F-16 in comparison with other jets

[Hummingbird]

[mvsgas]

Partial information like this is what causes confusion on aircraft capabilities.

It should be stated this is only relevant to these specific F-16C circa 2003, unless of course you have the USAF F-16C block 50 after CCIP circa 2007 information.

For reference see GR1F-16CJ-1 page 7(VII) and GR1F-16CJ-1-1, page T-2

This matter because F-16 are constantly being change at difference rates and times by each user. So Digital Flight Control Computer (DFLCC) will have different AOA limits and gains. Pitch in CAT I is G command until a specific AOA and then switches to G/AOA command after. This limits and gains change depending on the version of the DFLCC and its software. Also Flight control computer takes inputs from the General Avionics Computer (GAC) and the Modular Mission Computer (MMC) and the F-16C here had GAC, not the MMC we will have in DCS F-16.

 

We would also need to find out the specifics of the F-4E (there are several block of F-4E) with different engine and performance.

 

Same goes to the F-15C and so on.

 

To be clear I have no interest in which aircraft turn better. My concern is for people to have proper data so we can hope to avoid inaccurate "bug reports" in the future when DCS F-16 and other module are release.

[SgtPappy]

You accuse me of half picture, yet both in OP chart and the current diagram you posted is also oversimplification and don't offer the full picture either

 

IF it was just a simple matter of such, than F16 would consistently be shaming F18's ( or insert any X aircraft vs Y aircraft) in mock air combat, yet thats really not the case. They are just dissimilar aircraft in how they would fight against each other

 

Let's take a breath with accusations - no one is trying to stir up any trouble and we are all learning.

 

The idea of these pictures is that of a scientific approach - in controlled environments, plane X does this and plane Y does that. This way we can do our best to fight to these circumstances but we train so that we can practice all that which cannot be quantified.

 

Both are necessary - the modeling and the experiments - to get a good picture. If you never look at the plots because they never reflect real life, it'll take you a lot more training to get good and figure out something you would have known by reading and also flying.

[mobua]

Fantastic presentation yet again.

Would it be possible to get the speeds for the min sustained turn radius?

 

 

Also not sure if at all possible but the intersect of max rate and min turn radius. As I believe this would equate to the "corner speed" of each aircraft (welcoming any corrections if I'm mistaken)..

 

 

//mobua

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Fantastic presentation yet again.

Would it be possible to get the speeds for the min sustained turn radius?

 

 

Also not sure if at all possible but the intersect of max rate and min turn radius. As I believe this would equate to the "corner speed" of each aircraft (welcoming any corrections if I'm mistaken)..

 

 

//mobua

 

At low speed you're lift limited (pull harder; you'll stall), at high speed you're G limited (overstress airframe). Corner speed is the cross over point between these two, and where your maximum INSTANTANEOUS turn rate lies. Hope that helps.

[Hummingbird]

Partial information like this is what causes confusion on aircraft capabilities.

 

:wassat:

[mobua]

At low speed you're lift limited (pull harder; you'll stall), at high speed you're G limited (overstress airframe). Corner speed is the cross over point between these two, and where your maximum INSTANTANEOUS turn rate lies. Hope that helps.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification, much appreciated...

 

 

Now, based on your statement above. Shouldn't there be a third condition where sustained turn rate and the lowest possible radius intersect? If so, is there an term for this third condition?

[ViFF]

All the comparison graphs I've seen show that in terms of maneuverability, energy retainment, and flat out turn rate the F-16 is almost the same as MiG-29A with a very small advantage to the MiG-29A in energy retainment.

 

So if you want to see how maneuverable the F-16 will be, just hop in the FC3 MiG-29A and take it up for a spin :)

 

Cheers!

[AeriaGloria]

The AI MiG-29 using SFM has a much lower turn rate then the PFM, just FYI. While I love my MiGs, it does have weakness when going faster. .85 Mach to about 1.2 Mach it is limited to 7gs, then 7.5G as you go faster and once faster then 1.2 Mach you can go the full 8g. Early Flankers like we have have the same weakness. For the Fulcrum I believe it has to do with structural integrity of the stabs having trouble with transonic flow. Basically it will eat you at slower speeds, but Vipers have a huge advantage at high speed being able to always pull max G

[Hummingbird]

Partial information like this is what causes confusion on aircraft capabilities.

It should be stated this is only relevant to these specific F-16C circa 2003, unless of course you have the USAF F-16C block 50 after CCIP circa 2007 information.

For reference see GR1F-16CJ-1 page 7(VII) and GR1F-16CJ-1-1, page T-2

This matter because F-16 are constantly being change at difference rates and times by each user. So Digital Flight Control Computer (DFLCC) will have different AOA limits and gains. Pitch in CAT I is G command until a specific AOA and then switches to G/AOA command after. This limits and gains change depending on the version of the DFLCC and its software. Also Flight control computer takes inputs from the General Avionics Computer (GAC) and the Modular Mission Computer (MMC) and the F-16C here had GAC, not the MMC we will have in DCS F-16.

 

We would also need to find out the specifics of the F-4E (there are several block of F-4E) with different engine and performance.

 

Same goes to the F-15C and so on.

 

To be clear I have no interest in which aircraft turn better. My concern is for people to have proper data so we can hope to avoid inaccurate "bug reports" in the future when DCS F-16 and other module are release.

 

 

I'd be very interested to know what it is you feel is so different between the HAF F-16C Blk.50's and US Blk.50's that would actually have aby influence on the performance? As far as I can tell they will be identical.

[Mars Exulte]

It's intended as a general reference, not a hard facts sheet or bible. Geez, why is that so hard to grasp? Specific engines and so forth will be an influence, as well as programming, but it's not going to change THAT much.

[mvsgas]

Tell you what, lets wait for the module to come out, if it matches what you want it to be, cool, I was wrong.

If it does not match because roll limiter does not care about rudder inputs or Horizontal stab position. If AOA has a higher limit. If gains work differently, can we hold of on:"FM is wrong, it does not....." post and threads?

 

Is that a deal? Pinky swear?

[Hummingbird]

Tell you what, lets wait for the module to come out, if it matches what you want it to be, cool, I was wrong.

If it does not match because roll limiter does not care about rudder inputs or Horizontal stab position. If AOA has a higher limit. If gains work differently, can we hold of on:"FM is wrong, it does not....." post and threads?

 

Is that a deal? Pinky swear?

 

Err... I only want it to be like the real thing, period.

 

And sorry but no, if something is off I will for sure be bug reporting it, and so should anyone else who spots something off based on available documentation. It's what the bug report section is for afterall. But I have no reason to believe anything will be off as the F-16 is very well documented in terms of its FCS, and it's 100% sure ED has the info we do (and more), so I'm not at all worried - hence I have no clue why you even brought that up? Infact I can't really figure out why you needed to come in here and spread a negative tone in the first place when all this thread is about is providing a more visual representation of turning performance as a service (!) for all the people out there not really savvy with EM charts.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Hummingbird

[molnibalage]

This totally idiotic chart appeared too many planes and provides totally inaccurate image about the performance of the planes because they were not compared with the same speed. Of course that F-14 has smaller turn radius when it had 0.2 smaller speed. 

With smaller speed the F-15/F-16 has literally identical turn raduis.

[Dragon1-1]

It's also rather useless because it compares radius at max sustained turn rate, which is a completely irrelevant metric since in a radius fight, you turn at max instantaneous turn rate. The numbers we should care about is radius at max instantaneous rate, and max sustained rate. If you end up fighting the Tomcat in the Viper in radius, you're doing it wrong and deserve that asskicking it's gonna hand you. Viper doesn't really do slow (which Tomcat very much doesn't mind), and that's where a radius fight puts you. 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Dragon1-1

[BIGNEWY]

A reminder to all,

1.16 Posting of screenshots, images, file links, file sharing links, and copying and pasting information is prohibited if the source document has a limited distribution statement or it is classified. Limited distribution includes DoD Distribution Statement C, Distribution Statement D, Distribution Statement E, Arms Export Control Act, Export Administration Act, and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) controlled sources. When posting aircraft, sensor, or weapon information more recent than 1980, you must also include the source of the document that demonstrates that it is 100% public and verified as not from a limited distribution source as listed.

The punishment: 

First offence will result in the removal of the material and 50 warning points for 1 year, second offence will result in the material being removed and 100 warning points for 1 year.

thank you