Turn rate has tanked with new update

[Hummingbird]

F-14B/D's max STR at 10 kft with 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, 55,620 lbs is 14.1 dps (not 13.9) @ M=0.62 .

 

F-16C Blk.50's max STR at 10 kft with 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9, 26,000 lbs is 14.2 dps @ M=0.86.

 

That's straight off of the charts.

 

F-14B 55.6klbs / 10 kft:

Spoiler

F-16C DI50 26klbs / 10 kft:

Spoiler

 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Hummingbird

[Skysurfer]

Well, I stand corrected I guess. I did take the more conservative values and not the literal top pixel of each PS=0 curve. Also keep in mind the above plot for the Viper is NOT for said loadout - a 4x 120 and 2X AIM9 on the inner stations + a centerline + station 4&6 pylon will give you a DI of 30, the chart references a DI of 50, which would be something like a full AIM9 loadout with potentially two empty wing tanks. Hence why the Viper numbers are *very conservative*. Weight can obviously be assumed the same based on internal fuel. If we had clean numbers (just the gun) and maybe LAU7/38 pylons for the Tomcat we could obviously draw a raw, clean comparison but this is all that is available publically as far as I am aware. Also keep in mind, a Viper with just tip 120's and no external pylons has a DI of 0.

 

Regardless, good inputs from everyone, but I think we are really deviating from the main topic. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Skysurfer

[Hummingbird]

I'm afraid you're not reading the DI chart correctly, because:

 

 

4x AIM-120B (DI=4 a piece) [stations 2,3,7 & 8]

2x AIM-9L (DI=4* a piece) [stations 1 & 9] (EDIT*: 6 points can be removed from DI as basic aircraft includes 2x AIM9's on the wingtips, basic DI being 2)

____________________________

DI = 18 for stores only 

 

+

 

2x AIM9 launcher (DI=0 a piece, integrated with wing tips) [stations 1 & 9]

4x LAU-129/A launcher rails + adapter (DI=6 a piece) [stations 2,3,7 & 8]

2x NJETT wing fuel tank pylons (DI=8 a piece ) [stations 4 & 6]

_____________________________

DI=40 for pylons & launchers only

 

Total Drag Index = 58

 

With AIM-120C's instead of AIM-120B's the DI should fall a bit.

 

EDIT: re-checked and you can remove 6 DI points for the two wingtip AIM-9L's (4x2), so DI will be 58 instead of 64.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Hummingbird
Typo

[captain_dalan]

Indeed, Hummingbird is right.

As for the F-14 clean configuration, even if we absolutely ignore the store drag component and go by the most conservative assumption of the plane only losing/gaining performance based on gross weight, we still have 55620lbs for 4x4 and 52660lbs for clean. That means 5.6% increase in T/W. Even if L/D remains the same (which it won't because there are no stores to add to the drag), this still gives us 14.9 deg/s at 10000ft VS 15deg/s  and 14.25deg/s for the Viper depending on engine. If that ain't a wash, i don't know what is. And yes, of course i include the maneuvering flaps on auto.

What ever wins this fight, rating won't be it. The planes are basically the same in that regard. At least these two we have in DCS. Now block 15 and 32 Vipers......that's a different story.

[Skysurfer]

2 hours ago, captain_dalan said:

Indeed, Hummingbird is right.

As for the F-14 clean configuration, even if we absolutely ignore the store drag component and go by the most conservative assumption of the plane only losing/gaining performance based on gross weight, we still have 55620lbs for 4x4 and 52660lbs for clean. That means 5.6% increase in T/W. Even if L/D remains the same (which it won't because there are no stores to add to the drag), this still gives us 14.9 deg/s at 10000ft VS 15deg/s  and 14.25deg/s for the Viper depending on engine. If that ain't a wash, i don't know what is. And yes, of course i include the maneuvering flaps on auto.

What ever wins this fight, rating won't be it. The planes are basically the same in that regard. At least these two we have in DCS. Now block 15 and 32 Vipers......that's a different story.

 

Good points. However where do you get the 15deg/s for the Viper? 50 DI at 10k feet is slightly less than 15 and a clean Blk50 at 10k is well above 17. Again, it would be great to have really comparable charts for the two, mainly with no stores on the jet and in 5k feet increments. Personally I dont think the 4X tunnel AIM7's will make that much difference in terms of L/D (boundary layer + lifting surface) but the LAU7/38 + AIM9's surely will.  On a different note, are the early Block Vipers with the GE really that much lighter?

[Hummingbird]

In terms of parasitic drag the missile armament on the F-14 is so well integrated into the airframe that indeed it won't make as much of a difference when they're gone as it will when the F-16 is clean of its missile armament, that is true. However the F-14's armament is also heavier, which itself affects the L/D ratio via more of a decrease in wing loading when said armament is gone. 

 

So all in all I'd say the F-14 might possibly benefit a tiny bit less going from its 4x4 load out to clean than the F-16 does going from its 2x4 load out to clean, mainly due to the considerably higher parasitic drag of the F-16's external stores, but once the weight difference of the armament is also taken into account it's by so little that it's still basically a wash like Cpt. Dalan says.

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Hummingbird

[captain_dalan]

2 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Good points. However where do you get the 15deg/s for the Viper? 50 DI at 10k feet is slightly less than 15 and a clean Blk50 at 10k is well above 17. Again, it would be great to have really comparable charts for the two, mainly with no stores on the jet and in 5k feet increments. Personally I dont think the 4X tunnel AIM7's will make that much difference in terms of L/D (boundary layer + lifting surface) but the LAU7/38 + AIM9's surely will.  On a different note, are the early Block Vipers with the GE really that much lighter?

The upper left corner of the charts contains a weight adjustment table, that allows to calculate the change in performance based on increase-decrease in weight. The empty weight is taken from DCS (mission editor, create a clean F-16C, and drain all of its fuel). Add to that 3500lbs of weight (50% of internal capacity) and you'll get the gross weight of the clean fighter as we have it in the sim. It is indeed even heavier then the one in the HAF.

The added drag component due to stores in the F-14 should  indeed not be very large. My estimates range from 1.5-2.0% of the overall gain-loss of performance. In our case it would only add about 1/4 of a degree to the clean jet. Being a large plane, and having your stores mounted in a conformal fashion plays its part i guess. Hence it benefits less from losing the stores, but also looses less by having them. That's why heavy fighters like the F-15 and the F-14 have their uses (aside from the added range).

And yeah, early Vipers were very light. Even with less powerful engines, they could easily rate 1.5-2.0 deg/s higher then the late blocks (at least from some of the chart snippets i've seen). All the avionics and, sensors and gadgets added over the years did made them fat-er. And being small and light, made them pay more for that added weight at least as far as raw performance is in question. They did gain a lot of capability though. Especially for the multi-role mission. So i guess it was a worthy gain.

Edited February 16, 2021 by captain_dalan

[captain_dalan]

So did this made the patch today? Hadn't gotten to the notes yet

[Skysurfer]

14 minutes ago, captain_dalan said:

So did this made the patch today? Hadn't gotten to the notes yet

 

No, today's patch was only a small hotfix.

[fat creason]

No. Don't expect this to show up anytime soon. I'll post here when it's getting close.

[Crudbasher]

On 2/15/2021 at 9:58 PM, captain_dalan said:

The added drag component due to stores in the F-14 should  indeed not be very large. 

 

 

If you are talking about DCS as opposed to real life, DCS does not yet model drag in a semi recessed state. In other words the missiles have the same drag as if they were on wing pylons.

[captain_dalan]

3 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

No, today's patch was only a small hotfix.

Ah. good to know.

3 hours ago, fat creason said:

No. Don't expect this to show up anytime soon. I'll post here when it's getting close.

Roger that

2 hours ago, Crudbasher said:

 

If you are talking about DCS as opposed to real life, DCS does not yet model drag in a semi recessed state. In other words the missiles have the same drag as if they were on wing pylons.

Real life of course.

[captain_dalan]

Temporary hack for people that tweak their own missions. Start your missions with (about) 3000 and 4000lbs of fuel less (for the A and B respectively) and you should more or less on the money for subsonic maneuverability. 

[illegal1984]

Lol...this is priceless...I should post more often.

[Lurker]

5 hours ago, illegal1984 said:

Lol...this is priceless...I should post more often.

 

Wow a new forum member, with only two posts. One of them pretending to be constructive, but actually quite inflammatory. Troll 8/10. Pretty good effort. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Lurker

[maxsin72]

On 2/17/2021 at 10:04 PM, fat creason said:

No. Don't expect this to show up anytime soon. I'll post here when it's getting close.

Please, could you explain what you mean with "not anytime soon"? One month, 2 months, 6 months?

Just to have an idea.

Thank you

[fat creason]

2 hours ago, maxsin72 said:

Please, could you explain what you mean with "not anytime soon"? One month, 2 months, 6 months?

Just to have an idea.

Thank you

 

Probably like 2 months, but don't take that as an absolute timeline, it will depend heavily on how much time I can devote to it.

[Skysurfer]

1 hour ago, fat creason said:

 

Probably like 2 months, but don't take that as an absolute timeline, it will depend heavily on how much time I can devote to it.

 

Will at last the transsonic drag at high alt. of the 14A be fixed for the next patch? That is a much bigger problem than some small DPS deficiency. 

[fat creason]

19 hours ago, Skysurfer said:

 

Will at last the transsonic drag at high alt. of the 14A be fixed for the next patch? That is a much bigger problem than some small DPS deficiency. 

 

All FM work is being done in another branch that will be merged in all at once when it's complete.

Edited February 24, 2021 by fat creason

[Skysurfer]

4 minutes ago, fat creason said:

 

All FM work is being done in another branch that will be merged in all at once when it's complete.

 

 

Good to know, thanks! Just out of curiosity, will the next major FM tuning be the final one for the Tomcat as its nearing completion?

[fat creason]

Just now, Skysurfer said:

 

Good to know, thanks! Just out of curiosity, will the next major FM tuning be the final one for the Tomcat as its nearing completion?

 

Next major one will be a performance update that will hopefully be one of the last. There will likely be additional handling adjustments after that based on SME feedback, mostly in the landing configuration.

[maxsin72]

22 hours ago, fat creason said:

 

Probably like 2 months, but don't take that as an absolute timeline, it will depend heavily on how much time I can devote to it.

Good to know, 2 months are not a so long period of time.

[maxsin72]

2 hours ago, fat creason said:

 

Next major one will be a performance update that will hopefully be one of the last. There will likely be additional handling adjustments after that based on SME feedback, mostly in the landing configuration.

If possible, i think could be nice to have the option to assign an axis to sweep wings, thanks.

[captain_dalan]

On 2/24/2021 at 12:06 AM, Skysurfer said:

 

Will at last the transsonic drag at high alt. of the 14A be fixed for the next patch? That is a much bigger problem than some small DPS deficiency. 

I wouldn't call 1.5-2.0 DPS a "small" deficiency. It completely changes how the plane flies AND is supposed to be flown. This doesn't affect only STR, but bleed and recovery rates as well. True, if you use it only as a missile lobbing platform, then you probably won't notice the difference and the trans-sonic issue is the only thing that matters to you. But there are people who dogfight in it, or do aerobatics. It is a very different plane now. Both A and B are, but B is effected more. I don't think it's fair to even start thinking about which issue is more important.

On 2/24/2021 at 9:20 PM, maxsin72 said:

Good to know, 2 months are not a so long period of time.

At least 2. And 4 months as it's been broken already. 6 months are not a long period of time, certainly not on geological scales. But they aren't exactly a short period as well. Especially if the plane gets shelved for some uses during all that time. Alas, we have to live with that.

[Kula66]

I appreciate we all have different priorities, but I really don't understand why such a major issue hasn't been addressed in months ... but, hey, I do have a piece of string to watch

Edited February 28, 2021 by Kula66