Spurts

I love doing this too. I tend to just make up my own maneuvers based on my proficiency.

No, he means using the Emergency Override to lock the wings in 22 even when the scheduler would have them sweeping aft.

This was my thought as well. Gee, I guess that means I need to spend a few more hours honking around in the Tomcat doing high AoA and asymmetrical maneuvers. Shame...

You do know that even when the cat were retired there were more As in service than any other type, right?

No, only the Captor-E is AESA

Wing Auto, 816KTAS at SL WIng OVERRIDE, 644KTAS at SL FULL FLAP, 487KTAS at SL (SHAKY!) in a lightweight B model in full AB.

No, you are still well within the strength of the wings.

The GS videos are not using MANUAL wing sweep, which is a normal function on the throttle to select FWD/AFT/BMB/AUT. None of these settings override the mach scheduler. I.E. using BMB mode will set the wings to 55 deg sweep unless you are above the mach at which 55 would normally be called, then the wings will sweep aft of 55 as normal. What he is doing is using an OVERRIDE that most people only use to put the wings into oversweep for parking. This WILL ignore the mach scheduler. I fiddled with this a while back to see the effects. Results? Top speed at low level was ~0.95M. Too much drag. When I pulled back on the stick the way I normally would I spiked to 17G and lost both wings. This, like Manual flaps above 200kt, is not some novel hack or exploit. It's just stupid and shows a lack of understanding of the jet. Corner speed is ~320KIAS. Anyone care to guess what AUT sweep would be at that speed for most altitudes you dogfight in? 22-25. You are already forward. setting the Override to forward does NOT help you at real cornering speeds. Just leave it in auto and fly the dang jet. You see a guy rating in the Tomcat and suspect he dropped his flaps? Well they are jammed now and his wings are stuck like that so speed up and start climbing because he has more drag now than he knows what to do with. A jam-winged Tomcat might be "unbeatable" in a horizontal fight but is going to suck in an energy fight. The only time to use full flaps is when you are in a flat scissors under 180kt or going over the top of a vertical maneuver under 180 kts. In the latter case, if I am uphill with intent to go over and Jester calls out a speed under 200, I drop the barn doors (for nose stability more than anything), and I pull them up as soon as my nose crosses the horizon to downhill and he starts calling speed over 150. I will test top speed with full jammed flaps maybe tonight.

Hahahah

Exactly

There is no way to prevent dissapointment. Some customers want the "best guess" and some was "exact date or nothing". They can't do both. And it has nothing to do with "loose schedule", it is simply the nature of complex software. You can force a release date, only to introduce more bugs than you fixed, or you can accept that release might be delayed if the issue became more complex than you initially planned.

A plan is just that, a plan. Difficulties could make timelines slip. Have patience.

I can't emphasize the importance of #2 above enough.

Double checked, it was ~31dps at 9G at 318ktas at 44,800lb. Test point for the CLmax was (info bar) 32 AoA true, 233 KTAS, 330ft, 5.1G, for 23.45dps turn and 2.197CL

From some testing I did in a light B, a max AoA pull at the right speed could hit 30dps at 9G at a weight of 50,000lb at "corner speed" of 325KIAS at sea level. Based on finding a CLmax of 2.2 at 32deg (taken from the info bar, pegged AoA index in the cockpit)

IRL it isn't lower, it is similar. As an aero engineer I could tell you why. Drag. The Hornet as a straighter and higher aspect ratio wing, the first will steepen the CL/AoA curve so more lift is made at lower AoA and the second will reduce any drag produced per unit lift. This hornet has a notional 35,000lb thrust. 20% more than the Viper. The Hornet has more features to reduce induced drag than the Viper, and the Viper has more features to reduce wave drag than the Hornet.

Even that is not the MOST accurate. From a physical standpoint it boils down to this. At a given dynamic pressure (speed and altitude) and configuration there will be one specific AoA where the drag matches the thrust. This AoA/Thrust relationship doesn't care about weight. Just as Drag is constant in this instance, so is total lift. This is where Nz and W are inversely and linearly proportional. In the Weights and Speeds we are looking at, maximum available G doesn't change as we are under the maneuvering weight and over the top of the corner plateau by a good margin. So, if you look at the highest point of the Ps=0 line (for argument we will say it is right on the 9G line) and use a linear weight adjustment it will move above or below 9G. you then need to follow the trendlines of the other Ps curves until you reach 9G. So you can't JUST do the linear inverse math, that only tells you what your new G is at that AoA, you then have to look at the plot and see what happens with your G and speed. Glad to see that people are thinking critically. Everyone, even the devs, are in agreement that the FM needs to be fixed. They are working on it. I just want people to be ready that a properly flown Hornet COULD still prevent them from out rating it depending on the config. In the case of the GAO doc, it was 4 AAMs and 2 are BVR. all four are carried in "dragless" wingtip or conformal positions. Meaning this Hornet is DI 10 or less. It is "clean". My Viper that I matched loadout and fuel fraction with was not clean, but there was not much difference between the DI 0 and DI 50 values I posted. Now, throw some pylons on a Hornet and things change. put a tank on it and it changes some more. In a stripped gunzo fight, the Hornet should remain a potent and challenging adversary to our F-16.

Okay so I checked the clean and light "HAF" F-16 (2.7.2.7910, no pylons, 9979kg) and got 20.26 at 840km/h for 8.887G, or ~93% is HAF value. the Lot 20 data from the GAO doc (2.7.2.7910, no pylons, 70% fuel as the stores carried in GAO doc have weight of roughly 10% fuel but next to no drag) and got 18.68 at 790kh/m for 7.724G, or 97% of GAO the equivalent Block 50 to the GAO doc (2.7.2.7910, pylons, 60% fuel, pylons added weight and drag approximating weight and drag of the four missiles) and got 16.935 at 955km/h for 8.45G, or 88% of my estimate. Admittedly this config deviates the most from my estimate config as well. In the end this chart indicates that the F-16 is underperforming and the F/A-18 is not overperforming. I can't wait to see the Viper "brought up to speed"

There is a specified configuration (DI) and Weight. I included it in my post. And you are right, there are no EM charts publicly available, so for the public this is the only government document that discusses performance. This is literally the only official data we have. The document also talks about accelerations, dynamic thrust, and many other things. I do have data on the E/F and the -400 powered C/D (we have the -402) and it all lines up.

You brought up a lot of great points that I would like to reply to. GS did a fantastic job with the Viper in that video. Personally I see the use of flaps, manual wing sweep, or the G paddle as evidence of a piss poor pilot. I never use such things myself. Now, before I go further forgive me for presuming you also have the HAF -1. Well I am home now so I can check my sources. "Navy Aviation: F/A-18E/F will provide marginal operational improvement at high cost" is the GAO document. https://books.google.com/books?id=XCcLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=F/A-18E+sustained+turn&source=bl&ots=VDPtcyELXn&sig=UJf5CawaEWf0_qeoPm5grVY5xT4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBWoVChMI5OyCgpmLyQIVTzqICh1-KQ9S#v=onepage&q=F%2FA-18E sustained turn&f=false page 29 engine F/A-18C/D F404-GE-402 EPE page 30 "At sea level the F/A-18C's sustained turn rate is 19.2 degrees per second... (Super Hornet comparison follows) The instantaneous bleed rate of the F/A-18C is 54 knots per second... (Super Hornet comparison follows) * Weapons load is 2 AIM-9 and 2 AIM-120 carried externally, no external fuel tanks and 60 percent fuel remaining" Ah, I was wrong on the loadout. So here we have a government document given a sample of what OUR F/A-18 should do. Again, remember the F/A-18A/B and early C/D did NOT have this motor and THIS is where I suspect all the "hornet can't rate" comes from. I also do NOT think the CURRENT F-16FM is right. Others have tested and found the STR is correct until you get to ~.35M and lower, but the bleed rate at ITR pulls feels way too high to me. On to the HAF-1! It has been a few years since I did this comparison initially so I am excited to go through the numbers again. I often hear that the Block 50 in US service is lighter than the HAF model, so lets say the Basic Weight is 19,200 instead of 20,000 (page B1-6) Basic DI is 4. 60% internal fuel is 4,297lbs, ammo is 287lb. This gives us a clean weight of 23,784lb. Now add AIM-120s to the wingtips and AIM-9Ms to the outboard stations (I doubt the GAO was using AIM-9Xs and I want to be fair). page B1-7 gives us 196lb and 12DI for the AIM-9 Launder and adapter for stations 2 and 8. Page B1-8 tells us that AIM-9M for stations 2 and 8 uses a rack of "LAUNCHER+ADAPTER" so we have the right thing. It also says we add 390lb and 10 DI for the two AIM-9Ms, and 682lb and 0DI for the wingtip AIM-120s. Altogether we have a weight of 25,052lb and a DI of 26. Page B8-54, Sea Level AB DI 0. Max STR is 21.75dps at 9G and 0.69M. Using the GW adjustment to go from 22k to 25k we see -3.2dps. This drops us to 18.55dps. This coincides with just above the +400fps Ps line. If we follow that to 9G we reach 19.3dps at 0.79M. We also see at worst a ~-500fps PS on the ITR line at 0.5G. This is -0.89G deceleration or -17kts/second. but we need to average this with DI-50. Page B8-65, Sea level, AB DI 50. Max STR is 18.5dps at 0.81M and 9G. GW adjust from 26k to 25k brings it +.75dps so 19.25. This is above the 9G line so following the shape of the Ps=0 line back to 9G we reach 19.2dps at 0.78M. max deceleration is ~-700 and 0.6M for -20knots/sec. Averaging these we see that the Viper SHOULD have a best STR around 19.25dps at 0.785M and 9G and at lose ~18-19knots sec at worst of max pull (it would take a while to reach that speed for max negative Ps. If we compare this to the GAO Block 20, 19.2dps at ~0.65M (7.5G assumed) we see that the STR should be nearly equal and the radius of the Hornet will be tighter. The viper will lose less in a hard turn and as it is flying at a higher speed can more easily use the vertical. My biggest problem with the Viper is only FM tangent. G tolerance of the pilot. The reclined nature of the seat means 9G should only feel like 7.8G in terms of blackout. This is not modeled at all. THIS is why Viper pilots could use 9G more liberally than anyone else. THIS is what lets them fight fast. I am so glad that ED is working the FM and I can't wait to see what they come up with as what we have does not let the Viper fight the way it should. I'm glad you questioned my source and I am happy to share.

I am one of these people. There is documentation out there that says a Lot 20 with 2 AIM-9s and 50% (60%? don't have the paper on me) fuel has an STR of 19.3dps. The Block 50, from the HAF manual, and weight corrected at DI0, is pretty much the same. The difference being that the Hornet does this at a lower G so the same rate in a smaller radius is ideal for both offensive and defensive 2-C fighting. This is documented fact. The "Slow" hornets are the As and pre Lot 20s. Now, a Block 30 would eat this things lunch, but a Block 50 matches it. Same with the F-14B. With all wings and flaps on auto, an F-14 with four Sparrows, four Sidewinders, and 50% fuel hits 16dps at 5,000ft. accounting for weight reduction ONLY dropping all but two Sidewinders would increase this to 16.8, account for drag too and this could exceed 17 easily. drop to sea level and it could be 17.5-18, all at under .5M for a tight radius. Fun thing about that video too, he complains that the F-16 gets easily out-rated by the Tomcat, and then he proceeds to win the 2c fight three times in a row.

That second one is a REAL problem. I let off to build speed from 300 to 450 and next thing I know I'm blacking out at 600.

4. Fortunate Son switch

Just a technical note, it is not a low wing-loaded fighter as wing loading is defined as weight divided by reference wing area (78-129lb/ft^2 depending on fuel and load). What you are getting at is the high lift coefficient of the F-14 wing (I recently tested this in sim at 2.2). It is a low lift-loaded fighter, basically wing loading divided by lift coefficient (35.5-58.6lb/ft^2). By comparison the F-16 wing loading is 66.6-102lb/ft^2 and lift loading is, assuming 1.61Clmax at 25 AoA, 41.4-63.3lb/ft^2. Of course you can't reach 25 AoA unless you are at 1G. for 9G you are at 15AoA or less so lift loading there is 55.6-85lb/ft^2 assuming 1.2Clmax. But yes, the Tomcat is a beast horizontally, use the vertical.

Veteran AI MiG-29 is near unbeatable 2-C. I end up in a descending scissors and hope he has to transition first and get him then, when using the F-16 at least. FM is under review right now.