[CHECKING] Turn Rate

[Hummingbird]

Devs can not base the fm upon assumptions and feelings, nor airshows.

 

No, but they can base it on aerodynamics, and here the F-16 holds all the cards in terms of a superior STR. Lower wing loading, higher T/W ratio, smaller size etc.

 

display pilot J. Meister Swiss AF says he is flying his three-sixty at airshows with 330kts, 6.5g (source Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2016)

 

Sure, but I doubt his aircraft is anywhere near being at 100% fuel load during that maneuver ;)

[Figaro9]

Well, actually J. Meister says that he is taking off with 37000 total weight (same source)

 

1.After to (flabs auto, trim to nose) @180kts loop (max. 12deg aoa)

2. (330 kts ) Three-sixty (4 times 90deg corners)

3. Derry turn

4. (300kts) High g barrel roll

5. (330kts) Pirouette 1/2

6. (330kts) three-sixty 300ft gnd 6.5g....

 

Doing that in dcs will leave me with approx 8000 fuel (74%) before I start the three-sixty turn.With this fuel I can pull approx 5.5g holding 300ft and 330 kts in dcs ( not 6.5g).

 

Well then, I keep on turning, full burner, holding 330kts @ 300ft above sea level (switzerland has no seas, I cheated a bit :) )

11 (!) three-sixties later, fuel state shows approx. 5000, I finally can see 6.5 g.

 

That is not over performing, I guess (Which I should not do ;) ).

 

Based on known facts I would say ED did quite a good job with the f18 sustained tp so far. at least at checked speeds around bstr. At higher speeds... well, there might be something.....

[Prancingkiller]

Well, actually J. Meister says that he is taking off with 37000 total weight (same source)

 

1.After to (flabs auto, trim to nose) @180kts loop (max. 12deg aoa)

2. (330 kts ) Three-sixty (4 times 90deg corners)

3. Derry turn

4. (300kts) High g barrel roll

5. (330kts) Pirouette 1/2

6. (330kts) three-sixty 300ft gnd 6.5g....

 

Doing that in dcs will leave me with approx 8000 fuel (74%) before I start the three-sixty turn.With this fuel I can pull approx 5.5g holding 300ft and 330 kts in dcs ( not 6.5g).

 

Well then, I keep on turning, full burner, holding 330kts @ 300ft above sea level (switzerland has no seas, I cheated a bit :) )

11 (!) three-sixties later, fuel state shows approx. 5000, I finally can see 6.5 g.

 

That is not over performing, I guess (Which I should not do ;) ).

 

Based on known facts I would say ED did quite a good job with the f18 sustained tp so far. at least at checked speeds around bstr. At higher speeds... well, there might be something.....

 

good story dude, but this thread is made for ACMI and Tracks file, we do nothing with words and ED neither

[Figaro9]

sure dude, thx for the reminder. hope it works...

display.zip

[Prancingkiller]

sure dude, thx for the reminder. hope it works...

[aaron886]

Devs can not base the fm upon assumptions and feelings, nor airshows.

 

 

So then I assume you are providing your anecdotal evidence in order to discount mine? Fair enough I guess. I did the conventional math to validate a sustained 6.5g turn at 330kts. I don't intend to imply that you're lying or your source is false, but this napkin math puts those numbers out of the realm of reason for the F/A-18C.

 

 

I calculated this turn at 21.5 seconds, from 90 degrees aspect to 90 degrees aspect. This was a 81F day, with a 30.09 altimeter.

 

Sorry to any passing professionals or SI unit afficionados. Beginning with turn radius,

I calculated 1501 feet, not an unreasonable number, but on the high side for a fighter with a low corner airspeed like the F/A-18A-D.

 

 

Next, turn rate,

I calculated 21.257 degrees per second, resulting in a 16.93 second turn. That's absurdly fast. It doesn't match reality. Feel free to go find more videos of Swiss displays, but I'm very confident they will all end up at around 21-24 seconds as well, depending on conditions.

[Nomad]

what about the first post ACMI, 22 °/s is correct for you? have you tried the hornet vs viper fight on DCS right now?

 

and btw, once again, this thread is not for discussions, and have not been started for that, seems like you guys have a problem understanding different parts of the forum are for different purposes, the question of this thread is clear, and it's not formulated for you, and you are not the users that should reply in this thread

Assuming that it's supposed to turn at 19.2 deg/s with 2 aim-120, 2 aim-9 and 60% fuel, it's not unreasonable to expect a 21-22 deg/s turn rate from a clean jet with 50%.

[aaron886]

Assuming that it's supposed to turn at 19.2 deg/s with 2 aim-120, 2 aim-9 and 60% fuel, it's not unreasonable to expect a 21-22 deg/s turn rate from a clean jet with 50%.

 

 

You will not find a video of a clean Hornet max-performing at sea level doing more than about a 17 deg/s turn rate.

[Nomad]

You will not find a video of a clean Hornet max-performing at sea level doing more than about a 17 deg/s turn rate.

Just because there is no video of it doesn't mean it can't do it :rolleyes:

[Kapsu]

This airshow HUD video shows Hornet sustaining ~360kts/6g and ~420kts/7.5g. Would be cool to know exact weight and which engines it has.

[104th_Maverick]

You forget that players in dcs pretty much never let go of the paddle switch, while in rl it's probably the opposite. You won't do a 16 sec sustained turn under normal dcs conditions without over-g'ing the aircraft.

 

This^

 

I don't see the logic in trying to get the FM changed because you don't see any display pilots at airshows pulling faster 360 turns in videos.

No pilot at an airshow is going to pull the paddle switch, in DCS we pull it everytime we need max performance.... its crystal clear obvious to me that our Hornet will get around the corner faster than the airshow demonstrator.

 

If you can't get data proving it cannot outperform the airshow aircraft by using the paddle switch... leave the FM alone :)

I'd rather that than have changes made based on hearsay and fan theories about what aircraft should win in a dog fight.

[Snappy]

Can you guys for the sake of focusing this thread please try to be a bit more specific in your statements?

 

Nomads:

„You forget that players in dcs pretty much never let go of the paddle switch, while in rl it's probably the opposite. You won't do a 16 sec sustained turn under normal dcs conditions without over-g'ing the aircraft.“

-blanket Statement is completely not true.Of course you can fly a 16 sec sustained turn without ever touching the paddle switch ,even way longer , it depends on the amount of g you want to sustain and at which speed you want to sustain the g.

 

 

The hornet can sustain 2 or 3g turns all day long no problem at most speeds.

 

 

and Mavericks:

„....If you can't get data proving it cannot outperform the airshow aircraft by using the paddle switch... leave the FM alone :)

I'd rather that than have changes made based on hearsay and fan theories about what aircraft should win in a dog fight“-Statement

 

doesn’t make too much sense to me either.If someone provided said data that proved it cannot outperform the airshow aircraft even with use of paddle stick that would mean the DCS Hornet fm turn performance should be increased even more, which is exactly the opposite of what the OP argued.

 

No one proposed making the DCS hornet turn even better.It was about whether its turning performance was too good, not the other way around

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

Snappy

[Hummingbird]

Swiss F/A-18's are cleared for 9 G's, keep that in mind, and the fastest Ive seen one of them do a 360 was 21 sec, where'as Ive seen Vipers do it in 18 sec. The 18 always dies out after the first 180 degrees, it's just too draggy.

 

As for the 6.5 G's sustained at 330 kts, it also doesn't sound realistic for an 18. The aircraft would have to be basically running on fumes.

 

In the video just linked we see an 18 maintaining ~5.5 G's at 360 kts (I don't see it maintain 6), which is possible in airshow trim and loading (Clean, 50% fuel, no gun ammo) .

Edited November 2, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Figaro9]

Swiss F/A-18's are cleared for 9 G's, keep that in mind, and the fastest Ive seen one of them do a 360 was 21 sec, where'as Ive seen Vipers do it in 18 sec. The 18 always dies out after the first 180 degrees, it's just too draggy.

 

As for the 6.5 G's sustained at 330 kts, it also doesn't sound realistic for an 18. The aircraft would have to be basically running on fumes.

 

In the video just linked we see an 18 maintaining ~5.5 G's at 360 kts (I don't see it maintain 6), which is possible in airshow trim and loading (Clean, 50% fuel, no gun ammo) .

 

There are officials facts:

19.2sec/sec, 2aim9, 2aim120, sl, 60% fuel

12.2deg/sec, 2 aim9, 2aim120, 15k ft, 60% fuel

10+deg/sec, 3 fuel, 2aim9, 2aim120, 15k ft, 60% initial fuel

 

Pilot statements: 330kts,6.5g, clean, from a lot 20 display pilot

A french analyses comparing m2-5, f16-b52,F18epeA Flight-model tested by a tester team with former drivers...

 

There are simmers checking those numbers and seeing that ED-fm is very close to these datas.

 

And there are many opinions from simmers, feeling, assuming that those facts might not be true.Arguing with airshows performance. And simple statements that these facts sounds odd, unrealistic or simply wrong. Based on what? Source? Facts?

 

Please stopp assuming, bring on verifiable facts on the lot 20 and compare it with the fm. ED will not change the model based on nothing. They did a good job so far.

[Prancingkiller]

There are officials facts:

19.2sec/sec, 2aim9, 2aim120, sl, 60% fuel

12.2deg/sec, 2 aim9, 2aim120, 15k ft, 60% fuel

10+deg/sec, 3 fuel, 2aim9, 2aim120, 15k ft, 60% initial fuel

 

Pilot statements: 330kts,6.5g, clean, from a lot 20 display pilot

A french analyses comparing m2-5, f16-b52,F18epeA Flight-model tested by a tester team with former drivers...

 

There are simmers checking those numbers and seeing that ED-fm is very close to these datas.

 

And there are many opinions from simmers, feeling, assuming that those facts might not be true.Arguing with airshows performance. And simple statements that these facts sounds odd, unrealistic or simply wrong. Based on what? Source? Facts?

 

Please stopp assuming, bring on verifiable facts on the lot 20 and compare it with the fm. ED will not change the model based on nothing. They did a good job so far.

 

i think you dont get the point of this thread, i've been doing many dogfights with viper and hornet, i saw that the hornet is overturning the viper by far, and can get higher sustained turn rate then the 16, so i did a test, posted and asked ED if that's the turn rate they wanted to model the hornet with, im not asking you, im not asking anybody else, they tagged as [checking] so i think we just need to wait for the response. Unless you get a hornet/viper pilot who can say that the hornet's supposed to have an higher sustained turn rate then the viper, then we can even close this thread since that's the information that everyone's looking for

[Nomad]

Can you guys for the sake of focusing this thread please try to be a bit more specific in your statements?

 

Nomads:

„You forget that players in dcs pretty much never let go of the paddle switch, while in rl it's probably the opposite. You won't do a 16 sec sustained turn under normal dcs conditions without over-g'ing the aircraft.“

-blanket Statement is completely not true.Of course you can fly a 16 sec sustained turn without ever touching the paddle switch ,even way longer , it depends on the amount of g you want to sustain and at which speed you want to sustain the g.

 

 

The hornet can sustain 2 or 3g turns all day long no problem at most speeds.

That's not what it means, the 16s does not refer to how long you are turning for, but how long it takes you to go a full circle, so 360 degrees. So a 16s 360 turn would give you a turn rate of 22.5 deg/s. So what I'm saying is that you can't get a sustained turn rate of 22.5 deg/s without using the paddle switch.

 

And it seems you also misunderstood the other post you quoted.

[aaron886]

The Hornet's best sustained turn rate occurs well below FCS g limitations anyway. Paddle switch is no factor in this discussion. If you think it is, you don't understand high speed aerodynamics.

[Hummingbird]

There are officials facts:

19.2sec/sec, 2aim9, 2aim120, sl, 60% fuel

12.2deg/sec, 2 aim9, 2aim120, 15k ft, 60% fuel

10+deg/sec, 3 fuel, 2aim9, 2aim120, 15k ft, 60% initial fuel

 

Where are these "facts" from? Also what are those, STR or ITR ?

 

If the claim is STR I am extremely sceptical, as that would make the F/A-18 the best turning 4th gen fighter created, something no literature or pilot account I've ever seen or heard support.

 

To quote C.W. Lemoine:

"A good Hornet pilot will take the fight downhill, try to get slow, and use his superior maneuverability to bleed the Viper down into his wheelhouse – a close-in knife fight at slow speed. If he tries to take the fight uphill or flat, the F-16’s superior rate and thrust to weight ratio will prevail. Given a choice head to head, I would probably choose the F-16. Although I really love fighting in the Hornet against other Hornets, there is no worse feeling than being bled down on energy and out of options. I fought several F/A-18Cs, F/A-18E/Fs, and CF-18s when I flew the F-16, and I never lost."

 

In short the Hornet has more nose pointing authority and is better at very slow speeds, but the Viper will win any sustained turning engagement uphill or flat. In DCS however the F/A-18 wins in STR at any speed.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Kapsu]

Where are these "facts" from? Also what are those, STR or ITR ?

 

See post #5 on this thread; "U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Committees. Navy Aviation. F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost."

[Nomad]

The Hornet's best sustained turn rate occurs well below FCS g limitations anyway.

No, it doesn't.

[Hummingbird]

See post #5 on this thread; "U.S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Committees. Navy Aviation. F/A-18E/F will Provide Marginal Operational Improvement at High Cost."

 

Thank you, looked up the document and checked the HAF charts for comparison.

 

So F/A-18C does 19.2 deg/sec sustained with no wing pylons, 2x AIM9 + 2x AIM120 & 60% fuel. That's basically a clean jet drag wise.

 

The F-16C can manage 18.6 deg/sec with 2x AIM9 + 4xAIM120's + 2x fuel tank pylons (so that's 6x wing pylons, 4 occupied) and 50% fuel.

 

Clean the F/A-18's figure won't look much different (~19.4 deg/sec), the F-16's will however due to a noticable decrease in drag from the removal of the 6x wing pylons. Clean at 22,710 lbs (60% fuel) the F-16 will maintain ~21.4 deg/sec.

 

So based on this data the clean F-16 should be outrating the clean F/A-18 by about 2 deg/sec. Confirming what Lemoine and basically every other pilot has said about this match up.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Nomad]

Thank you, looked up the document and checked the HAF charts for comparison.

 

So F/A-18C does 19.2 deg/sec sustained with no wing pylons, 2x AIM9 + 2x AIM120 & 60% fuel. That's basically a clean jet drag wise.

It does pretty much exactly that in DCS in that config.

 

The F-16C can manage 18.6 deg/sec with 2x AIM9 + 4xAIM120's + 2x fuel tank pylons (so that's 6x wing pylons, 4 occupied) and 50% fuel.

I just managed 19.3 deg/s sustained with that loadout.

 

Clean the F/A-18's figure won't look much different (~19.4 deg/sec),

Source?

Anyway, clean hornet with 60% fuel does just under 20 deg/s in DCS.

 

the F-16's will however due to a noticable decrease in drag from the removal of the 6x wing pylons. Clean at 22,710 lbs (60% fuel) the F-16 will maintain ~21.4 deg/sec.

Source?

Also, 22710 lbs is 35% fuel in DCS, not 60%, and it manages 21.4 easily, slightly better in fact (I get around 22).

 

So based on this data the clean F-16 should be outrating the clean F/A-18 by about 2 deg/sec. Confirming what Lemoine and basically every other pilot has said about this match up.

Yes, a 35% fuel F-16 will outrate a 60% fuel F-18, what's your point?

Edited November 3, 2019 by Nomad

[aaron886]

No, it doesn't.

 

 

Ok, European dogfight champion. I'll leave you to it.

[Prancingkiller]

Acmi and tracks when you guys talk about dcs

[Hummingbird]

Fact is that currently the F/A-18 is outrating the F-16 in DCS quite noticably across the speed range, esp. between 400-450 kts TAS where the difference is 0.35-0.4 G's is sustainable load factor, both aircraft clean & with 100% fuel.

 

 

Tested the DCS F/A-18 with 2xAIM9 + 2xAIM120 & 60% fuel and it will maintain 7.05 G's @ 400 kts TAS, that's 19.5 deg/sec @ Mach 0.62. That's 0.3 G's more than the real life F/A-18 well below the 7.5 G Navy limit.

 

If we go to the 7.5 G limit the DCS F/A-18 will maintain this at 422 kts TAS, that's 19.8 deg/sec sustained. So the DCS F/A-18 is currently capable of 0.5 G's extra sustained load factor than the real life F/A-18 within the Navy 7.5 G limit.

 

Also don't use tacview in an effort to measure ingame, use the ingame ctrl + y info bar and measure sustainable load factors at TAS, it's the only way to get an accurate measurement.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Hummingbird