Loadout and performance

[irq11]

Dear all,

I did some dogfight against Mig 29 AI full clean, start at 25000 feet and at mach 0.7.
Loadout for me, 2x9X on wing tip, 4x120C and 2 tanks. no jettison during the fight.

In this case, I feel it really turning bad, especially when speed is below 300 knt. While the rolling movement keeps really good. Mig 29 AI shoots me down all the time.
I know that it's not the best practice with this loadout and unrealistic in RL, and F-16 have to keep speed above 330 knt, but the performance difference between clean (only 2x9X) and this loadout is a chasm.

I did the same test with F-18 and F-14B, with similar heavy loadout, and the F-18 keeps correct maneuverability, and with the F-14 has almost no difference, in comparing them in clean version (only 2 missiles each time).

F-16 is less good in this case due to AOA limiter compare F-18/F-14? or maybe too draggy?

I am interested in any explanation or information, to understand.
thanks, by advance
nice day everyone

[Spurts]

The F-16 is so light and slick that any additional weight and drag has a larger impact.  A hornet is 20% heavier and a tomcat is >100% heavier.  It's like if a travel trailer is rated to use 1 gallon to cover 100 miles.  If you are pulling that with a Prius that gets 50mpg (2gal/100mi) then you see a HUGE impact on range as you increased your drag load by 50%.  You hook that up behind an old pickup truck getting 10mpg (10gal/100mi) then you will barely notice any decrease in range.

[irq11]

thanks for your answer, and I understand. but, although ailerons (roll axis) capacity is very very little impacted, but elevators capacity is very degraded, and nevertheless, the focus plane does not seem to be modified by the loadout. So, if you're engaged by bandits during your flight ground attack mission, you don't have the choice to jettison tanks and other if you want to survive with your F-16, while F-18/F-14 could survive to dogfighting and continue their primary goal after, without jettison. This observation is pure fiction, because in RL, it would be two flights groups at less, one ground attack and one escort, I suppose...

[Exorcet]

The F-16 is perfectly capable of fighting with wing tanks. I have never dropped my tanks in any engagement. The tanks relative to the plane are very large however, so if you needlessly take them along and get into combat when they are still loaded with fuel, you're going to feel a performance penalty. 99% of the time a single tank is enough fuel for a F-16 mission. If you need to load wing tanks because you want a jammer on the center pylon, don't fill your internal tanks.

Honestly the Hornet has it much worse than the F-16. Even with wing tanks the F-16 can hit Mach 1.3 pretty quickly. The F-18 can barely be considered super sonic with tanks. The F-14's tanks are tiny and don't really impact performance.

[irq11]

 I agree with you Exorcet, and my scenario is not realistic. but my observation during my three tests (2x9X on wing tip, 4x120C and 2 tanks for F-16 and F-18, replace by 2x9M and 4xAIM7P for F-14, fuel 100% for all) against Mig 29 AI(full clean, 100% fuel) was mainly on turn capacity. at the fight's on, each plane is about at 420 knt IAS at 25000 feet, and F-18/F-14 keep a (very for F-14) good turn capacity between 200-400 knt , not matter altitude. for F-16 in this case, below 350 knt with this loadout, the turn capacity is very downgraded and less than F-18 or F-14. Whereas since two last update OB, the F-16 is amazing in clean version or light loading in dogfight.
In my scenario, with F-18 or F-14 (I have only some flight hours on F-14, I discover it, lovely plane ) I always win against Mig 29 AI (ace or veteran), and very rarely with F-16, gun only of course.

[Aquorys]

11 hours ago, irq11 said:

I did some dogfight against Mig 29 AI full clean, start at 25000 feet and at mach 0.7.
Loadout for me, 2x9X on wing tip, 4x120C and 2 tanks. no jettison during the fight.

I tried that a couple times, F-16 at slightly below M0.7 at the merge, 4xAIM-120C, 2xAIM-9X inboard, 2 wing tanks, 100% fuel, against a clean MiG-29S, M0.97 initial (energy advantage), 50% fuel, Ace AI, both at 25k ft. While the F-16 is a pig at that speed and altitude in this configuration, I was able to turn around and shoot the MiG at high altitude every time, using the 9X or an AMRAAM. I could not get guns kills, which is not surprising in this situation, but I got pretty close. I could get a guns kill without the tanks.

[Chibawang]

Are you flying in CATIII? 

[irq11]

I tested both, just change roll rate

[Deano87]

Fly to the advantages of your jet, don’t try flying it like an F-18 or F-14, it won’t work.

Keep your speed above 350kn, 450 is preferred and don’t just point at the enemy and pull as hard as you can you will haemorrhage speed that way and be a sitting duck.

Below 300kn the turn ability of the F-16 is greatly impacted by it AoA limitation, once you hit that it will turn like a truck.

Just my 2 cents 

1 minute ago, irq11 said:

I tested both, just change roll rate

Incorrect. It changes max allowable AOA and max pitch rate as well.

[irq11]

Just now, Deano87 said:

Incorrect. It changes max allowable AOA and max pitch rate as well.

thank to correct me, I didn't know

Keep above 350 knt is not easy (for me) in my scenario (heavy loadout) with the F-16.

[Deano87]

1 minute ago, irq11 said:

thank to correct me, I didn't know

Keep above 350 knt is not easy (for me) in my scenario (heavy loadout) with the F-16.

Of course not, try to be light on the stick, or use gravity as your friend . If you’re at the merge and going for a guns kill it will be a race to the deck anyway. Guns fights rarely ever stay at altitude as trading height for speed/energy is pretty much always needed.

[irq11]

Sure, I need to improve my skill, but I tried to use altitude to gain speed or maintain it, each time in 2C, 1C or scissor, Mig 29 AI kill me, I need to spend time to progress and find the good way in this scenario case.
in clean version or only with 2x9X loadout, no problem to always kill Mig 29 AI

thanks all for your answer, and sharing your knowledge

[wilbur81]

5 hours ago, Exorcet said:

The F-18 can barely be considered super sonic with tanks. 

Surprisingly, the Legacy Charlie (unlike the Super Hornet) could get supersonic quite nicely with three full tanks, down on the deck according to Wombat over at Mike's (absolutely excellent) Aircrew Interview podcast: (18:30)

 

[Exorcet]

5 hours ago, irq11 said:

 I agree with you Exorcet, and my scenario is not realistic. but my observation during my three tests (2x9X on wing tip, 4x120C and 2 tanks for F-16 and F-18, replace by 2x9M and 4xAIM7P for F-14, fuel 100% for all) against Mig 29 AI(full clean, 100% fuel) was mainly on turn capacity.

That's why I mentioned weight.

F-16

19899 lbs

7163 lbs internal fuel

2470 lbs per tank (2003 lbs center tank)

 

F-18

25642 lbs

10803 lbs internal fuel

2244 lbs per tank

You are proportionally loading the F-16 more. Unless you burn off some fuel, the result that the F-16 falls behind is expected. Also the F-16 should take AIM-120's on the wingtips I think they are slightly lower drag than the AIM-9's on that station.

 

  

43 minutes ago, wilbur81 said:

Surprisingly, the Legacy Charlie (unlike the Super Hornet) could get supersonic quite nicely with three full tanks, down on the deck according to Wombat over at Mike's (absolutely excellent) Aircrew Interview podcast: (18:30)

Oh it will still break Mach 1, but it feels very different from the F-16 in terms of acceleration. The missile pylons are a big a contributor to that as the tanks, so even taking multiple tanks but no missiles could make the Hornet feel a bit faster.

Edited September 10, 2022 by Exorcet

[104th_Money]

@irq11

Its not that your scenario is unrealistic, it could quite certainly exist. But you are comparing apples to oranges at that point. The Viper was not made to dogfight with a full load out against a clean opponent. The loadout you are using is meant to provide beyond visual range missile shots and either long range to station or longer time on station. 

If the Viper pilot merged with a clean Mig he would most certainly punch off the wing tanks, otherwise he would be dead in about 45 seconds. Your only hope would be to enter the merge at a higher speed like 575-600kts and get one good 180 degree pull but with a huge turn radius in hopes of getting your nose on. After that its all down hill with full wing tanks.

In times of need the wing tanks are definitely jettisoned. I read a story about an F-16 that was just coming off a tanker and got a call for troops in contact danger close. The boom operator said the F-16 punched its tanks off and kicked into afterburner to get there in a hurry.

Also, using AI to test dogfights is definitely not the best way to conduct a performance test. AI is set to predictable behaviour. You need to test that load out against a real opponent, I can almost promise that the F-14 and F-18 with the same loadouts would not win against a clean Mig and a half way decent pilot. 

[SickSidewinder9]

This is exactly why I suggested empty wing tanks as a loadout option.  (The A4 mod has it).  Why would you have/want full wing tanks in an air start?  That's ridiculous.

[AlexCaboose]

AIM-120s should be loaded on the wingtips in the Viper. AIM-9s go inboard to reduce wing flutter and stress. You shouldn’t be flying the Viper outside of mid 400kts if you can help it to maintain best rate speed unless you are pulling for the 1C HOBS shot with the 9X. You need to fly the Viper like a Viper, not a Hornet.

[Eviscerador]

On 9/13/2022 at 8:40 PM, SickSidewinder9 said:

This is exactly why I suggested empty wing tanks as a loadout option.  (The A4 mod has it).  Why would you have/want full wing tanks in an air start?  That's ridiculous.

Harrier also has that option. For the harrier is usual to take off with empty tanks and then fill up in a tanker. It should be available for every module.

[SickSidewinder9]

On 9/18/2022 at 12:52 AM, Eviscerador said:

Harrier also has that option. For the harrier is usual to take off with empty tanks and then fill up in a tanker. It should be available for every module.

Harrier also seems to be the only module that has all the red covers and pins and "remove before flight" stuff.

Kinda sad that ED and all the 3rd party developers don't take the time to add those and chocks for their statics/cold planes.  It looks funny, them not being there.

[Eviscerador]

14 hours ago, SickSidewinder9 said:

Harrier also seems to be the only module that has all the red covers and pins and "remove before flight" stuff.

Kinda sad that ED and all the 3rd party developers don't take the time to add those and chocks for their statics/cold planes.  It looks funny, them not being there.

Hornets have them also when you place them uncontrolled.

[HansPeter1981]

Sorry for digging out this old threat...

Was playing on Burning Skies Yesterday and the nice thing is everything is visible. I was engaging similar targets from Mineralnye Vody 180km to the west.
I was witnessing a F-16 Block 50 going 1090km/h on the deck with Mil Power, 2x Dop Tanks Jammer/Targeting Pot, 2x Harms 4-6 AIM 120Cs.
Basically full Loadout going Mach 1+ at Surface Level. Thought only the F16XL and F16N were Supercruise capable... and even then could be very questionable at low altitude combined it with a full external loadout.

Am I missing something here ?  

[wilbur81]

49 minutes ago, HansPeter1981 said:

Sorry for digging out this old threat...

Was playing on Burning Skies Yesterday and the nice thing is everything is visible. I was engaging similar targets from Mineralnye Vody 180km to the west.
I was witnessing a F-16 Block 50 going 1090km/h on the deck with Mil Power, 2x Dop Tanks Jammer/Targeting Pot, 2x Harms 4-6 AIM 120Cs.
Basically full Loadout going Mach 1+ at Surface Level. Thought only the F16XL and F16N were Supercruise capable... and even then could be very questionable at low altitude combined it with a full external loadout.

Am I missing something here ?  

Maybe the telemetry data you saw was bad data? No, there's not a single 4th gen fighter that will do M.1 straight and level at Sea Level with such a loadout in mil Power. Not sure even the Raptor could do that with 4 external pylons and stores at Sea level.

**EDIT** Looking at your post more closely, I do not believe that 1090 km/h would be super sonic at sea-level... 1200+ Kmph would be closer to Mach 1 at sea level. What was the surface level altitude of the terrain he was over?

Edited January 31 by wilbur81

[HansPeter1981]

I just re-flew the same leg with the Tomcat it's at 3000' and at 1080 Km/h indicated on F10 (which I assume its GRND Speed the Aircraft Instrument shows slightly over Mach 0.9.
That was by the way all I could get with the Tomcat in Mil Power and similar loadout. F-16 with a Heatsignature of a small candle in this game must have truly a magic engine it seems

[Nealius]

Pretty much every 3rd party module has the option for empty external tanks. These should be standard options on the ED modules as well.