HWasp Posted November 28, 2021 Posted November 28, 2021 First of all, sorry for the horrible looks of the E-M chart I tried to create, I know it looks bad, but the data is reasonably accurate enough for the sake of a simple comparison. Sea Level, T = 20 C Clean aircrafts, no pylons Fuel = 10% of aircraft empty weight (that is in line with HAF F-16 manual's 22000 lbs config ) F-16C line is created from datapoints extracted from the F-16 HAF manual's appendix All other data is from DCS via Tacview Accuracy is not great, but it is only meant for basic aircraft comparison, and to figure out if any anomalies are present. 2
HWasp Posted November 28, 2021 Author Posted November 28, 2021 Some tacviews. M2000_SL185_170_470_.zip F-15SL_170_250_325.zip F_18_SL281_230_430.zip F-16_SL_220_250_470.zip
HWasp Posted November 28, 2021 Author Posted November 28, 2021 (edited) F-16 vs F-18 turn rates Edited November 28, 2021 by HWasp
HWasp Posted November 28, 2021 Author Posted November 28, 2021 (edited) For the F-18 vs F-16 discussion, since there was a lot of empty talking and misinformation in some previous threads: 1. As you can see on the chart above, the DCS F-18 outrates the HAF F-16 (and the DCS F-16 as it is very close) in the normal envelope Best rate F-18 7,5 G / 370 > Best rate F-16 9 G at 460 2. The F-18 can have a disadvantage in the rate fight only if the 7,5 G limit is respected in a horizontal turn over 390 kts (if viper at 9G/460) 3. If the F-18 pilot decides not to respect normal G limits, then, F-18 destroys everyone in the rate fight, including the F-16. Some additional things I found interesting: In 5 G level turn both the F-18 and the F-16 accelrate from 320 to 400 in 7 seconds, and from 320 to 450 the F-16 has only about 0.5 second advantage So average PS (Kts/s) 320-400 at 5 G F-16 - +11,4 kts/s F-18 - +11,4 kts/s F-16recovery_320_450_DCS.zip F-18_320_450-DCS.zip Edited November 28, 2021 by HWasp
RentedAndDented Posted November 30, 2021 Posted November 30, 2021 Like you say this has been argued to death, including in the recently closed thread. But, I have a question. Apparently, the HAF F-16s are heavier than a USAF block 50 due to the provisions for the CFTs. The USAF aircraft should need a higher fuel fraction to meet the same weight and performance on the chart. Could that mean you've effectively given the other aircraft a boost by keeping their fuel fraction low to match the HAF figures? Could that be an issue at play here? Not at a PC right now so I can't check.
HWasp Posted November 30, 2021 Author Posted November 30, 2021 8 hours ago, RentedAndDented said: Like you say this has been argued to death, including in the recently closed thread. But, I have a question. Apparently, the HAF F-16s are heavier than a USAF block 50 due to the provisions for the CFTs. The USAF aircraft should need a higher fuel fraction to meet the same weight and performance on the chart. Could that mean you've effectively given the other aircraft a boost by keeping their fuel fraction low to match the HAF figures? Could that be an issue at play here? Not at a PC right now so I can't check. I don't think that weight difference would be large enough to change the results significantly, but it might be a good idea to do a test, that accounts for that as well.
Recommended Posts