oldtimesake

I am sure you will be more impressed if you test the PS bleed at mach 0.45 or 0.4. It is 3 times as high as that in flight manual.

You may get used to the following question: "what is the ps at air speed v and turn rate omega?" However, this is not a valid question. The correct question should be: "what is the ps at air speed v and normal load factor Ny?" This is because the ps is determined by air speed and normal load factor (regardless of the aircraft attitude), but it is not determined by air speed and turn rate (dependent on aircraft attitude). I convert normal load factor to "horizontal turn rate" instead of of "turn rate" because horizontal turn rate, the term alone, implies the attitude is fixed, the turn rate is comparable, and is not dependent by attitude. The following question is valid: "what is the ps at air speed v and horizontal turn rate omega?" What you are reading from the Tacview is turn rate, not horizontal turn rate. If the airspeed and normal load factor are fixed, the horizontal turn rate is also fixed, but the turn rate is not, it is dependent on the attitude. If you are facing downward (inverted flying, belly up), the turn rate is slightly higher than horizontal turn rate, because the gravity is contributing to the centripetal acceleration.

My guess: The turn rate problem in tacview is that it calculates the turn rate, not horizontal turn rate. The former is dependent on aircraft attitude, while the latter is not. If you fly inverted or your bank angle is superior than 90 deg, the former is slightly higher than the latter.

I am sure you will be more impressed if you test the PS bleed below mach 0.45. It is 3 times as high as that in flight manual. Your normal load factor = 7.7G. For horizontal turning, you need 1G vertical component to compensate for the gravity, so the horizontal component is slightly inferior than 7.7G.

Sure. Speed > 191.4m/s (due to IAS) Normal load factor = 7.7G. So the centripetal acceleration = square root (7.7^2 - 1) = 7.63G = 7.63 * 9.8 = 74.774m/s^2 turn rate = centripetal acceleration / speed < 74.774 / 191.4, which is 0.39 rad or 22.4 deg /sec. Please check the chart, at 22.4deg/sec turn rate there is no way it gets near 200 ft /sec ps bleed. One more thing: since your are bleeding both altitude and speed, your equivalent ps bleed is in fact higher than 319 ft /sec. (319 is calculated from altitude loss alone)

That is incorrect. 372 knots is around mach 0.56 but not accurately mach 0.56. You are in a sensitive region where small change in turn rate results in much higher change in ps. 372knots is 191.4m/s, 7.5G normal load factor results in 7.43G centripedal acceleration, which is 72.84 m / s^2. Turn rate = 72.84/191.4 = 0.3805rad = 21.8deg/sec. From the manual chart at 21.8deg/sec the ps should not significantly exceed 100 ft/sec. Bear in mind I didn't even counted the fact that true air speed is slightly higher than IAS which will down grade the turn rate (and the ps bleed rate) even more.

The turn rate can be calculated from speed and G load. If the turn rate reading is incorrect you can calculate it your self. I know the tacview turn rate has some issue but I never use them directly. turn rate = centripetal acceleration (in SI) / speed (in SI)

Using your numbers: Start of turn: T= 1:27, Altitude = 2077, IAS = 372, AoA = 16.8, G = 7.5 End of turn: T = 1:31, Altitude = 800, IAS = 361, AoA = 18.8, G = 7.5 2077 - 800 = 1277 / 4 = 319 FPS You are holding around 21.8-22deg/sec at about Mach 0.56 and according to the flight manual your ps loss should be around 100-200 feet/sec. The DCS F-16 is suffers twice as much.

Please notice: the weight conversion table on the flight manual is simplified and linearized. For more accurate calculation, one should apply the law that the normal load factor is inverse proportional to the weight.

Here is what I got: 6 AMRAAM, WT = 26000 lbs, Mach = 0.4, DCS F-16 sustains 15deg/sec, while a real F-16 sustains 16deg/sec. A clean DCS F-16 needs 23.3deg AOA to reach 8.5G at Mach 0.75, while a real F-16 (loaded with 6 ARMAAMS, wt = 26000lbs) requires 15 deg AOA to reach 9G at Mach 0.67. Confirmed from other players:

You should also show the corresponding AOA, otherwise the lift curve slope error could not be visualized (which increases the speed bleed). You can lock fuel to a specific weight so there's no need to make compensation. By ps < 0, we mean that you should test if the viper really bleeds speed at the corresponding ps number, which requires timing. It seems that you are just measuring the peak ITR. We need this because the lower lift curve slope will result in higher speed bleed, which can not be visualized by your test above. Here are my suggestions: load 6 amraams (DI=50) and 55%-60% fuel to make the total weight = 26000 lbs, lock it. and disable blackout. Try measure its sustained turn rate at Mach = 0.4, Mach = 0.5, Mach = 0.7, Mach = 0.8. Show its corresponding AOA. I am sure you will find the turn rate below Mach = 0.5 is lower than flight manual, and the viper needs huge amount of AOA compared to the 15 deg/9G on flight manual.

They just confirmed the peak turn rate. In fact the turn rate below Mach 0.5 is always below flight manual.

Guess what, ED used to do things right. DCS F-16 on release was a potent dogfighter (for a while) which turns surprisingly well. The sustained G curve was slightly lower than flight manual below Mach 0.5 but the error was less than 4%. Grim Reaper used to make videos like this and it had pretty good win rate against F14/15/18/Su. These were the good old days and all of a sudden a patch halved viper's life curve slope.

Installed thrust and static thrust are not the same thing.

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=53852&sid=8cb59b759f14db5dc52cb736f422f712 This is in line with my experience: fight above 10000 feet and Mach 0.8 and you have a sustained G advantage (12.8%) over your opponent.

But that won't explain why F-16 gets more performance punishment than F-18 from the pylons.

For the lift curve issue, I strongly recommend ED to read this paper: "Webb, T.S., Kent, D.R., Webb, J.B. Correlation of F-16 aerodynamics and performance predictions with early flight test results. Agard Conference Proceedings. n 242, 1977" (This paper is before year 1982 so it does not violate forum law 1.16) A real F-16 has a lift curve slope of 0.1 below Cl=0.6, and a lift curve slope of 0.09 below Cl=0.8. In DCS it's like 0.04~0.05. (Some letters are removed but you can guess the units) Remember this is for Mach>0.9. Below that speed RSS aircraft (relaxed stability) generally has even higher lift curve slope due to reduced aerodynamic center shift.

The DCS F-16 is right about only one thing: its sustained rate of turn above Mach 0.8. To avoid blackout I recommend doing 2 circle fight above 10000 feet and above Mach 0.8. It actually out-rates most other jets in this condition. It seems the DCS F-16 also suffers more from empty pylons than F-18 (performance-wise).

Now the DCS F-16 required twice the amount of AOA to reach the same G compared to real F-16 block50, resulting in more induced drag (could be a factor of 4). Confirmed by ED The DCS F-16 also suffers from lower acceleration than the real one. Either the thrust or the drag or both are broken:

From General Dynamics: block50 is about 1200lbs heavier than block30 in Basic Flight Configuration

Fun fact: If you put just empty pylons on the F-16, its STR decreases by ~10%. If you put pylons on the F-18, its STR stays the same. -------------------- THIS IS RIDICULOUS

F-16 vs Mig-29 energy maneuverability from test report: https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=53852&sid=0926774443d861755c0466d79ceeb001 This is in line with my experience: fight above 10000 feet and Mach 0.8 and you have a sustained G advantage (12.8%) over your opponent.

You are obviously referring to the HFFM data in BMS. Block50 viper in BMS has much better energy characteristics than that in DCS. The only thing DCS is right about is its sustained turn above Mach 0.8 / 10000 feet, and that is the only way I found to win a 2C fight.

The peak STR in F-16 is achieved at relatively high speed at high G and you go black out easily in current DCS high g mechanics. There is no planned fix for that I am afraid. Above 10000 feet there is less chance of going black out and with 6 amraams on board you can still sustain more than 14.2 deg / sec in an F-16 at mach 0.85. Try other jets in similar loadout it is hard to sustain even 13.7 deg / sec. If the enemy tries to go down and lure you do the same thing, don't take the bait. Stay above 10000 feet and wait for sufficient lateral separation, cash in some energy for angle. I leaned it the hard way. F-18, JF-17 and F-14 all have trailing edge flaps deployed automatically in high g turns, which helps them to turn tighter at lower speed. F-15/16's FCS don't do that. If you do it manually you need a multi-threading brain and I don't recommend that.

The energy addition issue is that the F-16 in DCS requires twice the amount of AOA to pull the same G compared to the real F-16 (induced drag has a factor of 4). This has been confirmed by ED and they are working on this, but no date is promised. Also the acceleration issue: