F-16 easier than others?

[LC34]

Is it just me, or is the F-16 just an easier plane to understand and fly than others?

 

I have the F-15, F-14, F-18, F-86 and I have found that I am understanding and getting the hang of this plane much much faster than any of the others. Granted I have only done a few things with the plane, mostly just the single missions that came with the module but landing, CCRP, CCIP, countermeasures landing and lasing with this system has been great.

 

I have spent way more time with the F-14 and F18 and am not anywhere close to as comfortable with them as the 16, and that may have more to do with mostly trying to carrier land with the others. My tune might change once I start AAR with the 16. Is anyone else finding this bird a bit more "easy?"

[DW2020]

I find it a bit of a pig to land but is very stable in flight

[kengou]

F-16 avionics and interface is very well designed. I would agree.

[LC34]

I find it a bit of a pig to land but is very stable in flight

 

Landing problems for me is getting the right AoA but other than that I can set it down relatively gentle. But yes, definitely not the smoothest landing on approach for me.

[MadCat1381]

I find the Viper to be very intuitive. Nice HOTAS implementation. So I agree as well.

 

Even real pilots find her to be quite finicky at landings. One stated on an interview, that on 60 landings, when everything is the same, you'll get 60 different touch downs.

[Emmy]

It was designed, sold and intended to be a “simple” aircraft.

 

I think GD got it right. I’ve always considered it to be the “Modern Mustang.”

[Cupra]

It is just a great construction. Everything you need is right there where you expect it to be. You can nearly do everything with HOTAS.

Don´t forget, it is not the pure numbers that make a jet great, it is the usability. Same as with cars. You can have cars with extreme power, a lot of great components. But if you are able to build a car that is a bit smaller and easier to handle you might be maybe faster than with just the winner of a simple comparision of numbers.

And also for landing.. I do not think it is hard. Just check AoA and FPM.. all the rest is going fluid...

[Dahlbeck]

I also find the Viper easier to land than the Bug, even on a field, because it's easier to maintain a stable thrust and thus a stable glide path. There is something with the Hornet throttles that makes that hard.

 

Part of the reason might also be that the landing technique is closer to how I land light aircraft IRL...

 

And of course, my many hours in "that other sim" 10-15 years ago might have something to do with it...

 

Skickat från min H8324 via Tapatalk

[dave4002000]

The landing method I've been using for years in BMS, and now DCS is this:

 

Line up the 2.5° pitch ladder and the FPM to the runway threshold

Establish on speed AOA

Upon crossing the runway threshold, pull the FPM up to the departure end of the runway

Slightly increase power to arrest descent, then idle

Touchdown on mains, hold gun cross at 10° until 100kts

[Scofflaw]

I'm by no means an excellent pilot, but I was able to refuel the F16 on my first attempt (also my first attempt at AAR with the boom).

 

I struggle a bit when lining up with the runway after an overhead break, but I have that issue with all aircraft. In all my landings with the F16, I think I bounced once.

 

Strong crosswind landings are another story.

[BigHairyGobbler]

I'm flying the F-16C with a standard flight stick and have no problem landing though you'll need to flare the plane upon touchdown to stop.

[Eaglewings]

The landing method I've been using for years in BMS, and now DCS is this:

 

Line up the 2.5° pitch ladder and the FPM to the runway threshold

Establish on speed AOA

Upon crossing the runway threshold, pull the FPM up to the departure end of the runway

Slightly increase power to arrest descent, then idle

Touchdown on mains, hold gun cross at 10° until 100kts

Way to go.

Pretty easy following these rules.

The F-16 is about the easiest to land especially for guys 'n' gals who have had extensive knowledge of this jet from the other sim.

 

Love the falcon. The prettiest aircraft in dcs as far as I am concern. The Typhoon would be the only aircraft that would contest with her in this regards imho.

 

 

 

I am hope the falcon get all her features plugged in the near future. Funnier to fly by then.

[Svend_Dellepude]

The landing method I've been using for years in BMS, and now DCS is this:

 

Line up the 2.5° pitch ladder and the FPM to the runway threshold

Establish on speed AOA

Upon crossing the runway threshold, pull the FPM up to the departure end of the runway

Slightly increase power to arrest descent, then idle

Touchdown on mains, hold gun cross at 10° until 100kts

 

I do the same, except keep AoA at 12-13° after touchdown.

[LC34]

Its funny because the two planes I didn't like and didn't think "looked cool" were the Hornet and the Viper. With the Tomcat and Eagle being my favorites.

 

In DCS, the Viper and Hornet are by far my favorite planes.

[Dannyvandelft]

I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but I always land her with full air brakes deployed, just like the Tomcat. I "put the thing on the thing" and just glide her in, adding a bit of power to shallow the glide path near the runway. Then I'll flare to get the "thing" in the E bracket, and she sets down smooth as can be. Throttle to idle, then full stick aft to use the elevators as air brakes while keeping her straight with left and right wheel brake input as needed until she's slowed down to NWS speed. Retract brakes, release stick, open canopy, and taxi to the pad.

 

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[BuzzU]

I always thought the Viper floated in pretty good. More satisfying than the crash landing we do with the Hornet.

[QuiGon]

Even real pilots find her to be quite finicky at landings. One stated on an interview, that on 60 landings, when everything is the same, you'll get 60 different touch downs.

Yeah, this video gives a great impression of how finicky the Viper can be to land:

(2:57)

[Delareon]

if only the crosswind behaviour would be fixed....

For me thats currently the only reason to not touch this Jet.

 

But yeah, that Plane is a beauty. It has everything it needs, right where it needs to be and was designed with the Pilot in Mind.

So if you plan ahead there is no need to take your hands away from throttle and stick in an engagement and even in regular manouvers you dont have to touch many other controls.

[Enduro14]

if only the crosswind behaviour would be fixed....

For me thats currently the only reason to not touch this Jet.

 

But yeah, that Plane is a beauty. It has everything it needs, right where it needs to be and was designed with the Pilot in Mind.

So if you plan ahead there is no need to take your hands away from throttle and stick in an engagement and even in regular manouvers you dont have to touch many other controls.

 

Whats wrong with the cross wind behavior?

[Delareon]

try it and you see it....

touch down and your tires have instantly grip a formula one car can only dream of...

which results in a Plane jumping from one side of the runway to the other...

[Enduro14]

so your complaining about tires and not the flight model... Figures

[Delareon]

What you say is just nitpicking.

 

i complain about the reportet and W.I.P. Fact that you cant land this Plane in crosswind as it should be.

 

Reason might be the tires or whatever. Its not my job to analyze it to the last bolt and it doesnt matter much if its acutally the flight model or the tires or maybe the code for the runway... (thats why ED has it Experts, which allready agreed and working on it).

[Napa]

Its certainly simpler and more straightforward to operate than most modern jets. However, there is a lot going on behind this simplicity that you have to learn beforehand, so that when things get complicated in combat, you don't lose your SA.

[naizarak]

reading through the manual i got the impression it would be simpler than the hornet, but in practice the controls/workflow are much worse

 

 

 

for example, why are there 5 master modes of which 3 are air-to-air? why are some modes controlled through IFC buttons while others are on the hotas as a slider? hornet has this figured out and is much easier.

 

 

another example: why is the sidewinder's search mode (bore vs slaved) manually controlled? in the hornet the sidewinder automatically slaves when the radar has locked a target. otherwise it switches to "boresight" by default and will follow your helmet. only thing you have to worry about is caging

 

 

radar however is more straightforward in the f16, and actually appears to work correctly.

[Deano87]

reading through the manual i got the impression it would be simpler than the hornet, but in practice the controls/workflow are much worse

 

 

 

for example, why are there 5 master modes of which 3 are air-to-air? why are some modes controlled through IFC buttons while others are on the hotas as a slider? hornet has this figured out and is much easier.

 

They each have their use. The main reason for the 3 air-to-air modes is that you can set them up to do different things. Obviously one is dogfight, so that is all the close-in, knife fight stuff. The excellent gunsight etc. It sets the whole aircraft up for the merge.

 

Missile Override has its use because its very easy to quickly and dynamically flick into and out of it from any normal mode, including the normal Air-to-Air mode. Depending on how its set up Missile override can be a great way to rapidly change MFD configurations to check something. Or quickly flick into an AA mode to check the AA radar while also looking for targets using the AG radar or TPOD. Because the jet remembers its configuration in each mode, I can flip to Override, check what I want and then push the rocker back to the middle position and i'm back in AG mode exactly as I left it. Super quick and easy.

 

 

IMHO the systems and HOTAS controls in the Viper are just as good if not better than the Hornet, but they are completely different.