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

[dundun92]

Just now, Hammer1-1 said:

Hows about you give this a shot next time you fly: fill your viper up to where its mass = 14231kg total, which is the weight the Hornet was tested at. I honestly dont know why people benchmark with 50% payload, when you want weight to be similar.

By that logic, youd load an F-14 with negative fuel to compare. Though id agree that same fuel % isnt perfect, but its not terribly bad either. In some BFM competitions, they use a constant time to empty to judge fuel weights, which is probably better than same %.

[SCPanda]

12 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

That we know of, ED doesn't exactly announce everything in the change log.

Such as Viper VRP, PUP etc I learned this was implimented a few patches ago and don't remember any mention in the notes. I just saw a video in it today.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

[karasawa]

The only good thing to know is that a clean F-16 outturns a clean Fulcrum by a tiny margin, at least in 2.5.6.

[SCPanda]

11 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Hows about you give this a shot next time you fly: fill your viper up to where its mass = 14231kg total, which is the weight the Hornet was tested at. I honestly dont know why people benchmark with 50% payload, when you want weight to be similar.

If you want the Viper to weight heavier in that test graph, its turn performance will be even worse than the Hornet. What's your point? Viper's turn speed is not slow enough?

Edited May 12, 2021 by SCPanda

[Hammer1-1]

Well I mention it because I dont believe the best performance for the aircraft turn radius is determined at either min/max weight. You want to test it where it gives you the best performance, because its dumb to believe you are going to get 19.5 degrees/s at full fuel load, but I assume it doesnt follow a linear path with regards to weight and balance.

4 minutes ago, SCPanda said:

If you want the Viper to weight heavier in that test graph, its turn performance will be even worse than the Hornet.

 

Have you tried it yet? Its not always about weight, its about balance as well. Wheres the center of balance with it at 50% fuel? 25% Should be further aft.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Hammer1-1

[karasawa]

Shouldn't we stop crying or complaining and start comparing DCS with flight manual?

A quick check on the flight manual:

Condition: 22000lbs total weight (9990kg), clean, speed = 513km/h

Real world F-16C-50 sustains 19.5deg/sec at sea level, and 16.5deg/sec at 5000feet (1524m). By linear interpolation, it should sustain 17.53deg/sec at 1000m.

https://dcs.silver.ru/66-831

However the DCS F-16C sustains only 15.5deg/sec at 1000m.

 

THAT IS RIDICULOUS 

[Xavven]

48 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Im not seeing a whole lot of variables in this, and Im also seeing all 3 versions of the 16 all over the place on that graph. Quite frankly this tells me everything I just tried to point out-  the flight model is still in development, and hasnt been updated since 2.7 was released. If Im looking at this correctly, its time to turn is getting lower and lower, while the Hornets graph lines are parallel to each other. Now my next question would be how they compared to real life values.

 

So let me help you understand what you're seeing. The different graphs are for different fuel and payloads. I recommend looking at the 50% fuel graph with pylons removed and compare that to the hornet with 50% fuel and the pylons removed. This link will show those configurations automatically for you https://dcs.silver.ru/66,67

 

If you don't know, weight will impact your turn rate significantly, so the reason you're seeing turn rates "all over the place" is because their fuel levels, and thus weight, are different. Drag index also affects your turn rate. So if you have empty pylons on your F-16, it'll turn slower than if it had the pylons completely removed (plus the pylons are weight too). In fact, if you reduce the fuel level of the F-16 and increase the fuel level of the F-18, the graph shows that the F-16 will indeed outrate the F-18. But that is not what we're trying to compare. Obvious a weighed down plane should turn worse than a lightened one. Let's compare them when they are at similar fuel levels, right?

 

You are correct that the time to turn is getting lower and lower. I'll clarify that it gets lower as IAS increases. The graph lets you compare the time to turn for the most common speeds the Viper and Hornet operate in. I recommend clicking on the Turn Speed button there at the top of the graph so you can see it in deg/sec instead of seconds to turn 360°. As you can see if you put the Hornet up on the graph, it has a faster turn rate at all speeds. And if you click on the Turn Radius button, you see the F-18 has a tighter turn radius too.

 

If I'm not mistaken, this means the Hornet can pull more G without losing airspeed than the F-16 can in any equivalent flight regime. As for how they compare to real life values, karasawa has been posting that answer. I recommend you read this page a bit more closely! But if you want, here is an F-16 EM chart that Wags himself provided the Grim Reapers, and it's reasonable to assume ED is using this chart to tune the F-16's flight model.

:

 

If you compare the best STR here on the chart, it's saying it should be over 21.5 deg/sec. If you look at https://dcs.silver.ru/66-1595 and set fuel to 49% so that the weight in kg is 10754 (which is close to 23775 lbs) it says our DCS viper is performing at 17.31 deg/sec at 346 knots IAS, which is close to the 0.7 mach on the EM chart. Unfortunately, the site's chart is at an altitude of "1000". No units. I would have to guess that is in meters, since everything else has defaulted to metric. So yeah, about 3000 feet. That's not sea level... but I'm not thinking I should see a 4.2 deg/sec drop in turn rate in that amount of altitude!

 

(edit: please excuse my errors. I should have set weight to 22000 lbs, not 23775, and used mach 0.7, not 0.5. I discuss a correction in a later post on this thread)

Edited May 12, 2021 by Xavven

[SCPanda]

10 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

Well I mention it because I dont believe the best performance for the aircraft turn radius is determined at either min/max weight. You want to test it where it gives you the best performance, because its dumb to believe you are going to get 19.5 degrees/s at full fuel load, but I assume it doesnt follow a linear path with regards to weight and balance.

Have you tried it yet? Its not always about weight, its about balance as well. Wheres the center of balance with it at 50% fuel? 25% Should be further aft.

 

You can try it yourself. The link was provided for you. 

 

We were talking about turn rate not turn radius. Turn rate is what matters in a rate fight.... You are not making any sense, which makes me think you lack knowledge in BFM don't really know what you are talking about... 

 

Anyway, you can mess with that graph with different weight all you want, the fact is Hornet will have better turn rate than the Viper. 

[Hammer1-1]

2 minutes ago, Xavven said:

So let me help you understand what you're seeing.

What I am alluding to is that weight and balance looks "iffy". Every aircrafts CG shifts with various fuel loads, and in the Viper, it should be more aft than what appears to be modeled. The more aft the CG, the more nose authority you can pull. IIRC, its designed to be tail heavy to make it unstable in flight.

[Xavven]

Ah, karasawa again has the answer. We should see a 3 deg/sec difference over 5000 feet.

 

So again, if the data on https://dcs.silver.ru/66-1595 is to be believed, our Viper is underperforming.

[karasawa]

5 minutes ago, Xavven said:

So let me help you understand what you're seeing. The different graphs are for different fuel and payloads. I recommend looking at the 50% fuel graph with pylons removed and compare that to the hornet with 50% fuel and the pylons removed. This link will show those configurations automatically for you https://dcs.silver.ru/66,67

 

If you don't know, weight will impact your turn rate significantly, so the reason you're seeing turn rates "all over the place" is because their fuel levels, and thus weight, are different. Drag index also affects your turn rate. So if you have empty pylons on your F-16, it'll turn slower than if it had the pylons completely removed (plus the pylons are weight too). In fact, if you reduce the fuel level of the F-16 and increase the fuel level of the F-18, the graph shows that the F-16 will indeed outrate the F-18. But that is not what we're trying to compare. Obvious a weighed down plane should turn worse than a lightened one. Let's compare them when they are at similar fuel levels, right?

 

You are correct that the time to turn is getting lower and lower. I'll clarify that it gets lower as IAS increases. The graph lets you compare the time to turn for the most common speeds the Viper and Hornet operate in. I recommend clicking on the Turn Speed button there at the top of the graph so you can see it in deg/sec instead of seconds to turn 360°. As you can see if you put the Hornet up on the graph, it has a faster turn rate at all speeds. And if you click on the Turn Radius button, you see the F-18 has a tighter turn radius too.

 

If I'm not mistaken, this means the Hornet can pull more G without losing airspeed than the F-16 can in any equivalent flight regime. As for how they compare to real life values, karasawa has been posting that answer. I recommend you read this page a bit more closely! But if you want, here is an F-16 EM chart that Wags himself provided the Grim Reapers, and it's reasonable to assume ED is using this chart to tune the F-16's flight model.

:

 

If you compare the best STR here on the chart, it's saying it should be over 21.5 deg/sec. If you look at https://dcs.silver.ru/66-1595 and set fuel to 49% so that the weight in kg is 10754 (which is close to 23775 lbs) it says our DCS viper is performing at 17.31 deg/sec at 346 knots IAS, which is close to the 0.7 mach on the EM chart. Unfortunately, the site's chart is at an altitude of "1000". No units. I would have to guess that is in meters, since everything else has defaulted to metric. So yeah, about 3000 feet. That's not sea level... but I'm not thinking I should see a 4.2 deg/sec drop in turn rate in that amount of altitude!

I already answered your question in my previous posts.

Check my measurement on turn rate at 513km/h

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, SCPanda said:

You can try it yourself. The link was provided for you. 

 

We were talking about turn rate not turn radius. Turn rate is what matters in a rate fight.... You are not making any sense, which makes me think you lack knowledge in BFM don't really know what you are talking about... 

 

Anyway, you can mess with that graph with different weight all you want, the fact is Hornet will have better turn rate than the Viper. 

I was referring to trying it in the simulator.

[Xavven]

Just now, karasawa said:

I already answered your question in my previous posts.

Check my measurement on turn rate at 513km/h

 

Yep, I just saw it and acknowledged it a few seconds ago . In the time it took me to write that, there were like 8 new posts. LOL

 

But yeah, thanks for providing that info.

 

 

[karasawa]

2 minutes ago, Xavven said:

 

Yep, I just saw it and acknowledged it a few seconds ago . In the time it took me to write that, there were like 8 new posts. LOL

 

But yeah, thanks for providing that info.

 

 

My prediction:

If the same test is done at 3000m (10000 feet), F-16C-50 will outturn everything else in DCS, because the 9G limit won't constrain the F-16 to fully exploit its aerodynamic efficiency at higher speed.

Edited May 12, 2021 by karasawa

[Hulkbust44]

Ah, karasawa again has the answer. We should see a 3 deg/sec difference over 5000 feet.
 
So again, if the data on https://dcs.silver.ru/66-1595 is to be believed, our Viper is underperforming.

Probably the only decent vid GR produced...(I know I know)
Data/feedback from ED

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[Xavven]

Just now, Hammer1-1 said:

I was referring to trying it in the simulator.

 

That data was gathered from DCS. There's a link at the bottom of the page to a video showing us how he did it. Looks like he has a mod that flies the plane to exact parameters and measures how long it takes to go 360°. It's almost flawless robotic flying, better than any human could do it.

 

At this point, I highly suspect we're running into the backfire effect. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/ I'm seeing all sorts of attempts to move the goalposts and otherwise deny the evidence because it doesn't conform to your preexisting beliefs. All the evidence points to the F-16 being outrated by the F-18 when in equal configurations and now we're going to claim it's a center of gravity issue? C'mon.

[Hammer1-1]

merged

Edited May 12, 2021 by Hammer1-1
delete

[karasawa]

1 minute ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Probably the only decent vid GR produced...(I know I know)
Data/feedback from ED

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

GR only measures the peak turn rate, while we should measure all turn rates across the speed envelope.

The peak turn rate of F-16 is not bad, but it feels so sluggish in 2C fights. The turn rate at lower speed is lower than flight manual. 

[Hammer1-1]

1 minute ago, Xavven said:

 

That data was gathered from DCS. There's a link at the bottom of the page to a video showing us how he did it. Looks like he has a mod that flies the plane to exact parameters and measures how long it takes to go 360°. It's almost flawless robotic flying, better than any human could do it.

 

At this point, I highly suspect we're running into the backfire effect. https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/05/13/backfire-effect-mcraney/ I'm seeing all sorts of attempts to move the goalposts and otherwise deny the evidence because it doesn't conform to your preexisting beliefs. All the evidence points to the F-16 being outrated by the F-18 when in equal configurations and now we're going to claim it's a center of gravity issue? C'mon.

I only offered a theory to be tested. Im still standing by my not having been able to rate an F-16 in a Hornet yet.

[SCPanda]

10 minutes ago, Hammer1-1 said:

What I am alluding to is that weight and balance looks "iffy". Every aircrafts CG shifts with various fuel loads, and in the Viper, it should be more aft than what appears to be modeled. The more aft the CG, the more nose authority you can pull. IIRC, its designed to be tail heavy to make it unstable in flight.

Nose authority has nothing to to with turn rate....

 

Also CG doesn't matter in rate fights. Your jet is almost 90 degree bank and your lift vector is also 90 degree perpendicular with the vector the gravity is pulling you...

[Hammer1-1]

Just now, SCPanda said:

Nose authority has nothing to to with turn rate....

 

Also CG doesn't matter in rate fights. Your jet is almost 90 degree bank and your lift vector is also 90 degree perpendicular with the vector the gravity is pulling you...

So you're saying that me pulling my nose higher than you doesnt translate into a tighter turn? Sounds to me like its something the Hornet is very good at at the moment...

[Xavven]

  

15 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Probably the only decent vid GR produced...(I know I know)
Data/feedback from ED

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
 

 

Yep! I watched that video a few weeks ago when I was running my own tests. I'm not a fan of GR but they had some interesting data here that I thought was helpful. I also realize I just made a mistake and used the 23775 lbs figure that GR were using for their 50% fuel and I should have been using 22000 lbs, or adjusting my turn rate down by 2 deg/sec.

 

So I have to retract my earlier post. I set the chart to 25% fuel to get 9983 kg (22000 lbs) https://dcs.silver.ru/66-824

 

And I just realized I used the wrong mach # too. Boy, what a night. Okay, so .7 mach is more like 466 knots. And the chart at dcs.silver.ru shows 20.1 deg/sec for DCS performance at 3000 ft. The EM chart says 21.5 deg/sec at sea level. That actually does sound right!

 

So I think what's going on here is F-16 performance is correct. It's the F-18 turn performance that is highly suspect now, as it's outrating the Viper and by all accounts from IRL pilots that should not be the case.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Xavven

[Xavven]

47 minutes ago, dundun92 said:

By that logic, youd load an F-14 with negative fuel to compare. Though id agree that same fuel % isnt perfect, but its not terribly bad either. In some BFM competitions, they use a constant time to empty to judge fuel weights, which is probably better than same %.

 

A very good point! What fuel levels for the hornet and viper would give roughly the same time to empty on full burner? I ask because I own the F-16 module and I can figure out time to empty based on 80,000 PPH, but I don't own the F-18 and have no idea of its fuel consumption.

[karasawa]

21 minutes ago, Xavven said:

  

 

Yep! I watched that video a few weeks ago when I was running my own tests. I'm not a fan of GR but they had some interesting data here that I thought was helpful. I also realize I just made a mistake and used the 23775 lbs figure that GR were using for their 50% fuel and I should have been using 22000 lbs, or adjusting my turn rate down by 2 deg/sec.

 

So I have to retract my earlier post. I set the chart to 25% fuel to get 9983 kg (22000 lbs) https://dcs.silver.ru/66-824

 

And I just realized I used the wrong mach # too. Boy, what a night. Okay, so .7 mach is more like 466 knots. And the chart at dcs.silver.ru shows 20.1 deg/sec for DCS performance at 3000 ft. The EM chart says 21.5 deg/sec at sea level. That actually does sound right!

 

So I think what's going on here is F-16 performance is correct. It's the F-18 turn performance that is highly suspect now, as it's outrating the Viper and by all accounts from IRL pilots that should not be the case.

 

Boy you are focusing on the peak turn rate and ignoring again the turn rate error below mach 0.5...

As I said before, the peak turn rate alone is misleading.

Current DCS F-16 has significant lower STR below mach 0.5 (compared to manual), even though its peak STR is slightly higher than Mig-29, it is still difficult to fight a Mig-29 in a 2C fight.

Edited May 12, 2021 by karasawa

[dundun92]

6 minutes ago, Xavven said:

 

A very good point! What fuel levels for the hornet and viper would give roughly the same time to empty on full burner? I ask because I own the F-16 module and I can figure out time to empty based on 80,000 PPH, but I don't own the F-18 and have no idea of its fuel consumption.

I do have the hornet, but I havent done any fuel flow testing, and cant test rn. Unfortunately, F-18 fuel flow is actually off rn, burns too little so you unfortunately cant use RL numbers for comparison. You could look at some videos and see from there.