SpaceMonkey037

I'm no engineer, but think of the PLA as a percentage. MIL gives you 100% thrust without AB, aka maximum thrust. IDLE gives you 0 % thrust of what the engine can deliver, you're obviously getting some thrust, but it's the least possible with the engine still running. Mid setting demands 50% thrust. etc. etc. The power lever angle tells the MEC what percentage of thrust output you want. In PRI the MEC will then give that command to the DEC (digital engine controller) which will then use sensors and fancy math stuff to tell the MEC how much fuel to give etc. The DEC also controls some things like AB fuel flow, nozzle angle etc.. Just, the power lever angle gives you a percentage of the maximum thrust the engine can deliver, that simple. Safe flights!

That was not what he meant what so ever. Imo, my explanation for why why the fuel flow increases as airspeed increase with throttle in MIL power was pretty good. I added a TL DR for the people skimming through this topic just to give a very brief explanation of what I was referring to in my post. You quoted the TL DR part, which wasn't perfect, i admit that, but it was only meant as a brief summary of what I was talking about so it shouldn't be expected that is is perfect either. In the post I stated the exact reason for the fuel flow changes, yet in your next post you seem to have taken the TL DR a bit too seriously and used it to argue for why the F-16 is incorrectly modelled, completely ignoring the statements made in the meat of my post. For that reason it wouldn't come as a surprise that you might have very quickly skimmed through our posts. Of course we want the best for our sim, but the issue you're describing must be assumed to be correct behaviour based on the statements which have been made by, what seems like, people with sufficient knowledge on the matter. You don't seem to have any sources stating anything about how a jet engine should operate in different environments, let alone the actual F-110-GE129 engine. If the issue isn't that you're not reading, but rather that you're not understanding, please ask about the unclear things so that we can aid you in understanding. I think everyone who's posted on this topic have an interest in heling people learn and making the sim better, and no doubt that it has it's flaws, but pointing out mistakes without sufficient backing won't get you far. I hope you are able to understand this and that we can continue the discussion sensibly. Safe flights!

I am unsure about exactly how the fuel flow increases, all I know is why. As mentioned in my previous post, fuel flow is regulated by the amount of air available. At ground level you have the most dense air, meaning you will be able to supply the engine with a lot of fuel without drowning it. At higher altitudes the air is less dense and so the engine can't handle as much fuel, speed will increase the available air, but if you're going very slow it might not help that much. Because of this it is definitely possible do dip beneath 10000pph.

The throttle simply gives commands to the main engine controller about the desired thrust. MIL power (the AB detent) giving you the most thrust available without AB, and idle giving you the least. The main engine controller controls fuel flow to the engine, nozzle position and the inlet guide vanes. The main engine controller controls these three things so to always keep the engine within envelope and to give you the desired thrust. At high alt for example there isn't as much air, so the engine can't burn as much fuel and so the fuel flow will be less. As you accelerate, deaccelerate etc, the parameters change and the main engine controller must compensate for this by changing for example the fuel flow. That is the reason for why, when you're accelerating, you will see changes in the fuel flow rate. To make this more logical: MIL power (the AB detent) tells the MEC (main engine controller) that you want max available thrust without AB, as stated above. The MEC will then supply the engine with the highest amount of fuel possible without drowning the engine. The amount of fuel possible to supply to the engine is limited by the amount of oxygen available. A lot of oxygen means that you can supply the engine with a lot of fuel without drowning the engine as the fuel will be able to burn. Little available oxygens means that the engine won't be able to burn as much fuel and the MEC will compensate for this by giving the engine less fuel. When you're low on speed, and then go throttle MIL, you command the MEC to give max thrust. It will then supply the engine with the maximum fuel without drowning the engine. Gradually when your speed increases, available air also increases and the MEC will supply the engine with more fuel to take advantage of this, meaning that you always get the maximum available thrust. At some point your speed will cap out where the engine is either receiving the maximum possible fuel flow, or the MEC will reach a balance where there isn't enough air to increase the fuel flow. Either way you will reach unaccelerated flight. TL DR: Fuel flow rate varies based on available air and throttle setting. It is normal behaviour that fuel flow will increase when accelerating straight and level. I might have slight inaccuracies on places where the DEC (digital engine control) actually controls instead of the MEC, other than that everything should be valid.

Can you link that paper?

Who are "they"?

Yeah, we have the correct panel being the IFF control panel. The IFF control panel is the newer panel of the two.

Would highly recommend to have a checklist in your knee board. I've made one that is supposed to be very realistic while also being intuitive, so feel free to download it! version29_STANDARD.pdf

When switching from main gen power to EPU gen power, it is pretty much the same as quickly moving a power plug from one socket to another. In the F-16 this has a big chance of messing up the INS because it doesn't get any power. Thankfully, the engineers though of this and gave the INS a battery. iirc the battery lasts for about 10 seconds, enough for a power change. The battery uses a good 10-15 ish hours to recharge mid-flight. In dcs as of now it does not seem like our INS has a battery modelled. Overall there are so many flaws in the emergency systems in our F-16 that I don't really see the point in "bug fixing" these things. The best thing ED can do is to halt progression of all other F-16 systems and just focus on emergency systems, because you really do need all the emergency systems. Only having a few doens't make much sense. It's like parachuting, it doesn't help to have a correctly modelled string to open the parachute, if you don't even the parachute modelled. I hope ED understands this problem, and that they take the correct approach when resolving it. All in all I honestly think that emergency systems shouldn't be a prioritisation right now, it's way more important to have the base aircraft working. However, once you have a good base aircraft modelled I think developing the emergency systems should be a priority. However, most of the community will probably dislike this way of developing the aircraft as most people only seem to care for weapon system development. Simply because of what systems the community wants, we will probably see ED putting emergency systems at the bottom of the prioritisation list, sadly. Safe flights.

If you're just rough trimming you will not notice any problems with the trim system at all, but when you want really precise trim the clicks are clearly noticeable. Let's say you fly with a symmetrical loadout, no TGP. You can easily get the aircraft to fly dead straight, if you mess up the trim again it's not a big deal to get it back to perfect again. While, if you slap a TGP on the aircraft, you will never be able to find that perfect trim. You're either rolling slight right or slightly left, and always the same amount. IRL there is no such thing as perfect trim, you're always rolling to one side or the other because the trim isn't in clicks, it's smooth. You can reduce the roll rate to almost none, but you will never get it perfect like you do if you fly in DCS with a symmetrical loadout. This should be changed, but I think ED has confused what their SMEs are saying. Most pilots say that the trim panel should be used for precise trimming and the trim switch is only rough trim, but this doesn't mean that the trim switch should work in clicks. IRL it's super smooth, almost impossible to hit the same trim setting twice. I hope that makes some sense. Anyway, not a big deal, but it's noticeable if you're looking for it. Safe flights!

Yes, it does trim in 4 directions, however the way it trims is incorrect. In game the trim hat trims the aircraft in clicks, meaning that you will often times see yourself in the exact same trim setting. Chances are that if you have an asymmetric loadout the aircraft will never be able to have a good trim. IRL this isn't how it works. IRL, trim is purely a product of time the hat has been held. It's very accurate, no clicks. Chances are you can't get the exact same trim setting two times in a flight. This is why trim is incorrect currently in DCS.

totally agree on everything mentioned ^

even with the trim hat working correctly it won't be much of use for very precise trimming.

the trim hat doesn't work correctly right now, but either way it is super sensitive in the roll axis, so not much you can do about it really. Use the trim wheels located on the trim panel on the left console for finer trim. Safe flights!

Like I said, I am very sure that he has incorrectly aligned his INS. The problem isn't with the datalink, it's with how the INS system is far from correct. As long as you do a semi-correct alignment you will have no issue with datalink.

You're most likely aligning your INS incorretly. I will not explain how to correctly align your INS in this post, but make sure to re-enter the aircrafts coordinates after starting the alignment.

repairing should be irrelevant to whether or not the INS will remember it's coordinates. Like I said, if it doesn't currently work like this I will highly recommend someone to create a bug report on the issue including a track file.

There is not enough available documentation for the F-16A OCU to be able to create an high fidelity module accurately. That is the soul reason for why we won't be seeing one created by ED.

The INS is supposed to show you the coordinates for the position where you shut it down, if this isn't how it's currently modelled it is definitely bug report worthy. A good way to know that you have the correct coordinates is to write down the coordinates on the INS page on a piece of paper pre-shutdown, this ensures that you have your coordinates.

EPU checks should be performed before doing INS alignment as the EPU check changes main power from the main generator to the EPU generator, meaning that if things are a bit slow you will loose power for a split second and it might mess with the INS resulting in you having to align again.

No... non of those reasons seem realistic, at least for shut down. It's just very nonsensical to do so. It's like turning off a light by first pulling the plug out from an adapter before plugging the adapter out from the wall. It just a step that has no effect on your end result. Just pull the adapter out of the wall straight. (I'm not that good with metaphors, sorry.)

of course, was hoping for a document name, but I fully respect any decision to not share that.

If you can't back up your information with a document name then this will be the end of the discussion. Additionally, and MLU checklist isn't as accurate for the block 50 aircraft as an actual block 50 checklist is. Lastly I don't see any reason at all for going ENG FEED - OFF, seems very strange to me to do that.

We're getting off topic. Do you have any documentation that says to turn ENG FEED knob to OFF when shutting down? If so please give me the document name. I don't need anything more. If you can't prove that this step is part of any procedure then your information must be regarded as invalid.

I don't think I understood that. Do you have anything to prove otherwise? That not all F-16 operating squadrons use the TO's?