Does ED public EM charts for the aircraft they make simulations for?

[HWasp]

On 12/8/2021 at 3:37 PM, wilbur81 said:

Only when guys emulating Growling Sidewinder TM   pull the paddle switch...

Wrong.

There. 7.5G line is marked, clearly outrates the Viper flying at best rate speed (9G/460).

Edited December 9, 2021 by HWasp

[Hulkbust44]

1 minute ago, HWasp said:

Wrong.

There. 7.5G line is marked, clearly outrares the Viper flying at best rate speed (9G/460)

As it should, but by how much is real question, it should be like less than a degree per second. The DCS data looks a lot better than people give it credit for.

[HWasp]

1 minute ago, Hulkbust44 said:

As it should, but by how much is real question, it should be like less than a degree per second. The DCS data looks a lot better than people give it credit for.

Can you point me towards the source of information, that confirms this? It has the same rate as the F-15C in my test.

(I honestly don't care which one is better, but there is just so much questionable info thrown around on these forums, especially since publishing data and charts is forbidden... no offense)

[Hulkbust44]

Can you point me towards the source of information, that confirms this? It has the same rate as the F-15C in my test.
(I honestly don't care which one is better, but there is just so much questionable info thrown around on these forums, especially since publishing data and charts is forbidden... no offense)

Best we've got for the Hornet is the GAO doc with the number 19.2°/s for sustained turn rate at sea level. This is with 60% fuel and DI of 50. We have a Viper EM turn performance at sea level chart somewhere around here. It's with the good engine also at 60% fuel DI=50. The Viper's max sustained turn rate with that is about 18.4-18.5°/s. I believe Wags posted it here so you should be able to find it, but I'm not going to risk a link here.

Mobius708

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Best we've got for the Hornet is the GAO doc with the number 19.2°/s for sustained turn rate at sea level. This is with 60% fuel and DI of 50. We have a Viper EM turn performance at sea level chart somewhere around here. It's with the good engine also at 60% fuel DI=50. The Viper's max sustained turn rate with that is about 18.4-18.5°/s. I believe Wags posted it here so you should be able to find it, but I'm not going to risk a link here.

Mobius708
 

The gao says the Hornet loadout is 2xAim-9 + 2xAim-120 no tanks

The Hornet manual says: 2x wingtip Aim-9s  DI = 0,  Fuselage loaded aim-120 DI = 4

That is DI = 8 for the Hornet in this config. (no pylons, but they were not mentioned)

F-16 : 

2x wingtip aim-9 DI = 2

2x lau129 + aim 120 DI = 20

So that is DI=22 for the F-16 in the same config for me. What am I missing? (no empty pylons)

[HWasp]

On 12/9/2021 at 8:41 PM, Hulkbust44 said:

Best we've got for the Hornet is the GAO doc with the number 19.2°/s for sustained turn rate at sea level. This is with 60% fuel and DI of 50. We have a Viper EM turn performance at sea level chart somewhere around here. It's with the good engine also at 60% fuel DI=50. The Viper's max sustained turn rate with that is about 18.4-18.5°/s. I believe Wags posted it here so you should be able to find it, but I'm not going to risk a link here.

Mobius708
 

 

I had to do some research regarding this:

On page 62 of the same Gao doc there is a thrust to weight comparison, where they use the same config:

2xAIM9+2xAIM120+60%fuel 

With this config they calculate with a weight of 33325 lbs

empty weight (25500lbs) + 2x 196lbs (aim9s) + 2x 347lbs  (aim120)  +  6570 lbs  (60%fuel)  =  33156 lbs  (with my limited data)

SUU 63 pylon weight is 310 lbs

If I would add 4x SUU 63, that would be + 1240 lbs

So, if they would calculate with pylons attached, they would calculate with 34400 lbs + on page 62

They only calculate with 33325 lbs, so that means logically, that on page 30, where the STR of 19,2 dps is mentioned with the same config, they do not have the pylons attached as well.

This means, that DI is not 50 , it is much less.

On the Hornet for me this config gives, without the pylons, DI = 8

 

This means, that it is wrong to compare the 19,2 d/s value to the DI = 50 chart of the HAF F-16 manual!
 

The same weapons load gives a DI of 22 for me in case of the F-16

Please test the DCS Hornet against the gao doc 19,2 STR without the pylons,at a weight of around 33300 lbs!

 

 

Edited December 11, 2021 by HWasp

[totmacher]

19 часов назад, HWasp сказал:

Please test the DCS Hornet against the gao doc 19,2 STR without the pylons,at a weight of around 33300 lbs!

Previous page

All data
 

Скрытый текст

https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/Fa18c

 

[HWasp]

19 hours ago, totmacher said:

Previous page

All data
 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://dcs.silver.ru/Diagram/Fa18c

 

Thank you very much! 
 

Ok, so in summary:

- GAO doc config is : 60% fuel, 2xaim-9, 2xaim-120, no pylons, 33325 lbs, DI = 8

- In this config DCS Hornet STR is 20,2 > 19.2 GAO doc Hornet STR 

 

I think, since a track was already provided, this is enough evidence to check the Hornet FM and adjust it to match the value found in the GAO doc.

Regarding the F-16, since the DI=50 chart is not a valid comparison (STR 18,5), and of course the 22000lbs DI=0 (STR 21,7) is also not valid, and the GW adjustment chart seems very very rough, no direct comparison can be made.

 

 

[Hulkbust44]

Thank you very much! 
 
Ok, so in summary:
- GAO doc config is : 60% fuel, 2xaim-9, 2xaim-120, no pylons, 33325 lbs, DI = 8
-no direct comparison can be made.
 
 

I'm sorry, why not?
Same relative fuel, same ordance load.

Mobius708

[HWasp]

2 hours ago, Hulkbust44 said:

 

 

I'm sorry, why not?
Same relative fuel, same ordance load.

Mobius708
 

 

Because the 26k lbs chart for the F-16 is DI = 50. The Hornet config is DI = 8. 

F-16 with the same loadout would be DI = 22

 

[Swift.]

Where are you guys getting these hornet DI numbers from? Its almost like you are an entire order of magnitude out. A hornet with nothing but pylons on it, has a DI of about 50

[Hulkbust44]

Because the 26k lbs chart for the F-16 is DI = 50. The Hornet config is DI = 8. 
F-16 with the same loadout would be DI = 22
 

Where are you getting DI=8?

Isn't the 16's DI=50 2 sidewinder, 2 AMRAAM?

Mobius708

[HWasp]

3 hours ago, Swiftwin9s said:

Where are you guys getting these hornet DI numbers from? Its almost like you are an entire order of magnitude out. A hornet with nothing but pylons on it, has a DI of about 50

Don't mean to be rude, but are you actually reading the posts here?

There are NO PYLONS on the Hornet in the config mentioned in the GAO Document (where the STR = 19,2 is coming from)

Check the link provided by Totmacher previously, that contains the the relevant parts of the document. Hornet weight in the GAO doc is 33325 lbs. If the pylons were attached, it would be approx 1200 lbs heavier!

DI values come from the manual 

Wingtip mounted AIM-9s are DI = 0 (on the Hornet) . Wingtip mounted missiles have much better drag, since they help with induced drag (like a winglet) also the pylon is part of the normal config there.

Fuselage mounted Aim-120 on the Hornet has a very low DI of 4. I think this is also quite understandable, why a missile sunk into the fuselage like that has much lower drag than on external pylons.

[Hulkbust44]

Don't mean to be rude, but are you actually reading the posts here?
There are NO PYLONS on the Hornet in the config mentioned in the GAO Document (where the STR = 19,2 is coming from)
Check the link provided by Totmacher previously, that contains the the relevant parts of the document. Hornet weight in the GAO doc is 33325 lbs. If the pylons were attached, it would be approx 1200 lbs heavier!
DI values come from the manual 
Wingtip mounted AIM-9s are DI = 0 (on the Hornet) . Wingtip mounted missiles have much better drag, since they help with induced drag (like a winglet) also the pylon is part of the normal config there.
Fuselage mounted Aim-120 on the Hornet has a very low DI of 4. I think this is also quite understandable, why a missile sunk into the fuselage like that has much lower drag than on external pylons.

Cool, so it's better engineered than the F-16 and therefore has a better DI at the same load. There you go. Still don't see the issue.

Mobius708

[HWasp]

22 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Cool, so it's better engineered than the F-16 and therefore has a better DI at the same load. There you go. Still don't see the issue.

Mobius708
 

The F-16 would be DI = 22 in that config.

Wingtip Sidewinders are DI = 2 (the 2 together), the amraam + pylon is DI = 10,

Obiously if the F-18 does not have the 4 large empty SUU 63 pylons, then the F-16 should not have the 4 large empty pylons as well!! 

The F-16 might be DI = 50 with the 4 large pylons attached, I did not check that, because it is irrelevant, since, the Hornet does not have it's 4 large pylons attached in the GAO doc config.

Is this now understandable?

The DI values for the F-16 are in the same manual, where the EM diagrams can be found.

Edited December 13, 2021 by HWasp

[Hulkbust44]

1 hour ago, HWasp said:

The F-16 would be DI = 22 in that config.

Wingtip Sidewinders are DI = 2 (the 2 together), the amraam + pylon is DI = 10,

Obiously if the F-18 does not have the 4 large empty SUU 63 pylons, then the F-16 should not have the 4 large empty pylons as well!! 

The F-16 might be DI = 50 with the 4 large pylons attached, I did not check that, because it is irrelevant, since, the Hornet does not have it's 4 large pylons attached in the GAO doc config.

Is this now understandable?

The DI values for the F-16 are in the same manual, where the EM diagrams can be found.

 

Again, how do you know that the Hornet has pylons? 

Regardless, that 19.2 can't even be at max G.

[HWasp]

7 minutes ago, Hulkbust44 said:

Again, how do you know that the Hornet has pylons? 

Regardless, that 19.2 can't even be at max G.

I thought this was already clear...

There is a weight figure with the same loadout at a different page of the same GAO document. You can see it highlighted if you check the link provided by Totmacher (page 62 btw)

- The weight shown is 33325 lbs in the GAO document for 2xaim9 2xaim120 60% fuel

- Clean Hornet with gun ammo is around 25500 lbs

- 25550 lbs + 6500 lbs fuel (60%) + 1067 lbs (2xaim9+2xaim120) = 33117 lbs (I'm using DCS ME now to add things up, quickly but still only 200lbs dif.)

- the weight of 4x Hornet pylon is 1240 lbs (in the manual)

- 33117 + 1240 = 34357 lbs ----> Hornet with the pylons  =/= 33325 lbs Hornet in GAO doc

 

You can check this in DCS ME

DCS Hornet with pylons + 2xaim9+2xaim120+6500lbs fuel =        34359 lbs

DCS Hornet without pylons + 2xaim9+2xaim120+6500lbs fuel =  33120 lbs

GAO doc ----------------------------------------------------> = 33325 lbs

I guess it is clear, which one is closer.

For me it's 7,3 G max at 33120 in DCS (with some 7,4 spikes)