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

[totmacher]

5 часов назад, karasawa сказал:

So the question is whether the 1G is the normal load or centripetal component only. 

 

5 часов назад, Xavven сказал:

 

^^ Yes, that's my question too, and the source of much of our past discussions in some other threads. Can anyone authoritatively confirm?

"TRY"G = G/cos(AngleOfAttack)
so...

 turn rate = sqrt(   ( G/cos(AngleOfAttack) ) ^2-1) * 9.81 / airspeed * 57.3

also 

"TRY"Speed = Speed/cos(AngleOfAttack)

 

It's easy to verify (see track and tacview file):

sustained turn at 20m, TAS 216kts, AoA 22.85deg, turn rate 14.115 deg/sec, 2.735g

 

HUD speed is 199kts .         199tks /cos(22.85 *pi/180 ) = 216kts

 

with  "turn rate" same story - "TRY"G = 2.9679

calculated turn rate with "try"G = 14.11 deg/sec

 

1G with AoA=30deg  = 1/cos(30 *pi/180) = 1.15G

 

Maybe Mover confirm or decline how showing G and speed in DCS world...

 

f-18-400.trk Tacview-20210519-015206-DCS.zip.acmi

Edited May 18, 2021 by totmacher

[karasawa]

It's worth noting that even at sea level, when the AOA is high, the indicated air speed is significantly lower than true air speed. This is due to the deflection of the incoming airflow inside the pitot tube.

 

Surprised that this effect is simulated for the F-18, because the look up table is related to the type of the aircraft, and normally not published. The calibration curve in flight manual is for low AOA only.

[Mover]

9 hours ago, karasawa said:

It's worth noting that even at sea level, when the AOA is high, the indicated air speed is significantly lower than true air speed. This is due to the deflection of the incoming airflow inside the pitot tube.

 

Surprised that this effect is simulated for the F-18, because the look up table is related to the type of the aircraft, and normally not published. The calibration curve in flight manual is for low AOA only.

 

We use calibrated airspeed, not indicated.  This corrects for instrument/position errors.

[karasawa]

3 hours ago, Mover said:

 

We use calibrated airspeed, not indicated.  This corrects for instrument/position errors.

Thanks for the update

[TAW_Blaze]

On 5/14/2021 at 8:39 PM, karasawa said:

DCS_f-16c_26000lbs_10000ft.xlsx 21.58 kB · 1 download

Oh boy, the real F-16C-50 with much higher loadout drag index (=50, equivalent to 6 amraams + pylons) sustains 12.9% higher turn rate than a clean DCS F-16 at 500km/h. (11.5dps vs 10.19dps)

 

Mind explaining this, ED?

 

(You can guess where I found the real F-16 manual.)

 

 

 

Isn't 50 DI a result of wingtip 9s, 4x empty AMRAAM pylons under the wing, fuel tank pylons on the inner wing stations and center but not loaded?

 

Last time I checked this would total a DI of 51. But there are no AMRAAMs or tanks loaded with that setup.. only wingtip 9s. The centerline pylon empty is 7 by itself, the wing tank pylons are 8 each. The LAU-129 with the adapter under the wings is listed as 6 each.

[karasawa]

21 hours ago, 104th_Blaze said:

 

Isn't 50 DI a result of wingtip 9s, 4x empty AMRAAM pylons under the wing, fuel tank pylons on the inner wing stations and center but not loaded?

 

Last time I checked this would total a DI of 51. But there are no AMRAAMs or tanks loaded with that setup.. only wingtip 9s. The centerline pylon empty is 7 by itself, the wing tank pylons are 8 each. The LAU-129 with the adapter under the wings is listed as 6 each.

 

The data shown in Excel is clean.

I just checked the DI of 6 AMRAAMs and pylons. The wing tip pylons are already included in basic aircraft. 2 AMRAAMs at wing tip yield DI = 8, 4 AMRAAMs under wing contribute 20 to DI, 4 pylons contribute 24 to DI. That makes total DI = 52.  That is very close to 50

Edited May 20, 2021 by karasawa

[TAW_Blaze]

On 5/19/2021 at 9:07 PM, karasawa said:

 

The data shown in Excel is clean.

I just checked the DI of 6 AMRAAMs and pylons. The wing tip pylons are already included in basic aircraft. 2 AMRAAMs at wing tip yield DI = 8, 4 AMRAAMs under wing contribute 20 to DI, 4 pylons contribute 24 to DI. That makes total DI = 52.  That is very close to 50

 

 

But how does it make any sense that you have 6 AMRAAMs, but all wing tank pylons are removed? Those are not included in the clean configuration!

[karasawa]

10 hours ago, 104th_Blaze said:

 

But how does it make any sense that you have 6 AMRAAMs, but all wing tank pylons are removed? Those are not included in the clean configuration!

Could you please stop yielding as if I owe you money

 

[TAW_Blaze]

8 hours ago, karasawa said:

Could you please stop yielding as if I owe you money

 

 

Lol

 

I just find it peculiar that your reference for testing is a setup that would never occur IRL (and it's very uncommon in DCS too). It pretty much never happens that you remove the wing fuel tanks pylons.

[LJQCN101]

On 5/19/2021 at 2:34 AM, karasawa said:

So the question is whether the 1G is the normal load or centripetal component only. 

 

You can perform a cobra or tail-slide or with a VTOL and pause at 90 deg AOA to see whether the acceleration values are based on wind axis or body axis.

 

Watch out for gravity components though. Stay away from 90 deg pitch.

 

In EFM we calculate the acceleration components in body axis at sensor position by ourselves, which will also include the pitch/yaw rate effect on accelerometers, compared to those at center of gravity.

Edited May 25, 2021 by LJQCN101

[Hammer1-1]

so whats the status of this issue? Ive heard it goes up and down in certain issues now, mostly with landing.

[Frederf]

On 5/25/2021 at 1:58 PM, Kefa said:

This is from the Haf Block 50 manual: showing that the 370 gallon fuel tank requires no separate pylon, because the pylon and tank are one complete piece. 

Additionally, Google: Tulsa Air National Guard F-16 Jettisons Fuel Tanks Over Grady County, and you will see an actual photo of a 370 gallon tank blown off a F-16 in a field.

Yes all 370 wing tanks for F-16 are integral fuel-pylon assemblies. There is no such thing as an F-16 370 gallon tank which comes apart from the pylon. A different pylon is used for AG store or 600 gallon tank on these stations.

[Hummingbird]

What I don't really understand, is why we are given no news in regards to the FM from ED themselves. They're keeping oddly quiet on the matter. 

[_SteelFalcon_]

24 minutes ago, Hummingbird said:

What I don't really understand, is why we are given no news in regards to the FM from ED themselves. They're keeping oddly quiet on the matter. 

I dunno man, they answered recently regarding this.

 

 

[Hummingbird]

3 minutes ago, _SteelFalcon_ said:

I dunno man, they answered recently regarding this.

 

 

 

Hadn't seen that, and I've been looking, but that's great news. And thanks to NineLine for answering the question 

[Hummingbird]

Thought there was gonna be a ITR & G-onset rate update today, or did I miss something?

[GGTharos]

Yeah.  You forgot 'Everything is subject to change'   I thought I saw some F-16 FM adjustments though.

[darkman222]

It was announced. Then the entire announcement was removed. Looks like ITR and onset werent ready yet, so they removed the post and did not mention it in the changelog.

EDIT: Not really sure either if they worked on something on the FM but did not mention it. Feels a little different though. Cant really tell.

Edited October 20, 2021 by darkman222

[Hummingbird]

Oh, I see.

[b0bl00i]

Feels like it's a bit snappier when rolling (max deflection) and a bit more sensitive to wind. Cross wind landings feels great now.

G-Onset Rate is still very slow and seems to stop at around 8, takes a very specific speed regime to get into 9gs.. I guess we wait some more

 

 

[sk000tch]

On 5/18/2021 at 11:34 AM, karasawa said:

So the question is whether the 1G is the normal load or centripetal component only. 

Neither it's just aircraft g aka load factor, so n = L/W, or as is elsewhere stated, cos (ɸ) where ɸ = bank angle. Lateral component isn't factored in, except in simplifying the lift equation with the equivalency of vertical lift component and weight in level flight.

[bkthunder]

On 10/21/2021 at 8:49 AM, b0bl00i said:

Feels like it's a bit snappier when rolling (max deflection) and a bit more sensitive to wind. Cross wind landings feels great now.

Oh God... what do you mean "a bit more sensitive to wind"?? Did they screw the FM again and made it dependent on wind? Wind has no aerodynamic effect on an aircraft while it's off the ground. There was a massive bug that was finally corrected, by which airspeed, AoA and engine thrust were affected by wind. I hope it hasn't been re-introduced again!

[b0bl00i]

1 hour ago, bkthunder said:

Oh God... what do you mean "a bit more sensitive to wind"?? Did they screw the FM again and made it dependent on wind? Wind has no aerodynamic effect on an aircraft while it's off the ground. There was a massive bug that was finally corrected, by which airspeed, AoA and engine thrust were affected by wind. I hope it hasn't been re-introduced again!

Who knows, it feels good to fly, could be placebo (we don't have a change log so.. could be just that)
Just waiting for the final flight model tuning and some faster G-onset rate (without blacking out). Then I'm happy  

[Machalot]

On 10/25/2021 at 12:28 AM, bkthunder said:

Oh God... what do you mean "a bit more sensitive to wind"?? Did they screw the FM again and made it dependent on wind? Wind has no aerodynamic effect on an aircraft while it's off the ground. There was a massive bug that was finally corrected, by which airspeed, AoA and engine thrust were affected by wind. I hope it hasn't been re-introduced again!

True for steady and uniform wind. But gusts or shear do have an effect.  You probably know that but I just wanted to be sure. 

[bkthunder]

On 10/26/2021 at 6:57 PM, Machalot said:

True for steady and uniform wind. But gusts or shear do have an effect.  You probably know that but I just wanted to be sure. 

Yep