWeffect 800lbs =0.5) instead of 14.2 as shown in the sketch. The sketch / config declaration seems to be at least sloppy... if not misleading. And as sk000tch mentioned, radius has a minor impact in a rate fight anyway. Additionally: Thanks to the higher (best sustained turning) speed the F15 and F16 have higher total energy state which they can trade for angles, as you know. Hence the radius will decrease. So beside config, fuel state and ps you would probably like to add the total energy state to your chart to enhance the picture?

You actually do not let the nose wheel touch down... Check 26` 10...

Thanks very much for testing. Is the rw chart you refer to the one with DI 0 and 22`000lbs at sea level (129 engine)? If so, fuel should be 32 %, not 50% as mentioned on your test-plot... basic weight. 19518 Lbs (source dcs) Gun. 293 lbs (source dcs) Fuel. 2189 lbs (32%) (source dcs) Total. 22000 lbs With 50% the viper would be 1´232 lbs to heavy… If you would correct for that and go lower to sea level, you would see totally different turn rates for both, the hornet and the viper, most probably quite close to the rw datas.

This turn is impressive, and the f16 is a marvelous plane, no question. That is why many nation buyed that machine and still heve them in service. But keep in mind that there are also a lot of nations and services having prefered buying other fighters... ;). Maybe these are also quite capable... F16 turn rate is really great. But that turn is far from a 12seconds turn. Since the position nor the zoom of the camera changed, we can see that the plane is -descending -is smaller and thus further away from camera when finishing the 360 -and is slower when finishing the circle (thus higher aoa). This turn is definitely a instantaneous turn fully finished (360° ) after ~ 15 sec. That is also what we can expect from the Em-plots. So instead of getting emotional, start doing test pilot work and check if dcs f16c block 50 turns according to the plots and share the results with the devs and forum. Use bushmannis mission to get proper results... Is she turning 21.7 dgs max at sea level if clean and 22´000 lbs heavy (30% fuel) without loosing energy (sustained)? And than start checking all the other plots for the block 50... have fun and keep us informed. Thanks.

Well, we took you by your own words. Our fault, we should not do that, sorry. Please, show your math, then we do not have to take you by your unprecise wording. Anyway, Devs will not take your on flight observations and simplified maths as a proof, I assume. No log, no tacview, no proof. Any news on your math on hornet turn rate at sea level (DI=0, 60%fuel) ? All we could see till now are some formulas, no maths…. Thanks

here you go. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2692721&postcount=15

^^^^ this. Thanks for your testing. All (RentedAndDented, Robin Hood, Nomad and myself) but one got all the same figures for the dcs f18 turn performance. (ED nailed the GAO figures at sea level and the hornet is slightly overperforming at 15kft by approx 0.4dps) The acceleration figures in the GAO are slightly better than those we see in dcs. I also checked the roll rate at moderate to high alphas (approx 4 seconds to 90°), and ED nailed it. As far as we can compare dcs and gao rw, FM is not yet perfect, but close. They did a great job so far. RentedAndDented, keep on arguing with facts, correct the guys doing their own simplified maths (and not providing them), making oversimplified guesstimations on aircraft-performance. It is exhausting, but we must remind them providing sources and facts, showing their math and logs. @Hummingbird, would you please share your math on 19.4dps hornet turn rate at sea level, di=0, 60% fuel? By the way, can you give us a source on the sop regarding rw turn rate measurement? Thanks.

Some people do not need sources, they just feel it. Sustained 6.5g turn @330kts, that is what I read from Display pilot J.Meister in a lot 20 in the yearbook 2016 swiss air force black on white. Regarding acceleration: According RW datas (GAO) of the hornet with 402 engine (max thrust, 2aim 9, 2aim 120, 60%fuel) accelerates: at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 21seconds. at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 34.6 seconds at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 55.8 seconds My test in dcs: at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 22.5seconds (+1.5sec). at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 35.8 seconds (+1.2 sec) at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 58.5 seconds (+2.7 sec) This does not feel like overpowered. (You can find the Trk files in the hornet thread, accelleration and altidute.) Cheers

Source? Stopp doing wrong assumptions. We know from a pilot flying the lot 20 that they can sustain 6.5g 330kts at 1500ft asl (di=0, fuel > 50%) , thats by far more than your best guess of 19.4dps. We know that the lot 20 has by far the better inst. turn rate and even slightly better best str. than the F16 block52. (See post #11 in threat `Whats the best corner speed for the hornet?` this graph is originally from a Aerospace Project Development Group, located in zurich). And according your post#169 8.2.2017 12.56 am you also know the french comparison of the m2, F18epe and f16 Block52. According that source sustained the epe and the block52 have similar turn rate at 15kft of 13 dgs (2xaim9). So, expect for the f18epe at least sustained performance / figures like block 52 shows, but at lower speed. Check also: `Its (hornet epe) extremely good manoeuvrability in curvilinear flight is important in aerial combat in visual flight conditions and is proven to be of the best worldwide.` source: https://www.vtg.admin.ch/en/einsatzmittel/luft/fa18-hornet.html The block 50 is one of the worst turning f16 (ge100 big inlet has a 1.5dps advantage), the epe the best rating f18. You have to bfm. Simply turning at bstr. fighting the f18 in dcs is not going to work.

Sorry, could not attach the tracks, here we go... f18acc test 5k ft.trk f18acc test 5k f-2.trk f18acc test 20k ft.trk f18acc test 20k ft-2.trk f18acc test 35k ft.trk f18acc test 35k ft-2.trk

According RW datas the hornet with 402 engine (max thrust, 2aim 9, 2aim 120, 60%fuel) accelerates: at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 21seconds. at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 34.6 seconds at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 55.8 seconds I can see 2 possibilities how this test was done: 1) steady flight at M0.8 and test altitude. In that case the dcs f18 performs. at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 24.8seconds (+3.8sec). at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 39.2 seconds (+4.6sec) at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 62.2 seconds (+6.4sec). 2) acceleration from below tested speed thru the speed range. In that case results in dcs are as follows at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 22.5seconds (+1.5sec). at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 35.8 seconds (+1.2 sec) at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 58.5 seconds (+2.7 sec) Does anybody know how those tests are done rw?

This link is a good read on the F18 evaluation.... its in german and french though... https://www.vtg.admin.ch/content/vtg-internet/de/media/publikationen/luftwaffe.download/vtg-internet/de/publications/verwaltung/organisation/lw/buecher/80_112-BiG-Schriftenreihe-No66.pdf Swiss chose the f18 mainly over the m2000 and f16 for following reasons: -Better radar with less ground clutter, which is important in the alpine environment -far better sa and navigation system -better cockpit layout -less customize costs to adapt on existing systems -two engines (the f5 suffered surprisingly high rates of engine failures) -better and stronger structure -easier maintenance (for non professional soldiers in 3week a year service) -greater update-potential -long term: ground attach potential when the f5 would be replaced... The f16 in the tested version was initially struggling with the 11 degrees glide slope on the alpine airfields. This was solved latter. The mig 29 had structural issues, inferior systems and was not easy to adapt...