Jump to content

F/A-18 vs F-16 Turn rate?


BuzzU

Recommended Posts

So I've guessed: would it be more equitable instead, to give (for instance) the fuel for 5 minutes in full afterburner for both aircraft ?

Better than the same fuel amount per aircraft, like you mentioned the same mass of fuel can have a very different impact on difference sized aircraft.

 

 

Using the aircraft endurance in a dogfight sounds fair, and fuel fraction is probably also a reasonable estimator of this as long as the engines are similar (afterburning low bypass turbofan).

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did some testing on NTTR with a clean viper on the deck in two circle against a clean hornet (both at 75% fuel) and the viper couldn't maintain 360 KIAS at 6.3G while the hornet had no problem whatsoever. Not going to say who the other guy with me was but we both agreed that the Viper feels like it is drastically underperforming in the rate war right now. It simply does not have the ability to outrate the hornet which is absurd.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Twitch:

 

My Specs:



 

i7 8700K, 32gig Corsair DDR4 3000Mhz, 2080ti, Obutto R3volution, VKB Gunfighter Mk.III MCG Pro EN, Warthog Throttle, Saitek Combat Pedals, Oculus Rift S

 

 

MMSOBGYTAST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did some testing on NTTR with a clean viper on the deck in two circle against a clean hornet (both at 75% fuel) and the viper couldn't maintain 360 KIAS at 6.3G while the hornet had no problem whatsoever. Not going to say who the other guy with me was but we both agreed that the Viper feels like it is drastically underperforming in the rate war right now. It simply does not have the ability to outrate the hornet which is absurd.

 

Also happens in other maps, 2 patches ago the Viper was able to maintain a better rate vs the hornet :music_whistling:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We did some testing on NTTR with a clean viper on the deck in two circle against a clean hornet (both at 75% fuel) and the viper couldn't maintain 360 KIAS at 6.3G while the hornet had no problem whatsoever. Not going to say who the other guy with me was but we both agreed that the Viper feels like it is drastically underperforming in the rate war right now. It simply does not have the ability to outrate the hornet which is absurd.

 

Yeah it's not just the Hornet though. The Viper was designed to be a rate fighter (very similar to the JF-17) pulling over 21 deg/s sustained at typical combat speeds. Currently it can only average ~18 deg/s if you are extremely careful, and it's current instantaneous turn rate (with high energy bleed) can't even reach 20 deg/s. This is significantly below average for a DCS dog fighter and well below the JF-17 which can easily turn at 25 deg/s despite having a significantly lower TWR and a weaker air frame designed for lower g tolerance. So yeah, F-16 is way under performing in terms of sustained turn rate, instantaneous turn rate, weak/laggy heading control, acceleration, and rather critically speed maintenance in controlled sustained turns.

 

One likely major factor is the overbearing and slowed down FLCS which is currently binding the Stabilators at reduced rotation rates and weakened torque, especially at the extremes of the range of stabilator motion.

 

The FLCS interference makes it hard to tell if weak thrust is also an issue because it may be inducing increased drag as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this thread from the first page to here, and still have one doubt:

 

As it seems that IRL the F-16 does have an higher sustained turn rate than the Hornet, why I have I read (link below posts #31 and #32) that the devs seem to consider the current F-16 flight model corresct ?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257691&page=4

Hangar
FC3 | F-14A/B | F-16C | F/A-18C | MiG-21bis | Mirage 2000C ... ... JA 37 | Kfir | MiG-23 | Mirage IIIE
Mi-8 MTV2

system
i7-4790 K , 16 GB DDR3 , GTX 1660 Ti 6GB , Samsung 860 QVO 1TB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read this thread from the first page to here, and still have one doubt:

 

As it seems that IRL the F-16 does have an higher sustained turn rate than the Hornet, why I have I read (link below posts #31 and #32) that the devs seem to consider the current F-16 flight model corresct ?

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257691&page=4

 

 

There is a good viper in the game. It's called the JF-17. But seriously, look at the positives here....now while you are looking back over your shoulder in your viper waiting for that bandit to fill your cockpit with hair and eyeballs at least you'll be able to see your wingtip flexing.


Edited by Low Blow

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Twitch:

 

My Specs:



 

i7 8700K, 32gig Corsair DDR4 3000Mhz, 2080ti, Obutto R3volution, VKB Gunfighter Mk.III MCG Pro EN, Warthog Throttle, Saitek Combat Pedals, Oculus Rift S

 

 

MMSOBGYTAST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For F-16's minimum turn time, check this:

Starting around 0:34

 

1min 10s forward. That is still only a 29 (29.75) degrees per second so a 12.1 seconds. While with your video I get that F-16 to do it at ~14.6 seconds.

 

There are all kind variations between those, what one real pilot can do one day in the airshow, is nothing that one can do in the air combat with mission load and situation.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that people use YouTube videos when you have no idea what's speed, what wait, what weather conditions... what altitude all of this is happening.. and the load factor..

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You can get a very good idea of most of those things by just paying attention to certain details in the video.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's funny that people use YouTube videos when you have no idea what's speed, what wait, what weather conditions... what altitude all of this is happening.. and the load factor..

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

Why would the Americans build an air frame capable of 9g turns but only at speeds too high for any quick turns or useful BFM? Then continue to keep it in service for 3 decades trying to figure out ways to get double digit g tolerance from their F-16 pilots, and then selling said plane to 18 other countries, who then spent huge sums of money upgrading the F-16 jets after they received far cheaper JF-17s which are vastly superior according to DCS? On top of this we have RL viper pilots saying the jet feels sluggish, and multiple YouTube videos showing performance that is higher than the best performance we see in DCS by over 60%.

 

What is more likely, that all of these other sources are wrong for several decades, fooling 18 countries into buying and upgrading an uncompetitive jet at every opportunity? Or... is it just a little bit more likely that the FM is off?


Edited by Syndrome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that's an F-16 pulling ~12 second 360 degree turn. Whereas the shortest 360 turn time we can get in DCS with clean wings on bingo fuel is closer to 20 seconds. Not even close. :/

 

 

This turn is impressive, and the f16 is a marvelous plane, no question. That is why many nation buyed that machine and still heve them in service. But keep in mind that there are also a lot of nations and services having prefered buying other fighters... ;). Maybe these are also quite capable...

F16 turn rate is really great. But that turn is far from a 12seconds turn.

Since the position nor the zoom of the camera changed, we can see that the plane is

-descending

-is smaller and thus further away from camera when finishing the 360

-and is slower when finishing the circle (thus higher aoa).

This turn is definitely a instantaneous turn fully finished (360° ) after ~ 15 sec.

That is also what we can expect from the Em-plots.

So instead of getting emotional, start doing test pilot work and check if dcs f16c block 50 turns according to the plots and share the results with the devs and forum.

Use bushmannis mission to get proper results...

Is she turning 21.7 dgs max at sea level if clean and 22´000 lbs heavy (30% fuel) without loosing energy (sustained)? And than start checking all the other plots for the block 50... have fun and keep us informed. Thanks.

37.thumb.jpg.7579d8f2c4c83907eff5f627655143bf.jpg

51.thumb.jpg.a459bfdae93117f58b45f6f757cc461b.jpg

052.thumb.jpg.3a1e7b90ad96ba5b09f8e9c10e1302fa.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This turn is definitely a instantaneous turn fully finished (360° ) after ~ 15 sec.

That is also what we can expect from the Em-plots.

So instead of getting emotional, start doing test pilot work and check if dcs f16c block 50 turns according to the plots and share the results with the devs and forum.

Use bushmannis mission to get proper results...

Is she turning 21.7 dgs max at sea level if clean and 22´000 lbs heavy (30% fuel) without loosing energy (sustained)? And than start checking all the other plots for the block 50... have fun and keep us informed. Thanks.

 

You're starting the clock rather late in the evergy bleeding turn, so of course you get a longer time. The video states the "9g turn starts at t = 0:34."However we can only tell the turn by the angles of orientation and the F-16 is pointed at the camera at t=0:35 and again between 0:47 and 0:49 which I rounded to 12 seconds at first glance, probably between 13-14.

 

I have tested this exhaustively in game since the day the F-16 was released. There is no starting and ending speed to pull a 9g turn that finishes a full 360 degrees in under 20 seconds, let alone 14 seconds. Speed bleed or no. Clearly the jet in the video is losing both kinetic and gravitational potential energy, and still manages to burn through a 360 degree turn in under 15 seconds. That's an average of ~26 deg/s, with an unknown much higher max instantaneous turn rate. In the game it's impossible to get higher than 23.5 deg/s instantaneous in a speed bleeding turn with a maximum average turn rate of about 18 deg/s in any energy bleeding turn, due to the extreme slow down from drag (or perhaps lack of thrust?). The fastest 360 turn I've been able to achieve is 20 seconds at any starting speed or altitude. I'm sure better pilots could shave a second off that. But 6 seconds? Color me skeptical.

 

I can certainly provide track files to show this if you'd like. And likewise, if you can show me a track files demonstrating anything remotely close to a 14 second turn at any parameters, I'll gladly acknowledge user error on my part and learn to do the same.


Edited by Syndrome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the 9G turn in game at high speed - also around 20 seconds:

 

i7-8700K, Z370, 32GB DDR4-3000MHz, RTX 2080 Ti, FSSB R3L, TM Warthog HOTAS, CH Pro pedals, 2x MFD's, Windows 10 Pro, HP Reverb

 

DCS: F-16C, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-15C, AV-8B, M2000C, F-5E, A-10C, AJS-37, Su-27, Su-33, MiG-21bis, MiG-29, Spitfire LF Mk. IX, Bf 109 K-4, SA342, UH-1H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been said multiple times already on these forums, all this theory crafting about real life vs DCS is irrelevant. The real point is that within the game, in its current state, the viper is underperforming in terms of sustained turn rate. You can look at as many youtube videos of real vipers as you like. It doesn't take away from the fact that right now within DCS the hornet absolutely shreds the viper in a two circle fight.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Twitch:

 

My Specs:



 

i7 8700K, 32gig Corsair DDR4 3000Mhz, 2080ti, Obutto R3volution, VKB Gunfighter Mk.III MCG Pro EN, Warthog Throttle, Saitek Combat Pedals, Oculus Rift S

 

 

MMSOBGYTAST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are starting your turn too fast, you can do full 360's in about 15 seconds if you start your turn just under 0.7 mach, and this perfectly matches with the charts (sea level, 50% fuel), the quickest turn zone (24.9°/sec, 14.46 sec for 360°) is around 0.6 mach.

 

 

The max sustained turn rate is just at 0.7 mach, and if you keep it at this speed, according to the chart the turn rate is 21 deg/sec (17.14 sec to do 360°), and it will only decrease the faster you go.

 

 

At 0.8 mach (your turn starts at 0.77 according to the HUD), the rate falls to 18.5 deg/sec (19,46 sec for 360°).

 

 

To me, it doesn't seem to be underperforming.

 

 

It's not because you're pulling 9Gs that your turn rate is higher. In fact if you are at mach 1.2, you'll be still at 9G, but you'll be turning at 12,3°/sec.


Edited by Pamenchan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pamenchan, if the viper is being outrated in a sustained two circle fight by a hornet (which it is) then it is underperforming. I have the tacview files to prove it. So please don't come on here and complicate matters by stating that to you it doesn't seem to be underperforming when it clearly is. If you don't believe me then I'd be happy to bet you $100 USD that you will not win a 2C fight against me if you take a viper and I take a hornet (20K feet, 400 KIAS, 75% fuel, clean with pylons, guns, no paddle-pulling in the hornet). Until ED fix the viper FM I'll take that bet 24/7. The extra cash will come in handy for some christmas shopping I have to do this week.


Edited by Low Blow

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Twitch:

 

My Specs:



 

i7 8700K, 32gig Corsair DDR4 3000Mhz, 2080ti, Obutto R3volution, VKB Gunfighter Mk.III MCG Pro EN, Warthog Throttle, Saitek Combat Pedals, Oculus Rift S

 

 

MMSOBGYTAST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to evaluate turning capabilities and compare one against the other because those videos are four separate flights, on different days, with different space restrictions, with different atmospherics, and for different crowds. The T-Bird Viper is stripped down to include the absence of a radar.

 

 

The best way to evaluate capabilities is to have them fly against each other and compete for the best turning performance. But the -1 Manuals should have turning capability charts that can be aligned for the same atmospheric data to compare on paper.

"There are only two types of aircraft, Fighters and Targets." Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is game based on observation on YouTube videos. All of you have loss all credibility..

 

Coming from me.. former contracted DID flight dynamics engineer

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

 

What he said...

"There are only two types of aircraft, Fighters and Targets." Doyle "Wahoo" Nicholson

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he said made zero sense....

 

Let me clarify this once more. DCS is a GAME. It has nothing to do with real life. However, within that game it is the community's reasonable expectation that a viper should have a higher sustained turn rate than a hornet. In the GAME it does not.

 

There is no need for any of us to start pulling out our CVs and rolling off our list of quals here in order to prove a point. Just take me up on my bet instead. I still need the christmas money.


Edited by Low Blow

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Twitch:

 

My Specs:



 

i7 8700K, 32gig Corsair DDR4 3000Mhz, 2080ti, Obutto R3volution, VKB Gunfighter Mk.III MCG Pro EN, Warthog Throttle, Saitek Combat Pedals, Oculus Rift S

 

 

MMSOBGYTAST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What he said made zero sense....

 

Let me clarify this once more. DCS is a GAME. It has nothing to do with real life. However, within that game it is the community's reasonable expectation that a viper should have a higher sustained turn rate than a hornet. In the GAME it does not.

 

There is no need for any of us to start pulling out our CVs and rolling off our list of quals here in order to prove a point. Just take me up on my bet instead. I still need the christmas money.

 

Yeah, I think there are 2 mutually inconsistent counter narratives here that are holding the F-16 back:

 

1) the assertion that this is a realistic 1:1 sim, clearly this isn't so because every aircraft has some FM departure from reality. In the case of the Hornet it was de-tuned intentionally to avoid safety issues that allow people to use DCS to train against too accurate jet models.

 

2) the assertion that comparing planes doesn't matter because all that matters is EM charts. Well we already know that the FM are intentionally off in some cases, which means that the only thing left is relative performance.

 

So... if we can't safely have 1:1 flight models, and we also are forbidden from comparing jets, then the degree of de-tuning becomes for all outward users:arbitrary, and yes we are left playing a game where up-tuning or down-tuning certain aspects is a decision, not physics.

 

And if one plane is more accurate than others, then even the accuracy is arbitrary and only significant relative to static ground features. Meaningless in any A/A. And I kinda doubt people are thrilled to pay $80 for an attack-centric Viper, or even for BVR. I'm guessing that people got the Viper because they assumed it would be fun to fly as a renowned agile dogfighter. Same as the BF109/Spitfire. And this is where the Viper lets people down atm.


Edited by Syndrome
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Digital Combat "Simulator", the Flightmodel should be Realistic as possible.

 

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G973F mit Tapatalk

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Thrustmaster Warthog SLM - F/A-18 , MFG Crosswind V2 , Cougar MFD`s , HP Reverb , PointCtrl , i9@5,1Ghz/2080Ti,



:joystick: DIY 2DOF Motionsimulator with 4Ch Simshaker :joystick:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Digital Combat "Simulator", the Flightmodel should be Realistic as possible.

 

 

 

Gesendet von meinem SM-G973F mit Tapatalk

 

As accurate as possible for A/A or A/G? because when even 1 jet is modified for security reasons, you can only have 1 or the other, but not both.

 

For A/A the only way to maintain the sim is by conserving relative FM performance.

 

For A/G relative FM is less important and performance relative to EM charts and static ground features is paramount.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...