oldtimesake

If you want to do 2 circle in F-16, I suggest doing it above 10000 feet. 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. 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.

Did you see that? A DCS clean F-16C-50 needs 23.3deg AOA to reach 8.5G at mach 0.75, while a loaded real life F-16C-50 needs only 15deg AOA to reach 9G at mach 0.67! WTF is that lift curve slope, ED?

Of course that is done. The performance of the F-16 in-game is not close to the real F-16 in many aspects, for instance: Try acceleration at sea level 300knots-650knots with 21000 lbs total weight. Real vs DCS is 13 vs 15.1 seconds. The DCS F-16 has significantly lower lift curve slope, which requires F-16 to pull more AOA to achieve the same G load, resulting more induced drag, and this has been confirmed by ED:

A real life F-16 at 26000 lbs should be able to pull 9G with 15 deg AOA at Mach 0.67, and pull 9G with much less AOA at Mach 0.83. However in DCS this is not the case. It requires significantly higher AOA to pull the Gs, resulting in more induced drag. 26000lbs (1).trk

Be aware, F-16's turn rate below Mach 0.4 is 1 deg/sec lower than the flight manual. A real life F-16 at 26000 lbs should be able to pull 9G with 15 deg AOA at Mach 0.67, and pull 9G with much less AOA at Mach 0.83. However in DCS this is not the case. It requires significantly higher AOA to pull the Gs, resulting in more induced drag. Check the replay file: 26000lbs (1).trk

The flight model is somewhat broken, according to real life flight manual: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...es-str-testing https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...than-real-life However, as long as you play it to its strength, the F-16 is the No. 1 air to air platform in DCS.

A lot of us have tested the DCS viper, and we know there is a problem from day 1 on release: It turns1 deg /sec lower than the HAF manual below Mach 0.4, both inst. and sustained. Anyone can verify this by loading a 26000 lbs viper with 6 amraams and check with the HAF manual. https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...es-str-testing It seems the devs have been totally lazy or ignorant and won't respond to this problem. Anytime you post this on this forum your will be warned by rule 1.16. I am also pretty sure the lift curve slope in its FM is broken and posted my proof. The moderator simply labels it "reported earlier" and no updates since then: https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/englis...than-real-life

I read this document, and I am pretty sure you mistook something. A 402 motored hornet C with 60% fuel, 2 amraams and 2 aim9s sustains 19.2deg/sec at sea level. A F-16C-50 with same fuel and with 6 amraams sustains 18.5deg/sec. Considering the the loadout difference, they are basically the same. A 402 motored hornet C with 60% fuel, 2 amraams and 2 aim9s sustains 12.3deg/sec at 15000 feet, while in DCS it sustains 13deg/sec. I am pretty sure the DCS hornet is overperformming by 8%.

From a former F-16 and Fulcrum pilot (the name is Fred Clifton): Speed Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16’s high altitude limit is Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design. The MiG-29 has variable geometry inlets to control the shock wave that forms in the inlet and prevent supersonic flow from reaching the engine. The F-16 employs a simple fixed-geometry inlet with a sharp upper lip that extends out beyond the lower portion of the inlet. A shock wave forms on this lip and prevents the flow in the intake from going supersonic. The objective is to keep the air going into the engine subsonic unlike a certain ‘subject matter expert’ on this website who thinks that the air should be accelerated to even higher speeds than the aircraft is traveling. Supersonic air in the compressor section? That’s bad. Both aircraft have the same indicated airspeed limit at lower altitudes of 810 knots. This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned. The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is. It was the researcher’s experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated. The F-16 Block 40 will easily reach 800 knots on the deck. In fact, power must be reduced to avoid exceeding placard limits. The limit is not thrust, as the F-16 has been test flown on the plus side of 900 knots. The limit for the F-16 is the canopy. Heating due to air friction at such speeds will cause the polycarbonate canopy to get soft and ultimately fail.

A real life F-16 at 26000 lbs should be able to pull 9G with 15 deg AOA at Mach 0.67, and pull 9G with much less AOA at Mach 0.83. However in DCS this is not the case. It requires significantly higher AOA to pull the Gs, resulting in more induced drag. 26000lbs.trk

It seems that ED has totally forgotten the FM issue at low speed. This problem exists since day 1 on release

Well just check HAF F-16 manual, that is Mach 2.04 with A/B and Mach 1.05 without A/B

The 1200 ft /sec (72000 ft / min) source: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=53852&sid=7b0df2a840336a2f43c78df3f573f208 So in real life, a F-16C-50 maintains better climb rate in an ascending turn than a Fulcrum in straight line!

You are wrong. The GE-129 powered block 50 is the best climber among all F-16 blocks. According to HAF block 50 flight manual, a block 50 at sea level, clean, 2500 lbs fuel has an initial climb rate of 1200 ft / sec, and still maintaining a 4.5G turn! The 72000 ft /min seems to be a direct conversion of the initial climb rate and does not take the dissipation over altitude into account.

AI have to cheat because they can't out-smart players.

I think there are some misunderstanding. https://www.icas.org/ICAS_ARCHIVE/ICAS1990/ICAS-90-5.10.2.pdf Check Fig. 5 and 10 for delta E. It can be confirmed that the MPO can be used to pitch the H-stab to +/- 25 deg, which is +/-15 deg in normal condition. The F-16 gets out of deep stall by pitch rocking. +25deg deflection alone is not enough to trigger the pitch rocking.

I have read an article about Israel F-16 testing MPO. The H-stab deflects both upward and downward and exceeds the normal 15 deg deflection in both directions (20+). The google scholar service is not available at the moment. I will post the link later.

I didn't pay much attention if it is implemented in DCS. Back in the days when I played BMS I used MPO extensively. It works for both upward pitch and downward pitch, in game and in real life:

And, if you really want more alpha on F-16, check the MPO (manual pitch override). I am sure its craziness is beyond your imagination. Cobra is a joke by comparison.

Well, I recently checked again the mighty thrust vectored X-31 documentary and found something interesting: 1. F/A-18C and F-14D all lost to X-31, with considerable exchange ratio disadvantage. 2. F-15C/16C gained favorable exchange ratio against X-31. So my point is, the way real fighter pilot flies is different from sim players. Sim players tend to pull the stick all the way backward thus those who excels at slow speed have an edge. Real fighter pilots know better energy management than us, and they do not go blackout after 3 second in 7G (DCS hahahaha)

Former F-16 pilot comments on F-16 vs F-14: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=165 The reality is the F-16 dominates the F-14 regardless of block. Heavier blocks usually have more thrust so the Ps effect of the extra weight is somewhat negated. They may lose a little turn rate when the limiter kicks in (say 18.9 versus 19) The BLK42 (PW220 not 229) is the worst but all of the blocks have grown in weight over the years. Still, over a dynamic maneuvering environment, they will still dominate the F-14. All of them. Lets just look at the diagram HB posted of turn rate and radius of the F-14, 15, and 16 where he asserts that the F-14 will be able to turn inside the F-15, 16 and keep a guns solution. Lets assume to begin that HB's absurd assumption that airplanes arrive at a merge with some specific airspeed that he seems to believe is their perfect AS. So the Tomcat shoots of the CAT and accelerates to .61 mach and flys into battle. The F-16 takes off and accelerates to .86 mach to enter the fray. Somehow magically the Tomcat arrives behind the F-16 at 10K feet. To follow his logic, the F-16 turns at just over 7G to sustain just over 14 degrees per second and the Tomcat turns inside and guns his brains out.......HMMMMM Nope. If I looked back over my shoulder at 10K and .86M at a Tomcat behind me at .61M and I was still alive (how did he get there and I'm not dead?) I would say, WOW it's my birthday! Right now as fast as I can write it I would be at 9G, 18 DPS rapidly increasing to 19 DPS as I slow down. In the next 10 seconds I have gone 180+ degrees of turn. If he stays at his Ps=0 and 14.1 DPS he's turned 140 degrees and is 40 degrees in lag. I can't translate the 800-1000 -Ps the F-16 has during that turn but I can tell you over 23 years of flying the F-16 that I would be around 330-350 KCAS (about .61+) still doing about the 14 DPS of the Tomcat at Ps=0, looking back over my shoulder at the top of his airplane (and my radius is now down around 2000). Lets assume he did, as HB seems to believe possible, pull to 9G also to try to stay with me. Assuming the aircraft is aerodynamically capable of 9G and the wings did not pull off, I would extrapolate his turn rate out to probably 20+ but it would be a very ITR (there is as reason why it's called INSTANTANEOUS turn rate) because his Ps would be so high that he would hit his lift limit line and go downhill in airspeed so fast that he would quickly be in trouble (notice the Ps=0 line never intersects the lift limit line on the F-14 EM chart). Now lets add in the real world he knows nothing about and that makes all the difference in the world. That break turn I do isn't level...its slightly descending so I preserve more of my energy than a purely level turn. So I am faster at the 180 still with the 40+ angular advantage. I also have a little more airspeed that I can use to translate into a slightly climbing turn where my radius reduces further, my rate drops off but I have 40 degrees of advantage to work with and my Ps is still better than his (I'm paying less for everything I do, thank you PW and GE). He's getting worried now because he started out looking at my AB can and now he's looking at the top of my airplane. So maybe he pulls even harder (well he's already sliding down that lift limit line towards 150 KCAS where he is still at negative Ps). I can go to 140 KCAS, level turn and Ps=0. I have had many defensive BFM engagements with F-14 and F-15. The result is always the same. 360-540 degrees later the F-14 is being gunned. The F-15 isn't yet but I'm becoming offensive and in USAF we call a KIO for role reversal so I never get there. So he can extrapolate all he wants but he can't give the F-14 warp drive and G-limits the jet isn't certified for and some how assert by cherry picking one data point from the EM chart of three airplanes that the F-14 is better. He'll say I'm another pilot who doesn't know what I'm talking about and I don't care. And Zero can't take some pilot's assertion that the Hornet has better nose pointing capability and turn it into a hover craft that can pivot 360 spherical degrees in a furball and shoot its way out of a fight. How you going to argue with that? So, let them have their "Nerd Talk" and let it go.

Ok, seems the video was done under non-standard atmosphere. The DCS F-16 model looks legit. This thread can be closed.

That is a block 52+ chart, not block 50. Pay attention to the engine, and be ware of rule 1.16

The problem is that I don't have a joystick and mainly use keyboard. I can't control the AOA precisely. It would be greatly appreciated if anyone could help me making such a track file, with the following condition: 26000 lbs weight, sea level, M0.83, maintain 15 deg AOA for a couple of seconds.

Hi, the video is available again by this link: Please investigate