Balancing the F-14

[GGTharos]

@ Lunaticfringe,

 

As you know (regardless of "training efectiveness"), NATO / USA entities, are not exactly the most exempt when comparing their products with the ones from other nations.

 

What?

 

@ Hummingbird,

 

Why would I or anyone else believe more the "word" of any NATO military entity, than the word of other foreign country military entity ?

Are German Air Force pilots who flew the MiG-29, and they stated 28 deg / sec as ITR for it, random people for you ?

Are US Air Force pilots who specifically stated the MiG-29's superior nose authority, random people ?

 

Your anecdotes are random points and discussions, and nothing more. The official performance documents are exactly this: Official documents produced by test flying the aircraft.

 

So as you can see, even with the much pride and appreciation I have for the machine the F-16 is, I do not insist in it being something superior to other AC, contrary to you - just because one likes it more being that way.

 

That's a fine position, but a position has no bearing on facts.

 

Let's run that down, shall we:

 

Fact: Certain pilots mentioned certain performance figures.

Fact: Performance charts are created from collecting test flight data (and BTW, NATO, or, more specifically, the USAF has test flown MiG-29's and Su-27's - they have some pretty darned accurate performance figures)

 

Which one do you think is more accurate?

 

It's not like the -1's tell the whole story: There are performance figures that they don't mention at all, eg. steady state rudder turn. But what they do record isn't exactly up to you to dispute.

 

Let me put it another way: Since those performance figures are collected by test flying the given aircraft, to prove them wrong you'll have to fly the aircraft and show that the collection of those figures was incorrect.

[Hummingbird]

Are US Air Force pilots who specifically stated the MiG-29's superior nose authority, random people ?

 

I don't think you understand what nose authority is a reference for....

[Top Jockey]

What?

 

 

 

Your anecdotes are random points and discussions, and nothing more. The official performance documents are exactly this: Official documents produced by test flying the aircraft.

 

 

 

That's a fine position, but a position has no bearing on facts.

 

Let's run that down, shall we:

 

Fact: Certain pilots mentioned certain performance figures.

Fact: Performance charts are created from collecting test flight data (and BTW, NATO, or, more specifically, the USAF has test flown MiG-29's and Su-27's - they have some pretty darned accurate performance figures)

 

Which one do you think is more accurate?

 

It's not like the -1's tell the whole story: There are performance figures that they don't mention at all, eg. steady state rudder turn. But what they do record isn't exactly up to you to dispute.

 

Let me put it another way: Since those performance figures are collected by test flying the given aircraft, to prove them wrong you'll have to fly the aircraft and show that the collection of those figures was incorrect.

 

See that's the problem wich leads to lack of credibility:

 

1 - I do not classify other people's opinion as "anecdotes" - typical when one doesn't like to hear different opinion and doesn't have a valid argument.

 

2 - Neither do I claim that my favourite country's Air Force / evaluator squadron / etc. only states the "facts", and foreign coutry's Air Force don't know nothing "because we did test flight the plane"...

So what ? So did the others.

 

3 - Ok then, so, to prove the German Air Force pilots statements are wrong, you'll have to fly the aircraft and show that the collection of their figures was incorrect.

(For example, the 28 deg/sec of max. Instantaneous Turn Rate).

 

Sorry - but this looks like one of those "my country's / favourite jet fighter is better than all other's" kind of thread.

 

Eitherway thank you all for your insight, as I'm not the owner of true facts, and I'm open-minded to different opinions.

[GGTharos]

See that's the problem wich leads to lack of credibility:

 

Your credibility.

 

1 - I do not classify other people's opinion as "anecdotes" - typical when one doesn't like to hear different opinion and doesn't have a valid argument.

 

"a short and amusing or interesting story about a real incident or person"

 

By definition, the things you refer to are anecdotes. The amusing part may be lacking though.

 

2 - Neither do I claim that my favourite country's Air Force / evaluator squadron / etc. only states the "facts", and foreign coutry's Air Force don't know nothing "because we did test flight the plane"...

So what ? So did the others.

 

I didn't claim that. I claimed that the official performance charts are created in a certain way.

 

3 - Ok then, so, to prove the German Air Force pilots statements are wrong, you'll have to fly the aircraft and show that the collection of their figures was incorrect.

(For example, the 28 deg/sec of max. Instantaneous Turn Rate).

 

He would not be the first pilot to mention a single figure which may be taken out of context, or it may be misquoted.

 

Sorry - but this looks like one of those "my country's / favourite jet fighter is better than all other's" kind of thread.

 

What it looks like is that you do not understand that a single anecdote cannot trump an air force's flight-tested performance charts.

[Basher54321]

 

West German Pilots themselves, repeatedly mentioned 28 deg/sec, why would NATO be more legitimate when emiting some different opinion on a rival AC ?

 

 

 

Not trying to be patronizing but all I would say is try to learn a bit about EM charts as a start - see what is happening so you can understand some of the discussion going on here. You will eventually see what the above really means and how misleading it is - (Not really the pilots fault - you simply can't condense the complexities of this into one easy to understand sentence.)

[Top Jockey]

 

...

 

I didn't claim that. I claimed that the official performance charts are created in a certain way.

 

He would not be the first pilot to mention a single figure which may be taken out of context, or it may be misquoted.

 

What it looks like is that you do not understand that a single anecdote cannot trump an air force's flight-tested performance charts.

 

Hello GGTharos,

 

That "maybe taken out of context", tells me you don't quite deny the MiG-29 can reach 28 deg/sec of maximum Instantaneous Turn Rate...

 

A curiosity - in an old post (link at bottom ; post #20) you said:

 

"...Actually, the F-16 can be out-turned by a MiG-29, and an F-15, and an F-18 (which will also out-turn a MiG-29) AT SLOW SPEEDS! At high speeds, everything else seems to out-do it.

Also note that the chart is for a fully loaded MiG, IIRC, a MiG at 13000kg means full fuel.

Those charts, wether from LOMAC or not, follow the real ones very closely as this was the goal of LOMAC..."

 

So, how can the MiG-29 out-turn the F-16, with both inferior Sustained and Instantaneous turn rates ?

 

Feel free to explain me that.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=13765&page=2

[GGTharos]

Actually, I can't even begin to speculate about it because I haven't looked at the EM chart. One pilot saying something is a start, but that is all it is, and it is not guaranteed to be correct.

 

If you want real information, you go to the EM charts. If the pilot saying something is the only information you have, then you're stuck with that ... but otherwise, EM charts supersede anything that's said out in public.

 

Again, here's the difference:

 

'Pilot said this': Anecdote

'EM Chart notes that': Data collected by flying the aircraft. Data that this pilot himself depends on.

 

Also, the MiG-29 can be flown up to 28 deg AoA IIRC. Easy to confuse a couple of numbers in your head. Just saying.

 

Hello GGTharos,

 

That "maybe taken out of context", tells me you don't quite deny the MiG-29 can reach 28 deg/sec of maximum Instantaneous Turn Rate...

[Top Jockey]

Actually, I can't even begin to speculate about it because I haven't looked at the EM chart. One pilot saying something is a start, but that is all it is, and it is not guaranteed to be correct.

 

If you want real information, you go to the EM charts. If the pilot saying something is the only information you have, then you're stuck with that ... but otherwise, EM charts supersede anything that's said out in public.

 

Again, here's the difference:

 

'Pilot said this': Anecdote

'EM Chart notes that': Data collected by flying the aircraft. Data that this pilot himself depends on.

 

Also, the MiG-29 can be flown up to 28 deg AoA IIRC. Easy to confuse a couple of numbers in your head. Just saying.

 

 

My doubt regarding your old post persists:

How can the MiG-29 out-turn the F-16, if it has both inferior Sustained and Instantaneous turn rates ?

 

(link at bottom ; post #20) you said:

 

"...Actually, the F-16 can be out-turned by a MiG-29, and an F-15, and an F-18 (which will also out-turn a MiG-29) AT SLOW SPEEDS! At high speeds, everything else seems to out-do it.

Also note that the chart is for a fully loaded MiG, IIRC, a MiG at 13000kg means full fuel.

Those charts, wether from LOMAC or not, follow the real ones very closely as this was the goal of LOMAC..."

 

 

(Not relevant but I thought it could "be flown" at up to 45 AoA or something like that, and again the " 28 " was the deg/sec max. ITR - but lets leave it aside.)

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=13765&page=2

Edited October 12, 2016 by Top Jockey

[Hummingbird]

13,000 kg is clean with half fuel for the MiG-29G.

 

The advantage the MiG-29 has over the F-16 is the same that the F-18 has over it: nose pointing authority, i.e. it is capable of being flown at a very high AoA without entering a stall. This coupled with the helmet mounted targeting system makes the -29 a very lethal opponent in a WVR fight.

[Basher54321]

 

"...Actually, the F-16 can be out-turned by a MiG-29, and an F-15, and an F-18 (which will also out-turn a MiG-29) AT SLOW SPEEDS!

"

 

 

2006!! :lol:

 

You could at least highlight the end bit instead to put it more into context.

[Top Jockey]

13,000 kg is clean with half fuel for the MiG-29G.

 

The advantage the MiG-29 has over the F-16 is the same that the F-18 has over it: nose pointing authority, i.e. it is capable of being flown at a very high AoA without entering a stall. This coupled with the helmet mounted targeting system makes the -29 a very lethal opponent in a WVR fight.

 

With that I tend to agree.

 

But I was refering to GGTharos mention on the MiG-29 capability of out-turning the F-16, which I believe it can for a small margin... not talking about stalls or helmet mounted sights...

 

And I just don't see how is it possible, with the numbers you presented (below) on the MiG.

That's why I believe mostly in the 28 deg/sec Instantaneous Turn Rate.

 

My point is just about that.

 

...

 

F-16C

Max ITR ~ 26 deg/sec

Max STR ~ 23 deg/sec

 

MiG-29

Max ITR ~ 24 deg/sec

Max STR ~ 21 deg/sec

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Top Jockey

[GGTharos]

My doubt regarding your old post persists:

How can the MiG-29 out-turn the F-16, if it has both inferior Sustained and Instantaneous turn rates ?

 

(link at bottom ; post #20) you said:

 

"...Actually, the F-16 can be out-turned by a MiG-29, and an F-15, and an F-18 (which will also out-turn a MiG-29) AT SLOW SPEEDS! At high speeds, everything else seems to out-do it.

Also note that the chart is for a fully loaded MiG, IIRC, a MiG at 13000kg means full fuel.

Those charts, wether from LOMAC or not, follow the real ones very closely as this was the goal of LOMAC..."

 

If you have a time machine, then I might be able to point you at information available at the time.

If you don't, then I suggest that you discuss something a little more recent instead :)

 

(Not relevant but I thought it could "be flown" at up to 45 AoA or something like that, and again the " 28 " was the deg/sec max. ITR - but lets leave it aside.)

 

Sure, the F-15 can be 'flown' (ok, spiked :) ) to 45AoA too, but no one really recommends it.

 

IIRC the MiG-29 had an AoA limiter change from 26 to 28 deg. And like I said, it's easy to mix up numbers when you're talking to someone. It doesn't matter that he said 'deg/s' after.

[Hummingbird]

With that I tend to agree.

 

But I was refering to GGTharos mention on the MiG-29 capability of out-turning the F-16, which I believe it can for a small margin... not talking about stalls or helmet mounted sights...

 

And I just don't see how is it possible, with the numbers you presented (below) on the MiG.

That's why I believe mostly in the 28 deg/sec Instantaneous Turn Rate.

 

My point is just about that.

 

The problem here is you're confusing ITR and nose pointing authority as being one and the same: they are not the same thing. One refers to the min radius of turn possible (at CLmax) whilst the other refers to at how many degrees of AoA the aircraft can be flown without departing from controlled flight.

[Top Jockey]

The problem here is you're confusing ITR and nose pointing authority as being one and the same: they are not the same thing. One refers to the min radius of turn possible (at CLmax) whilst the other refers to at how many degrees of AoA the aircraft can be flown without departing from controlled flight.

 

No I'm not, those 2 are basic.

(For instance, even before Internet arrive here, "Hornet" from Squadron Signal Publications, describes well enough what nose pointing authority is.)

 

At some posts I do mention different parameters to reinforce my point on that AC capabilities, as many parameters interact between them as you know.

I know what the majority of them are, (but CLmax I'm not seeing right now).

 

But I see what you did there... you're running away from my point - the MiG's instantaneous turn rate. :D

 

And GGTharos is right when he says to move on.

 

Eitherway thank you all for your insight.

[Hummingbird]

I'm not running away Top Jockey, I'm actually trying to educate you but atm you're just not comprehending the info you're being handed it seems. Now that can either be because of the innocent reason that you're just not that well read on how these things work (EM charts, aerodynamics etc) or due to downright denial - I'm not sure which one it is atm, your sudden accusations of me being a fanboy and the constant talk of propoganda has me worried it's the latter though.

 

I'm going to give it one last try though:

 

A high nose pointing authority can, if exploited to the fullest, make it seem like the aircraft is briefly turning at a much higher rate than it really is, when what's really happening is that it's just the nose being swung around that fast, the actual aircraft isn't actually heading in the direction the nose is pointing. In other words the aircraft is basically "high five'ing" the air (as I like to say sometimes) as it goes round the turn, which isn't good for either the smallest complete turning circle or the sustained rate of turn. It's only real purpose in a combat situation is to provide a brief firing solution against a target that is at too steep an angle for you to actually maneuver your aircraft inside his circle - the big dilemma being that if you miss your shot you've just dumped a lot of energy for no reason.

 

Now this is most likely also one of the reasons the MiG-29 usually is limited to 28 deg AoA as anything beyond that would usually just be a quick way of dumping energy.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Hummingbird

[myHelljumper]

Where is the F14 here ?

[probad]

Where is the F14 here ?

i see no problem because "balance" and "f-14" should not be found together in the same thread.

[Stinger]

Balancing in a flight sim? Oh my god, thats really stupid. Sorry, no words for that. Go to war thunder or something..

[myHelljumper]

i see no problem because "balance" and "f-14" should not be found together in the same thread.

 

Maybe you are right :D

[lunaticfringe]

i see no problem because "balance" and "f-14" should not be found together in the same thread.

 

You're goddamned right.

 

If you want to attempt balance from a Soviet/Russian standpoint, you'd be wise to look at the work of Babich and two decades worth of PVO Herald and Military Affairs in the 70's and 80's.

 

I'm not saying it will work, but that's how you start from a thematic sense.

[Chrinik]

Or maybe we shouldn´t think of DCS as a purely competitive PVP Multiplayer experience and acknowledge that 80-90% of the people that drop money on this will not ever go up against another player and enjoy it purely SP and COOP?

 

 

If someone drops 4 F-14s on both sides of their Server, noones gonna care anyway.

 

And the way you chicas fly in this sim will devalue the F-14 tremendously anyway. The AWG-9 might be awesome, but it still doesn´t use X-ray vision to see through mountains, it´s going to have trouble with jammers, and it´s going to have trouble with ground clutter, so what´s the difference gonna be to all you lawnmowers?

Edited October 14, 2016 by Chrinik

[Drag0nWIng]

so what, you can only use aim-9*4 to down others, challenge yourself.

why we have to use aim-54 or radar?

LOL

[Jarlerus]

Balance? Bah. Servers and/or missions can restrict access to hardware. No nerfs!

 

Also, there's a lot of speculation in this thread. Let's put some faith in LNS that they will consult proper sources, simulate, and test their data so that the AIM-54 will be as close as possible to the real version. One can come a long, long way with math in these cases.

Trust science! :P

[jmijnen]

hey guis lets balance call of dcs so all plajurs have a fair experience!!!!!

 

lets also make the aim-120d a dlc of 60 dollars!!!

[probad]

Let's put some faith in LNS that they will consult proper sources, simulate, and test their data so that the AIM-54 will be as close as possible to the real version. One can come a long, long way with math in these cases.

 

whatever ln cranks out will have more basis in reality than anything speculators can come up with.