DCS F16 performance

[NineLine]

Dear all, remember the topic is on F-16 Performance. Thanks.

[HWasp]

I did some tests, trying to figure out where the F-16 currently stands regarding energy bleed (and gain) in turns vs some of the other modules, and I think it is quite interesting.

I think, most of the tests done are rather static, like measuring sustained turn rates at different speeds. I think it is very much possible to have a module match charts like that, and still feel off against other modules (because either of them is somehow under or overperforming slightly)

So, what I tried to do is to measure and compare turn times while speed is bleeding off within a given range. I think this type of performance is very important regarding the "dogfight experience", becuase this shows how efficiently a plane can cash in speed for more rate. 

 

I chose flying with a fuel state where fuel = 0,2 x empty weight of the aircraft , T 20 celsius

So the first test was trying to achieve max rate while bleeding off speed rather steadily from 400 kts to 250 kts at 1000 feet while doing a full 360 degrees turn.

Times for a full 360:

F-18 -   14,75 sec (fuel 5000lbs)

JF-17-  14,75 sec (2900lbs)

Su-27   15,75 sec  (7500lbs)

M2000 16 sec       (3300lbs)

F-15      16 sec       (6000lbs)

MiG29  16,5 sec    (4800lbs)

F-16      17,25sec   (4000lbs)

 

Now, of course this speed range is not the best for the F-16, but wanted to do it somewhere, that makes sense for all the modules without breaking the limitations too much (still had to over G the F-18

Redoing this for 450kts to 250 kts to favor the F-15 and F-16 it looks like this 

F-18 -     14,75 sec - (starting from 450 with severe paddle switch pulling and 9,5 Gs, full aft stick the whole 360 turn, it will never go down to 250, ended up around 360 ish by the end)

M2000 - 15 sec

F-15        15 sec

MiG29    15,75 sec

F-16       16,25 sec

These results are by no mean 100% accurate of course, but I think they are good enough for this comparison

I included some of the tracks, just to show, how it was done.

 

 

F-18_400_250.trk f-16_450_250.trk F-18_450_350.trk mig-29_400_250.trk

[HWasp]

Another thing I tried is to complete 3 full 360 degree turns in a row with the following parameters:

1st turn : sustained 450 kts

2nd turn: cash in speed from 450 kts to 300 kts

3rd turn: regain speed goin from 300 kts to 450 kts, finishing turn at 450 kts

 

Times I achieved for the turn sequence:

 

F-18  50 sec

JF-17    55 sec
F-15      56  sec
F-16      57  sec
MiG29   58 sec
M2000  59 sec

 

same fuel levels are used as before.

My very subjective opinion on this, is that the F-18 is clearly overperforming in this test, and I would think, that the MiG-29 and the F-16 might be underperforming (relative to the other modules) 

 

 

F-183360_450_300_450.trk F-153360_450_300_450.trk F-163360_450_300_450.trk

Edited November 23, 2021 by HWasp

[HWasp]

There are other oddities in DCS (for me at least), that may make the F-16 look rather weak, because other modules (may) overperform

F-16 vs M2000 (unfortunately tracks for the Mirage are broken for me this version, so can't upload them this time)

3 turns in sequence: 1st 450 kts sustained, 2nd cash in speed 450 to 250 kts, 3rd sustained 250 kts

M2000 : 54 seconds (there is almost no difference in sustained turn rates for the Mirage between 450 kts and 250 kts, which is very strange)

F-16 :     56 seconds

(F-16 if corner speed is kept for 2+1/2 turns and full aft stick for the last 180 deg: 55 seconds )

 

So for me the Mirage can produce an average turn rate of 20 degrees / second for the duration of 3 full circles, almost 1 minute, because it does not matter for it, if speed is 450 or 250 the rate is almost the same, so when the Mirage pilot decides to cash in speed from 450 to 250, there is almost no penalty for it.

Don't want to start any wars between fans here, but even if the F-16 is perfectly simulated, these kind of issues might really affect the outcome of dogfights for it, so unfortunetaly this cannot be adressed in a vacuum, even though this is the F-16 thread.

[Theodore42]

22 hours ago, HWasp said:

Another thing I tried is to complete 3 full 360 degree turns in a row with the following parameters:

1st turn : sustained 450 kts

2nd turn: cash in speed from 450 kts to 300 kts

3rd turn: regain speed goin from 300 kts to 450 kts, finishing turn at 450 kts

This is some interesting testing you're doing, much more realistic than just STR stuff. You might just divide up the times of the tests to see which aircraft gains doing what. Also add a bunch of different speeds and also different ranges. Or maybe set up a STR then see how long you can sustain +1 G from there. Or +2 or +3Gs. I'll likely do some of these things myself but I don't know your method.

Maybe also include unloaded acceleration rates?

My hypothesis is that lower wing-loaded aircraft (F-15 and MiG) Are going to look better at slow speeds and the high thrust-to-weight ratio fighters are going to be better fast. But when it comes to turning it should generally be accepted that low wing loaded aircraft are always going to perform better than thrust-to-weight ratio fighters. 

And the F-15 is 100% more expensive than all the others so you can expect it to be consistently 1% better at everything. Pretty sure that's how it works.

[Spurts]

2 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

 But when it comes to turning it should generally be accepted that low wing loaded aircraft are always going to perform better than thrust-to-weight ratio fighters. 

Close, Span Loading is the leading factor in determining how much drag is produced in a turn, and poor span loading can be countered by high thrust-to-weight for sustained turns.  Lift loading (wing loading corrected for max lift coefficient, and no you cannot assume lift coefficients to be equivalent across fighter jets) is going to determine turn radius and combines with G limit to determine peak transient turn rates.  

 

the devil is in the details though.

[wilbur81]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:24 AM, HWasp said:

Times I achieved for the turn sequence:

F-18  50 sec

JF-17    55 sec
F-15      56  sec
F-16      57  sec
MiG29   58 sec
M2000  59 sec

same fuel levels are used as before.

My very subjective opinion on this, is that the F-18 is clearly overperforming in this test, and I would think, that the MiG-29 and the F-16 might be underperforming (relative to the other modules) 

F-183360_450_300_450.trk
195.99 kB · 2 downloads F-153360_450_300_450.trk 227.82 kB · 1 download F-163360_450_300_450.trk 239.6 kB · 2 downloads

 

Dude, I just watched your tracks... you're pulling the Paddle switch on the Hornet, man... this is a 'no-no'. The EM performance charts for the jet do not take this into account. You do realize that the Hornet is a 9+ G airplane when this is pulled, right? A paddle-switch-pulled clean Hornet with the EP engines WILL outperform a Viper... And it will ruin the wing-fold mechanism (and over time, other things) on US jets. Watch some Finnish Hornet demos on Youtube with a modified FCS for 9Gs and they will make your eyes water...

 

Edited November 24, 2021 by wilbur81

[Versor]

23 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Dude, I just watched your tracks... you're pulling the Paddle switch on the Hornet, man... this is a 'no-no'. The EM performance charts for the jet do not take this into account. You do realize that the Hornet is a 9+ G airplane when this is pulled, right? A paddle-switch-pulled clean Hornet with the EP engines WILL outperform a Viper... And it will ruin the wing-fold mechanism (and over time, other things) on US jets. Watch some Finnish Hornet demos on Youtube with a modified FCS for 9Gs and they will make your eyes water...

 

 

Dude but paddle switch work in DCS! We are talking about DCS. If in DCS Hornet will be able to pull 20 G, he should reach a maximum of 7.5 G for testing?

Edited November 24, 2021 by Versor

[fagulha]

2 minutes ago, Versor said:

Dude but paddle switch work in DCS! We are talking about DCS.

So, you want real performance etc and already 6 pages in the subject but want to use the Paddle Switch? go figure...

[wilbur81]

34 minutes ago, Versor said:

Dude but paddle switch work in DCS! We are talking about DCS. If in DCS Hornet will be able to pull 20 G, he should reach a maximum of 7.5 G for testing?

 

I'll re-phrase for ya: A real Lot 20 Hornet will out perform a real Blk 50 Viper if the Pilot is squeezing the paddle switch in real life at certain weights, airspeeds, etc. The FCS G-available will be increased by something like 33% of the current G available, which will at times reach or even exceed 9 Gs.  A real Hornet will not like exceeding 8.5g's like this over time (particularly the wing-fold feature on US Hornets)... so real pilots don't use it...but you are not going to see 20g's in DCS or in real life with a pulled-paddle. I have seen 20+ G spikes on my max-g-pulled indicator in the Hornet after a REALLY rough (read "bad") carrier landing, but enough about me...   

[HWasp]

12 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Dude, I just watched your tracks... you're pulling the Paddle switch on the Hornet, man... this is a 'no-no'. The EM performance charts for the jet do not take this into account. You do realize that the Hornet is a 9+ G airplane when this is pulled, right? A paddle-switch-pulled clean Hornet with the EP engines WILL outperform a Viper... And it will ruin the wing-fold mechanism (and over time, other things) on US jets. Watch some Finnish Hornet demos on Youtube with a modified FCS for 9Gs and they will make your eyes water...

 

 

Dude... Yes, I pulled the the paddle switch, you didn't have to watch the track to figure that out, since I wrote it clearly in my post.

I also know, that it is not permitted IRL, and this test has nothing to do with any charts directly (did I quote any em charts for any aircraft mentioned? No.)

These tests are simple comparisons between modules, trying to put them into scenarios, that somewhat resemble parts and aspects of fights that happen in DCS.

I think, that while lots of static performance data are tested and are matching the charts, there might be things inbetween, that are not that straight forward to test and compare to charts, and might cause strange things.

Like this Hornet behaviour in the second test. The test starts at 450 kts and finishes at 450 kts at the same altitude, meaning it is from an energy perspective neutral, so it is kind of a sustained turn performance. (You could start over and do the same sequence over and over again, without interruption)

When the Hornet finishes the 3rd turn in that sequence an F-15 trying to fight it, would have lost 116 degrees already, so almost in a defensive position only after 3 turns. That should raise some eyebrows imo.  

 

Edited November 25, 2021 by HWasp

[TEOMOOSE]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

Dude... Yes, I pulled the the paddle switch, you didn't have to watch the track to figure that out, since I wrote it clearly in my post.

I also know, that it is not permitted IRL, and this test has nothing to do with any charts directly (did I quote any em charts for any aircraft mentioned? No.)

These tests are simple comparisons between modules, trying to put them into scenarios, that somewhat resemble parts and aspects of fights that happen in DCS.

I think, that while lots of static performance data are tested and are matching the charts, there might be things inbetween, that are not that straight forward to test and compare to charts, and might cause strange things.

Like this Hornet behaviour in the second test. The test starts at 450 kts and finishes at 450 kts at the same altitude, meaning it is from an energy perspective neutral, so it is kind of a sustained turn performance. (You could start over and do the same sequence over and over again, without interruption)

When the Hornet finishes the 3rd turn in that sequence an F-15 trying to fight it, would have lost 116 degrees already, so almost in a defensive position only after 3 turns. That should raise some eyebrows imo.  

 

 

There is no point discussing Hornet or comparing one module to an other. If you have read the title carefully, you would know. Thanks.
One misleading the thread and others follow. Lets stick with the original post, F-16 PERFORMANCE.

[HWasp]

3 hours ago, TEOMOOSE said:

There is no point discussing Hornet or comparing one module to an other. If you have read the title carefully, you would know. Thanks.
One misleading the thread and others follow. Lets stick with the original post, F-16 PERFORMANCE.

 

I strongly disagree, that comparing modules is not necessary, I think it would be very important to perform tests across a range of modules regularly, because that would provide an important crosscheck for possible errors, that might be not that easy to catch on their own.

It has been said on this thread multiple times, that after the last review, they find the Viper FM to be very close to their data, which I think must be true, so looking at the Viper on it's own might lead to dead end, when trying to find out, why some expectations about it won't come true in DCS. 

Another reason is, that more dynamic things, like the turn rate while converting a given amount of speed into additional rate, I tried to compare across the modules, is not easy to test accurately against charts. Also there are other modules, where charts are simply not available to the public, and they are not provided in any form in the module docs.

 

 

 

 

 

[wilbur81]

On 11/23/2021 at 11:24 AM, HWasp said:

A

 

F-18  50 sec

JF-17    55 sec
F-15      56  sec
F-16      57  sec
MiG29   58 sec
M2000  59 sec

My very subjective opinion on this, is that the F-18 is clearly overperforming in this test, and I would think, that the MiG-29 and the F-16 might be underperforming (relative to the other modules) 

Your assessment wasn't that you were just innocently comparing modules... (you even bold-faced the Viper and Hornet results..) you are saying that you think the Hornet is clearly over performing... and your test of the Hornet's turn performance here was invalid... if you want to accurately compare how the Viper's FM stacks up against the Hornet's, don't pull the paddle.

This thread should be about getting the Viper (which was a day-one-pre-purchase for me) as close to real world performance as possible. Your misleading Hornet testing will further lead to the misconception that either:

"The current DCS Hornet is overperforming"

or

"The current DCS Viper is underperforming"

Compare the Viper to every module available in DCS, by all means... just do it correctly for each so your data is valid. 

Edited November 25, 2021 by wilbur81

[HWasp]

14 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Your assessment wasn't that you were just innocently comparing modules... (you even bold-faced the Viper and Hornet results..) you are saying that you think the Hornet is clearly over performing... and your test of the Hornet's turn performance here was invalid... if you want to accurately compare how the Hornet's FM stacks up against the rest, don't pull the paddle.

 

Pulling the paddle does not make my test invalid, it is necessary in order to test the plane's performance in the speed range I have selected. If I would select a different speed range for the Hornet only, or reduce power, now that would make my test invalid. I selected the 450 to 300 range because that is closer to optimal range for the F-16 and most of the others

Feel free to repeat the test between 380 kts and 250 kts, then you will not need the paddle switch. I might do the same,when I'll have time for it. 

I pointed out the difference with the Hornet, because it is too large in my opinion, and it suspicious to have one module that stands out so much, simple as that.

[Aquorys]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

Pulling the paddle does not make my test invalid

I guess it kind of does, because the Hornet is a 7.5G aircraft, and that's what the real-world assessment of the Viper outperforming the Hornet in real life is generally based on. Yeah, if you decide to destroy your aircraft by overstressing the airframe, then a Hornet will do pretty much the same 9G turns as the Viper (same speed, same Gs means pretty much the same turn rate and the same turn radius). And it can possibly outperform the Viper if you do that, in real life. But if you do, you're just gonna lose two aircraft instead of one.

[Krippz]

20 hours ago, wilbur81 said:

Dude, I just watched your tracks... you're pulling the Paddle switch on the Hornet, man... this is a 'no-no'. The EM performance charts for the jet do not take this into account. You do realize that the Hornet is a 9+ G airplane when this is pulled, right? A paddle-switch-pulled clean Hornet with the EP engines WILL outperform a Viper... And it will ruin the wing-fold mechanism (and over time, other things) on US jets. Watch some Finnish Hornet demos on Youtube with a modified FCS for 9Gs and they will make your eyes water...

 

 

Thing is the vast majority of people at least in multiplayer abuse the paddle switch and since the energy bleed rate in the Hornet likely needs attention it leads to the perception that the F-16 doesn’t do well in BFM vs the Hornet. Hope I didn’t diverge too much from the topic but relative performance vs XYZ is what people see everyday. 

[Krippz]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

Pulling the paddle does not make my test invalid, it is necessary in order to test the plane's performance in the speed range I have selected. If I would select a different speed range for the Hornet only, or reduce power, now that would make my test invalid. I selected the 450 to 300 range because that is closer to optimal range for the F-16 and most of the others

Feel free to repeat the test between 380 kts and 250 kts, then you will not need the paddle switch. I might do the same,when I'll have time for it. 

I pointed out the difference with the Hornet, because it is too large in my opinion, and it suspicious to have one module that stands out so much, simple as that.

If you did not use the paddle you would not lose speed but continue to gain it in that platform so it was necessary. 

[Versor]

20 hours ago, fagulha said:

So, you want real performance etc and already 6 pages in the subject but want to use the Paddle Switch? go figure...

No i don't but if its allowed you will ask Hornet driver in all server to not use paddle because its not realistic?

[Versor]

45 minutes ago, Aquorys said:

I guess it kind of does, because the Hornet is a 7.5G aircraft, and that's what the real-world assessment of the Viper outperforming the Hornet in real life is generally based on. Yeah, if you decide to destroy your aircraft by overstressing the airframe, then a Hornet will do pretty much the same 9G turns as the Viper (same speed, same Gs means pretty much the same turn rate and the same turn radius). And it can possibly outperform the Viper if you do that, in real life. But if you do, you're just gonna lose two aircraft instead of one.

It's the same like for example Viper in DCS could get much more than 9G and you will tell everyone that for test they should get max. 9G because in real life viper can get just max 9G and nothing more. In DCS you can't destroy your airplane and now what?

Edited November 25, 2021 by Versor

[Aquorys]

2 minutes ago, Versor said:

It's the same like for example Viper in DCS could get much more than 9G

Where do you get much more than 9G? Mine doesn't, most of the time it'll rather do some 8.5 to 8.9. Maybe you'll get 9.2 for a second at 650 knots before it drops to 9 or below, just like you'll probably get 7.7 briefly on the Hornet every now and then.

9.2 instead of 9 for one second isn't the same as 9 instead of 7.5 all day though.

[Versor]

24 minutes ago, Aquorys said:

Where do you get much more than 9G? Mine doesn't, most of the time it'll rather do some 8.5 to 8.9. Maybe you'll get 9.2 for a second at 650 knots before it drops to 9 or below, just like you'll probably get 7.7 briefly on the Hornet every now and then.

9.2 instead of 9 for one second isn't the same as 9 instead of 7.5 all day though.

yyyyy?? If you will able to get much more than 9G in Viper   Sorry for my not so good english (google translator is not so good too).

Edited November 25, 2021 by Versor

[Aquorys]

58 minutes ago, Krippz said:

(...) leads to the perception that the F-16 doesn’t do well in BFM vs the Hornet. Hope I didn’t diverge too much from the topic but relative performance vs XYZ is what people see everyday. 

Maybe it doesn't in real life if you pull that paddle switch on the Hornet. In that case, that would be realistic, and what's actually missing for the whole situation to be more realistic is the simulation of airframe damage on the Hornet if you overstress the airframe.

[NineLine]

On 11/22/2021 at 12:22 PM, NineLine said:

Dear all, remember the topic is on F-16 Performance. Thanks.

Please open a topic about other aircraft if you want to discuss those, but this one is about the F-16 Performance. If it continues I will need to close this thread. Thanks.

[HWasp]

I think, arguing about G limits is missing the point of the test completely.

This is about trading energy for turn performance in a fixed speed range. More Gs only mean that the trade happens quicker, and at a higher AoA range, and that does not help. There is simply a minimum amount of G required to start the process at the given speed, that is it. 

I think this could be tested in a different way, that is a bit tricky, but holds all limitations:

Spiral climb at 450 kts at 7,5 G sustained, check what is the rate of climb, while holding these values for the F-16, and crosscheck it with the others. This would give a Ps value for the F-16 at that point, because if speed is constant, then Ps = rate of climb, and that could be crosschecked with the charts.