Spurts

Fascinating. So improvements in on-board power could absolutely increase the maximum range even if nothing else changes, albeit at reduced kinematic capability. Thank you!

The EX is just the SA/QA with EPAAWS. The R&D for the FBW system on the EX was paid for either by Saudi or Qatar. That is also why it uses F110s instead of F100s. USAF/Pentagon/Congress didn't want to pay for any new certification testing to save costs so the EX is what Saudi/Qatar paid for other than EPAAWS (pretty sure SA and QA have DEWS, but I could be wrong). BTW, thank you for your first hand knowledge on this subject.

The E, even without CFTs, is a few thousand pounds heavier. WITH CFTs it is far, far, heavier. The E has the same wing as the C so that wing has to work harder for every G, adding drag and reducing available G. If he was flying an older E, it even had the same engines.

Where is this listed? Not saying it's wrong or right I just want to know where it came from.

very true, and 120s of power vs 180s is HUGE!

I did some experiments with this in the past with a missile-flight simulator I made. Say a C-5 has a default loft of 5 degrees and gets X range. If I take the same missile, give it a 10 degree loft, call it a C-7 (I know there are actual differences but I am talk kinematics), and it gets 1.5X range. I chuck it up to 15 degrees loft and it goes to 2X range and I call it a D. I don't actually have my data on hand, but I took a "short ranged" AMRAAM and drastically improved it's range by increasing loft. Side effect? I had to improve my midcourse guidance algorithm to prevent a particularly high/fast AIM-120D shot from simply sailing over the target as the fins couldn't get it down fast enough.

certainly, 1 radial G will give a turn rate whether it comes from a 1G (plane body reference) condition at 90 degrees of bank or from a level 1.41G turn.

Fair enough, it was just something I noticed. That's a good final version as it incorporates the 32.2ft/s^2 for the gravity, 180/Pi for radians per second to degrees per second, and the conversion from nm/h to ft/s. I was referencing the engineering version. the Sqrt(G^2-1) is how you get Gradial for a level turn.

So, everyone likes to reference that one F-16 manual to compare their own test data. Has no one noticed that in that manuals turn rate diagrams that even 1G is listed with a turn rate? as the turn rate equation is (G^2-1)^.5/V, and I am ignoring the g acceleration and radians to degrees on purpose, than 1G should have 0 turn rate. That is because that equation assumed you are not losing altitude. So why does the manual show a turn rate for 1G? I am left to think it assumed you are at 90 degree bank and ALL G is radial and you lose altitude no matter what. "But Spurt, you idiot, Sustained Turn /Ps=0 means you aren't losing speed or altitude!" Well, it doesn't say Sustained Turn, it says Ps=0. If Ps due to altitude loss is -100ft/s and Ps due to speed gain is 100ft/s then total Ps is indeed 0. I didn't write the charts, so I don't know, but that is the easiest answer I can see for having a 1G turn rate listed. Which means everyone complaining about the Ps under 0.5M... you know, there 1G starts to have a real impact, might want to see what happened if they subtract the 1G turn rate from the Ps=0 turn rate to see what actual Sustained Turn Rate should look like and see if that suddenly lines up.

This is how I fly the F-14 half the time. This is also my SEAD tactic against the SA-10.

Thanks @fat creason!

Follow up, after a few fights I can say that it turns so tightly and handles at such low speeds that trying to turn inside it requires a stalled rudder turn (which prevents accurate gun tracking) and a vertical extension needs to be carefully timed because if you wait too long it will pull the nose back up when you dive on it and shoot you in the face. That 37mm is no joke. I am having to relearn everything. What kills the MiG-29 will get you killed against the MiG-15, and I'm pretty sure what will kill the MiG-15 will get you killed against a MiG-29.

So what is interesting to me is the disparity between the AoAs. An Ace Su-27 will hold 10.9 while an Ace F-15/MiG-29 will hold 18-18.5. This makes the AI Flankers baby seals ripe for clubbing. The MiG-15 Ace won its best of three matches against the MiG-15 Veteran (2/0), MiG-19 Ace (2/0), F-5 Ace (2/1), JF-17 Veteran (2/0), and MiG-29 Ace (2/0). It is the tightest turning AI Jet in the game it seems.

@captain_dalan I'll let you know what I see when I get to those fights.

So I ran a few tests of AI v AI, Ace v Veteran, same type. Ace MiG-15s and MiG-19s consistently gunned down the Veterans in a best of 3 engagement. Veteran MiG-21 and F-15 got one kill against the Ace equivalent and the remaining matched ended in mid-air collision or mutual ejection due to fuel starvation. So far it seems like the SFM has an AoA for best sustained turn. Ace AI ride that AoA and Veteran AI ride just below. Neither exceed their given AoA even when the geometry says they should.

I had an older PC when I was running 2.6. I upgraded the PC around the same time 2.7 dropped. I only bring that up because I don't know which is responsible, but I can spot the smoky MiG-29 visually in VR (old CV1) at near ~20nm now (known general heading, against white clouds, best case conditions), I used to have trouble picking it up past 6nm. I wonder how bad a MiG-15/F-5 will be

@captain_dalan thanks for the summary. A small plane like a MiG-15 would pose additional challenge in that it is a smaller target. Maybe I will set up AI v AI tourny brackets and the winner gets to be my punching bag. LOL.

@lax22 Why the S in particular? I will have to check what my adversary is currently when I change the B to an A.

agreed

@draconus and @Gunslinger22 I guess I thought the head should be against the headrest. When I reset it for what I think "right" should be I notice that when I look up I am looking between the loops of the ejection handle. Photos indeed show you both are right and the pilot sits forward, the handles would be slightly behind the pilots eyes if they look up without leaning back.

Ah, maybe that's what I have to do, go to the A model and lose that great thrust of the B I agree. The only thing the Hornet has, kinematically, is that smooth nose authority. I only take one out of every four "shots" because I can't quite get my nose where I need it, but I have the patience to let it get there eventually.

I used to use the F-15C as my opponent but I found it easier to kill than the Fulcrum, granted this was back in 2.5 I think. I don't want to do missiles because AFAIK the AI will always try for a face shot and not actually merge.

Hey all. Just wondering what you all think the best challenge is for 1v1 BFM as far as the AI planes. Currently beating Ace MiG-29 through guns on a good match or fuel starvation on a bad match (I take off from Batumi and they take off from Kobuleti so we have maximum fighting fuel).

It would be nice if there was something that allowed the default to be changed.

You already have it, thats why the Hornet has such a good sustained turn