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

[Top Jockey]

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)

 

I do not have any charts or tables, but in real life does the F-16C really have to be at a 450 kts speed to achieve its highest turn rate ?

[HWasp]

It is somewhere in the 450 kts area.

 

 

Just for further reference, same speed same 50% fuel, for me:

 

 

Su-27 - 18 deg/sec

F-15 - 20 deg/sec

M-2000- 19 deg/sec

MiG-29A 21 deg/sec

F-14- 18-19 deg/sec

 

 

 

I know this is not the ideal speed for for example the Su-27, this is just for comparison.

Edited May 9, 2020 by HWasp

[CAmastersgt]

Hahaha such feisty dialog. Sometimes reading the Forums are better than actually playing the game. Seems like that is where the "real" dogfights happen.

[HWasp]

Found documentation for F-16C blk 50 with F110-GE129

 

 

 

Sea level, max AB, 15 Celsius, 22000 lbs

 

 

-Max sustained is at 460 kts, and it gives about 21,7 degrees/second

 

 

-In DCS: at 21700 lbs GW I managed 21,8 degrees/second (clean ac pylons removed)

 

 

The fuel is not exactly for 22000lb GW beacuse I did not use unlimited fuel. I did disable G simulation though. The rate is from Tacview. The documentation is the first result if you google F-16 performance manual.

 

 

According to this, the DCS model is really spot on, the problem is that with the current G effect modeling it's not really possible to fly like this.

 

 

At 350kts the chart says almost exactly 20deg/sec, and DCS is the same.

[Top Jockey]

Reading all this, I understand that the F-16's highest Sustained Turn Rate is achieved around 450 kts speeds.

 

But if that is only possible with the pilot's G effects turned off, what's the point ?

Besides, wouldn't another airframe with a similar turn rate but at a slower speed (and thus smaller turn radius) have the advantage ?

Edited May 10, 2020 by Top Jockey

[oldtimesake]

It is somewhere in the 450 kts area.

 

 

Just for further reference, same speed same 50% fuel, for me:

 

 

Su-27 - 18 deg/sec

F-15 - 20 deg/sec

M-2000- 19 deg/sec

MiG-29A 21 deg/sec

F-14- 18-19 deg/sec

 

 

 

I know this is not the ideal speed for for example the Su-27, this is just for comparison.

 

You should test it with the fuel load for same "afterburner duration".

 

Su-27 should be loaded with 27% fuel;

F-15 should be loaded with 35% fuel;

M-2000 should be loaded with 34% fuel;

Mig-29A should be loaded with 50% fuel;

F-14 should be loaded with 33% fuel;

F-16 should be loaded with 42% fuel;

 

And remember to disable G effect.

Edited May 10, 2020 by oldtimesake

[Top Jockey]

You should test it with the fuel load for same "afterburner duration".

 

Su-27 should be loaded with 27% fuel;

F-15 should be loaded with 35% fuel;

M-2000 should be loaded with 34% fuel;

Mig-29A should be loaded with 50% fuel;

F-14 should be loaded with 33% fuel;

F-16 should be loaded with 42% fuel;

 

And remember to disable G effect.

 

This ^

 

The thing is (was) in experiments I've done in the past... my praised MiG-29 came out below expectations in ACM, even the Su-27 performed better.

(Particularly in therms of maintaining energy while turning.)

Edited May 10, 2020 by Top Jockey

[HWasp]

You should test it with the fuel load for same "afterburner duration".

 

Su-27 should be loaded with 27% fuel;

F-15 should be loaded with 35% fuel;

M-2000 should be loaded with 34% fuel;

Mig-29A should be loaded with 50% fuel;

F-14 should be loaded with 33% fuel;

F-16 should be loaded with 42% fuel;

 

And remember to disable G effect.

 

 

You are perfectly right, but that test was just for some kind of reference. Also didn't spend much time with it, not that accurate on my part.

 

 

You all feel free to repeat it with those values, if you have time, I will not redo it for now.

[HWasp]

This ^

 

The thing is (was) in experiments I've done in the past... my praised MiG-29 came out below expectations in ACM, even the Su-27 performed better.

(Particularly in therms of maintaining energy while turning.)

 

 

MiG-29 has the numbers, but it is really difficult to fly it well. I can't for sure.

 

 

 

IMO the F-16 is at a disadvantage, because most gun fights are at tree top level, if you go for best max sustained, you black out in seconds and the advantage not that great anyway, and all the other 4th gens do better at slower speeds.

[Top Jockey]

MiG-29 has the numbers, but it is really difficult to fly it well. I can't for sure.

 

Regarding the MiG, post #70 on this thread summed it up well about my disappointment with it.

(Higher energy bleeding and lower pitch rates than the Su-27.)

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257858&page=7

 

the F-16 is at a disadvantage, because most gun fights are at tree top level, if you go for best max sustained, you black out in seconds and the advantage not that great anyway, and all the other 4th gens do better at slower speeds.

 

About the F-16, that's essentially my impression on it, but it does maintain high maneuverability at speeds of 400 kts also, still.

Against "angles" fighters its energy has to be used judiciously.

[oldtimesake]

In terms of real world turning performance:

 

I don't know much about sea level performance, but F-16C-block50 should outturn Mig-29 by sustaining 0.8g higher, at 5000m, according to flight test data:

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=53852&sid=bfc4f11d3d4d436549b5c1af43bf573c

 

With the drag polar and thrust curve you should be able to calculate the sustained G easily.

 

To moderator: all these data are from old documentation and do not violate 1.16.

Edited May 10, 2020 by oldtimesake

[Hummingbird]

Besides, wouldn't another airframe with a similar turn rate but at a slower speed (and thus smaller turn radius) have the advantage ?

 

If the fight is kept horizontal, yes.

[oldtimesake]

If the fight is kept horizontal, yes.

 

Not necessarily if the fight is 2 circle:

 

 

 

I think with current FM the viper is already OP in most 2C scenarios, except facing F-15 at high speed or F-18 at medium speed.

Edited May 10, 2020 by oldtimesake

[Top Jockey]

Not necessarily if the fight is 2 circle:

 

...

 

I think with current FM the viper is already OP in most 2C scenarios, except facing F-15 at high speed or F-18 at medium speed.

 

Yes, but in a dogfight the situation is always changing... post # 608 :

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=140030&page=61~

[Airhunter]

The reason why the F14 in DCS can outturn a Viper is because in DCS dudes bend and overstress the airframe to get the kill, departing the envelope and disregarding operational limitations - something there is no data or EM charts on. Ever.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Airhunter

[HWasp]

In terms of real world turning performance:

 

I don't know much about sea level performance, but F-16C-block50 should outturn Mig-29 by sustaining 0.8g higher, at 5000m, according to flight test data:

 

http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=53852&sid=bfc4f11d3d4d436549b5c1af43bf573c

 

With the drag polar and thrust curve you should be able to calculate the sustained G easily.

 

To moderator: all these data are from old documentation and do not violate 1.16.

 

Well, that M0.9 to 1.2 range is not ideal for the MiG-29, there is a good chance you'd find find the same in DCS. Also above M0.85 the 29 FCS limits it to 7 Gs, so at lower altitudes it is a good reason not push it that fast.

 

I did find the 29 manual though, and it says for sea level at 13000 kg it can sustain 9 Gs at 460 kts, so it is pretty much the same as our F-16, and as the speed decreases the 29 starts to have an advantage. (figure A8-3 page 330 GAF 29 manual)

[oldtimesake]

There are something I need to clarify about Mig's weight:

 

The operational empty weight of Mig-29 (including engine coolant) exceeds 11000 kg by US standard.

 

Proof 1: The Russian Mig-29A flight manual shows that the E-M performance of Mig-29A with 1500 kg fuel is almost the same as the Mig-29A's E-M performance at 13000 kg.

https://postimg.cc/1gkty28Q

 

This means the flying weight of Mig with 1500kg fuel, no external stores, is almost 13000 kg.

 

Proof 2:

 

From Russian Mig-29A flight manual, the V-N curve of Mig-29A at 13290 kg (page 23) is almost the same as that with 1500 kg internal fuel (page 203)

 

DCS may mistook the empty weight marked in flight manual (10900-11000kg) as the weight that is ready for flying except fuel.

Edited May 11, 2020 by oldtimesake

[Hummingbird]

The reason why the F14 in DCS can outturn a Viper is because in DCS dudes bend and overstress the airframe to get the kill, departing the envelope and disregarding operational limitations - something there is no data or EM charts on. Ever.

 

No.

 

At the speeds where the F-14 beats the F-16 in turn rate in RL (& DCS) there is no risk of overstressing the airframe. (Infact overstressing the F-14's airframe would in general take you well above 9 G's)

 

The reason the F-14 (amongst others) is generally having a field day with the F-16 in DCS is mainly due to the DCS F-16 underperforming in ITR and onset rate, PLUS the fact that most people don't understand how to fight in the vertical.

Edited May 11, 2020 by Hummingbird

[oldtimesake]

No.

 

At the speeds where the F-14 beats the F-16 in turn rate in RL (& DCS) there is no risk of overstressing the airframe. (Infact overstressing the F-14's airframe would in general take you well above 9 G's)

 

The reason the F-14 (amongst others) is generally having a field day with the F-16 in DCS is mainly due to the DCS F-16 underperforming in ITR and onset rate, PLUS the fact that most people don't understand how to fight in the vertical.

 

And most players love to mindlessly pull the stick without paying attention to air speed, making F-16 fight in its weak zone (below 350 kts).

[TLTeo]

And the ease of G-locking in DCS which really messes up the Viper's main strength.

[Torri]

Early G-LOC is the main problem in BFM for DCS right now IMO.

[Airhunter]

Early G-LOC is the main problem in BFM for DCS right now IMO.

 

Just turn that setting off. More realistic to have it off than the current model we have now.

[Airhunter]

No.

 

At the speeds where the F-14 beats the F-16 in turn rate in RL (& DCS) there is no risk of overstressing the airframe. (Infact overstressing the F-14's airframe would in general take you well above 9 G's)

 

The reason the F-14 (amongst others) is generally having a field day with the F-16 in DCS is mainly due to the DCS F-16 underperforming in ITR and onset rate, PLUS the fact that most people don't understand how to fight in the vertical.

 

Please specify.

 

Do you fly F-16's or what to you base all of this on?

[Hummingbird]

Please specify.

 

Do you fly F-16's or what to you base all of this on?

 

The real life EM charts for both aircraft for starters.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Hummingbird

[Top Jockey]

Please specify.

 

Do you fly F-16's or what to you base all of this on?

 

Take it from me, @Hummingbird has looked at this kind of stuff over and over.

There's a lot of posts / threads about this throughout the forum.