[WIP] Fly-model F16

[Mr. Wilson]

It would be interesting to see people's opinions on the thrust-weight ratio and speed characteristics of the aircraft ... And it would also be interesting to see the comments of the developers ...

I got the opinion that the plane does not have realistic speed characteristics .., for example, I can not accelerate it even to a speed of 2-2.2 m ...

[razo+r]

I was able to hit M2.02 at 36K feet, so that is possible.

[Makempay]

TWR of the plane seems in my opinion fine. The problem mainly seems to be drag. With an A-G load on. You can't hit m1.0 on the deck.. .95 mach at 5k with CBUS and GBUs. That is understandable.. but when you get rid of said weapons... the weight drops, but the drag stays. Only able to achieve .97 after that with full burner on at 5k. So if you want the full unbridled power of the 16 you have to go clean. just from my experience though.

Edited November 3, 2019 by Makempay

[Mr. Wilson]

I was able to hit M2.02 at 36K feet, so that is possible.

 

When ?) i think now its not possible...Now I checked at 39-40000 f and dispersed only to 1.77 m

[Mr. Wilson]

When ?) i think now its not possible...Now I checked at 39-40000 f and dispersed only to 1.77 m

During acceleration flew 103 kilometers and then got tired of waiting, I think the plane should not accelerate for so long

[razo+r]

When ?) i think now its not possible...Now I checked at 39-40000 f and dispersed only to 1.77 m

 

Some time ago, i think just after it dropped out

 

1) Did you unload all pylons?

 

2) Did you let enough time to pass for the acceleration?

[Mr. Wilson]

TWR of the plane seems in my opinion fine. The problem mainly seems to be drag. With an A-G load on. You can't hit m1.0 on the deck.. .95 mach at 5k with CBUS and GBUs. That is understandable.. but when you get rid of said weapons... the weight drops, but the drag stays. Only able to achieve .97 after that with full burner on at 5k. So if you want the full unbridled power of the 16 you have to go clean. just from my experience though.

 

I conducted all tests with an empty plane

[Mr. Wilson]

Some time ago, i think just after it dropped out

 

1) Did you unload all pylons?

 

2) Did you let enough time to pass for the acceleration?

 

I took into account all the factors for this experiment ... try to do it yourself and you will be amazed

[razo+r]

Looks like you do not check all factors.

 

Start point: 11000m, full fuel, no pylons, top speed M1.97

 

Took really long to achieve it but I achieved it.

[Pamenchan]

TWR of the plane seems in my opinion fine. The problem mainly seems to be drag. With an A-G load on. You can't hit m1.0 on the deck.. .95 mach at 5k with CBUS and GBUs. That is understandable.. but when you get rid of said weapons... the weight drops, but the drag stays. Only able to achieve .97 after that with full burner on at 5k. So if you want the full unbridled power of the 16 you have to go clean. just from my experience though.

 

 

A single pylon has a drag index of 15, if you install a gbu-12 on it, the bomb itself only has a drag of 7.

 

 

So it's not surprising if you get rid of the bombs, but still have the pylons, you will keep a lot of drag (and it's even worse if you have the TERs on the pylons, it brings the drag index to 24 for each one).

[Mr. Wilson]

Looks like you do not check all factors.

 

Start point: 11000m, full fuel, no pylons, top speed M1.97

 

Took really long to achieve it but I achieved it.

 

it is not normal situation. it should happen differently...

[Mr. Wilson]

I did another interesting test, I compared f18 and f16 at maximum engine power at an altitude of 1000m. And I came to the conclusion that F16 is now slower than F18 this is generally complete nonsense ... it all became so after the last update open beta.

 

two aircraft started at a speed of 800 km / h at an altitude of 1000 meters at a distance of 30 km and 60 km their speed readings were recorded:

F16-30 km -1416 km / h, 60 km - 1423 km / h

F18-30 km -1492 km / h, 60 km - 1531 km / h

 

I would like to see a comment from experts or developers regarding the results of this test...

[Syndrome]

Found an acceleration table for the exact engine model of our block 50 f-16 (F110-GE-129) which said it should go from 300-650 kias in 13 seconds for a clean 20klbs jet at sea level (@15C). Just did a test and it takes about 23 seconds for a 20klbs F16 at sea level. So yeah it's definitely under performing.

[RogueRunner]

CW Lemoine who used to fly F16's said in his youtube video this one feels under powered.

[Swift.]

iirc, on that Mover video he wasn't using full throttle, his rpm was only 80 or so.

[Mover]

iirc, on that Mover video he wasn't using full throttle, his rpm was only 80 or so.

 

That's not accurate. RPM was at 90% with the nozzle fully closed.

[Terzi]

I think the F-16 flight model will be updated seriously.

 

 

One of my thoughts is that during vertical maneuvers the flight path marker tends to follow the nose too rapidly. I mean, the FPM wants to stick to the nose of the aircraft all the time. In viper videos from real life, you can see that the FPM movement is much more fluid. Take for example the F-15, it is quite planar shaped aircraft so the velocity vector would not deviate from the nose too much during vertical manuevers, which is really the case in DCS. But in Viper the aircraft is narrower and fuselage part does not take much stress during turns. The effect of the main body is less compared to F-15. The F-16 is unstable as hell. This should explain why the FPM (especially in slow speeds) should lag behind the gun cross much more than eg. F-15, Mirage 2000, F-14 and even F-18. I recall watching a video of F-15 that lands without a wing. This is mainly because the aircraft as a whole is so planar and the fuselage is acting as a huge kite. The fuselage of the Viper is similar to a pipe structure instead of a planar structure.

[Mr. Wilson]

Found an acceleration table for the exact engine model of our block 50 f-16 (F110-GE-129) which said it should go from 300-650 kias in 13 seconds for a clean 20klbs jet at sea level (@15C). Just did a test and it takes about 23 seconds for a 20klbs F16 at sea level. So yeah it's definitely under performing.

 

send me this information pls

[Napa]

You guys are telling us nothing new here. Yes, the F-16 flight model is incomplete. Yes, it needs more work. Yes, it is under/over performing.... whatever. Last time I checked the module still has an Early Access label on it.

[macedk]

Also the mach 2 statement is made from marketing people ...

 

laptop with 17 hour battery

 

"GAMING" this and that ..mate it's just a keyboard with lights

 

your car will do 70 miles to the gallon ...yeah downhill in neutral ;)

 

planes are no different.

 

Also a mute point as we fly with gas, pylons , weapons on pylons etc.

 

If u rely on numbers you not doin it right :)

 

mach 2.2 is for the camera .

 

But have a picture of day 3 dcs F-16 at 53000 feet doin 2.2 going up ....the truth is I was off the "normal" map when it happened.

 

On speed issue, I hope they will model hung stores if u brake 600 knots with bombs on :)

[Makempay]

A single pylon has a drag index of 15, if you install a gbu-12 on it, the bomb itself only has a drag of 7.

 

 

So it's not surprising if you get rid of the bombs, but still have the pylons, you will keep a lot of drag (and it's even worse if you have the TERs on the pylons, it brings the drag index to 24 for each one).

 

 

No you can start an empty f-16 with plyons and 4 AA Missiles. and still hit 1.2m on the deck. then add a-g to the plane. Selective jett the a-g weapons as well as the TERs, And you will see the drag still stays. Barely able to break the sound barrier. Let alone even hit mach in some cases.

[rrohde]

You guys are telling us nothing new here. Yes, the F-16 flight model is incomplete. Yes, it needs more work. Yes, it is under/over performing.... whatever. Last time I checked the module still has an Early Access label on it.

 

:thumbup:

 

I believe that ED and their SMEs are fully aware, and that's why they - in due time - will improve the PFM accordingly.

[Pamenchan]

No you can start an empty f-16 with plyons and 4 AA Missiles. and still hit 1.2m on the deck. then add a-g to the plane. Selective jett the a-g weapons as well as the TERs, And you will see the drag still stays. Barely able to break the sound barrier. Let alone even hit mach in some cases.

 

 

I don't know how the pylons are modeled ingame, but that's a big problem if the drag caused by AG weapons stays attached to the plane event if you get rid of everything.

[Makempay]

:thumbup:

 

I believe that ED and their SMEs are fully aware, and that's why they - in due time - will improve the PFM accordingly.

 

 

Yes we know they will work on it.. Problem is when they do correct things. They don't post anything about it. So we are always left wondering what was fixed and what wasn't. Next thing we know. We got a 800kn aircraft on the deck. Taking a serious downgrade in engine umph, since last patch (With not so much of a mention of FM changes) not even breaking 700 knots now on the deck at full burner. Now that's all cool and understandable. But there has litterally been no mention to any flight model changes in the logs at all. So every patch Im forced to run tests to see what broke this patch. Before I can set up any missions in it.

[Makempay]

I don't know how the pylons are modeled ingame, but that's a big problem if the drag caused by AG weapons stays attached to the plane event if you get rid of everything.

 

 

I stand corrected, the drag doesn't seem to stay there anymore after last patch. My appoligies.