Jump to content

Can an F-14 overturn an F-16 !?


max22

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 137
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • ED Team

Hi all

 

I would suggest if you can not be civil with each other you don't post.

 

This is a friendly warning, and some of you should know better, read the forum rules, if it continues warnings will be handed out.

 

Thanks

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you enjoyed your apology. Now apologize to the community for chasing most of the guys with actual jet time off the boards with crap like this

 

It is almost certainly true that guys who can pontificate and expound based on real world experience have left these forums because of forum members who post without the benefit of real world experience. It’s a great shame for the rest of the community.

 

I had the same experience here trying to explain that EM charts are often more fantasy than fact, but despite quoting numerous fighter pilots as sources, was simply told I was wrong. It’s exhausting trying to reason with these people, so it’s not surprising that people simply give up and move on.

 

Appreciate your efforts, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I had the same experience here trying to explain that EM charts are often more fantasy than fact, but despite quoting numerous fighter pilots as sources, was simply told I was wrong. It’s exhausting trying to reason with these people, so it’s not surprising that people simply give up and move on.

 

 

 

I think the problem with EM charts is probably not fantasy as such it is firstly they only show a snapshot of a dynamic 3D environment, and secondly they are not showing all the relevant factors to convey the big picture as such that a Pilot knows about through experience.

 

So pilots really can give a view of how things really are - on the other hand it is anecdotal whereas if I need to do a flight model I first need figures that would come from flight testing and then would hope to get a pilot to check it out.

Of course this doesn't mean that pilots will always give accurate or unbiased information in interviews etc - this is really not easy for both sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with EM charts is probably not fantasy as such it is firstly they only show a snapshot of a dynamic 3D environment, and secondly they are not showing all the relevant factors to convey the big picture as such that a Pilot knows about through experience.

 

So pilots really can give a view of how things really are - on the other hand it is anecdotal whereas if I need to do a flight model I first need figures that would come from flight testing and then would hope to get a pilot to check it out.

Of course this doesn't mean that pilots will always give accurate or unbiased information in interviews etc - this is really not easy for both sides.

 

I really do not want to get into another debate about this. So, I'll summarise and then stop posting in this thread:

 

1. Operational pilots frequently say that they are unable to achieve the performance that the EM charts say they should. Hence, the comment about fantasy. A very simple example: a friend who was an F-15C pilot and flew functional check flights told me that he NEVER managed to get an F-15 to go anything near the Mach number the books said it should have.

 

2. EM graphs are built using factory-fresh aircraft and factory-fresh engines. The operational fighter pilot will typically see it as simply an illustration of what may be possible

 

3. Who is to determine what is "accurate" or "unbiased"? If someone who flew the F-15 tells me that the EM diagrams didn't match the reality, I am going to believe them, particularly if this view is widely shared by those who have done the job for real (and I will tell you that, in my experience, it is).

 

If you want to actually hear a fighter pilot talk about what the books said and what the aircraft could do, take a look here (books M1.25, reality M.95):

 

 

Adieu!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is almost certainly true that guys who can pontificate and expound based on real world experience have left these forums because of forum members who post without the benefit of real world experience. It’s a great shame for the rest of the community.

 

I had the same experience here trying to explain that EM charts are often more fantasy than fact, but despite quoting numerous fighter pilots as sources, was simply told I was wrong. It’s exhausting trying to reason with these people, so it’s not surprising that people simply give up and move on.

 

Appreciate your efforts, though.

 

Hear, Hear! Well said. :thumbup:

i7 8700K @ Stock - Win10 64 - 32 RAM - RTX 3080 12gb OC - 55 inch 4k Display

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really do not want to get into another debate about this. So, I'll summarise and then stop posting in this thread:

 

1. Operational pilots frequently say that they are unable to achieve the performance that the EM charts say they should. Hence, the comment about fantasy. A very simple example: a friend who was an F-15C pilot and flew functional check flights told me that he NEVER managed to get an F-15 to go anything near the Mach number the books said it should have.

 

2. EM graphs are built using factory-fresh aircraft and factory-fresh engines. The operational fighter pilot will typically see it as simply an illustration of what may be possible

 

3. Who is to determine what is "accurate" or "unbiased"? If someone who flew the F-15 tells me that the EM diagrams didn't match the reality, I am going to believe them, particularly if this view is widely shared by those who have done the job for real (and I will tell you that, in my experience, it is).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Steve - thanks for the great books over the years.

 

Clearly I didn't get my point across very well as I was talking about the difficulty in trying to convey the simplicity of a static chart into a 3D manoeuvring environment.

 

Anyway on your points:

 

Yes 1 & 2 consistent with talking to pilots - performance can differ greatly over the years on a per airframe basis with structural weight gain and loss of thrust for whatever reason etc.

 

Clearly if the chart is not recalculated to account then it will be off. However an EM chart is not simply about picking off a few absolute values - most of the flight envelope should still be achievable.

 

 

No 3 - depends doesn't it - in the case described from a verified F-15C pilot then yes not a problem. Not sure why you are interpreting that as don't believe a word they say when there are thousands of interviews out there and more than a few can legitimately be called to question.


Edited by Basher54321
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's remember that the EM charts are the records of exhaustive flight testing, not theory. So their accuracy can't really be questioned. The caveat being that these tests were with relatively fresh aircraft, so yes it's very likely that service aircraft won't always be able to achieve exactly the performance the charts show. But that's something you can't really start playing around with when making a sim, here you have to stick with what the charts say as you quite simply have no average figure for service aircraft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi!

 

Let's remember that the EM charts are the records of exhaustive flight testing, not theory.

 

...

 

I fully concur.

 

I am jet pilot myself (not F-16 though) and I don't have an accelerometer not a chronometer in my body. ;) ... I would be fairly unable to have a very precise judgement on my aircraft performances compared to another one just by trusting my personal "feelings" or physiological feedback.

 

Any pilot "feeling" might suffer from some bias. And along the long development of another F-16 sim, with the help of several of our RL F-16 drivers participating to the validation and dev process (Greeks, and US), it has been proven on many cases, that their "feeling" couldn't be trusted. When they were asked to validate something with instruments ... the story always proven them wrong. (sometimes funny as they learned some stuff about their own a/c by referring to something highlighted by the sim!)

 

Except on some rare cases (which could dependents on actual engine delta performances (temp, actual fuel feed adjustments of the EEC ... etc ...) the published LM charts match.

 

Lessons learned: What matters are the numbers and the charts/graphics.

 

 

Regards.


Edited by Dee-Jay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A 26000 lbs F-16C-50 with loadout drag index = 50 could sustain 14.2deg/sec at 10000ft. Fuel weight + loadout weight = 33% empty weight.

A 55620 lbs F-14B with loadout drag index = 48 could sustain 14deg/sec at 10000ft. Fuel weight + loadout weight = 29% empty weight.

 

So viper has the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14.2 vs 14.1 deg/sec max STR is so close it's basically the same, the F-14 however has the advantage of a tighter radius at said STR, not to mention a higher ITR. The F-16's main advantage vs the F-14 is a noticably faster rate of climb and acceleration (& thus energy recovery), not to mention carefree handling. So a dogfight between the two would be close providing both pilots were well versed flying their aircraft.

 

That said IMHO the F-16 is the overall best dogfighter of the teen series, having the highest STR, rate of climb & acceleration of them all, however that doesn't mean it's the best in every way. An F-16 jock will still have to take care not to fight the other guys fight, like e.g. getting into a 1 circle fight with an F-14 or very slow with an F/A-18.


Edited by Hummingbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

All I know is that whenever I go on the Just Dogfighting MP server I get beaten by F14s/F18s and Mirages regularly. Most likely it's due to me sucking at BFM but I do also feel that they seem to be able to maneuver their jets more easily than me in the F16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I know is that whenever I go on the Just Dogfighting MP server I get beaten by F14s/F18s and Mirages regularly. Most likely it's due to me sucking at BFM but I do also feel that they seem to be able to maneuver their jets more easily than me in the F16.

 

Well there are issues with the F-16's FM atm, suspected mainly to be related to how the pitch integrator is modelled, which results in a lack of G onset/pitch rate and available G.

 

I've now talked to several F-16 pilots who comment that [with sufficient speed] a quick full aft stick command will result in the aircraft overshooting the 9 G limit due to the high onset rate the real aircraft is capable of, hitting figures as high as 10 G's before the FLCS slowly brings it back down to 9.0-9.3 G. This is esp. true for a cleaned up aircraft they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting stuff Hummingbird. of course the other problem is the quick blackouts that occur in the F16 which prevent you from being competitive against the likes of a Tomcat or Hornet. I wonder if this year there will be any players in the online dogfight championships that fly the viper and get very far?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there are issues with the F-16's FM atm, suspected mainly to be related to how the pitch integrator is modelled, which results in a lack of G onset/pitch rate and available G.

 

I've now talked to several F-16 pilots who comment that [with sufficient speed] a quick full aft stick command will result in the aircraft overshooting the 9 G limit due to the high onset rate the real aircraft is capable of, hitting figures as high as 10 G's before the FLCS slowly brings it back down to 9.0-9.3 G. This is esp. true for a cleaned up aircraft they say.

 

This sounds cool, sadly however in DCS even if you're careful about G buildup and have done G warmup you can barely sustain 8 G. I also think there are problems with the FM too but I think the biggest problem is the fact you cannot sustain 9 G for more than 3-4 sec until you gloc. I expect around M0.8 you would have your best turnrates at 9 G at PS = 0 while i.e. other aircraft like a Hornet will probably bleed at that airspeed pulling 9 G.

 

I don't get the point of a 9 G fighter specifically designed for high speed turn rate fights if it the pilot inside would be incapable of sustaining 9 G for atleast 2-3 full turns, which would typically result in a kill if you have 1-2 degrees/s of turnrate advantage. There are plenty videos out there pilots even taking 12 G for 15 sec.. now those guys are probably the top, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, I just watched a Growling Sidewinder video with him in a Viper defeating a Mirage. Several things that were interesting were that he had blackout disabled, he was also able to keep tally on the Mirage after the merge. I wonder if he padlock enabled? Also he managed to get a kill on the Mirage without placing the BATR on the mirage but merely by aligning the EEGS funnel over the mirage and squeezing the trigger at the right moment. The BATR pipper was up and to the right of the mirage yet he got a kill? I didn't think that would work but it seems the funnel is more important for gauging the shot than the BATR pipper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

450 kts sustained turn rate here in DCS for me is between 19,5 and 21 degrees per second, depending on the fuel (starting from 50% going down to 0), on the deck, empty aircraft with plyons attached.

 

 

-So simple question: Is that correct according IRL documentation, or not? Can anyone produce a higher sustained rate? (default 20 celsius)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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