correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[Kefa]

Yes, I know the F-16 is not fully at 9G throughout the turn in the Hud.  And I don't think I ever alluded to the point that it was.  What I did mention is that General Dynamics F-16 program pilot Neil Anderson, a guy that had many hundreds of hours in the jet, said that pilots who fly the plane "could possibly" be experiencing and as  he said "9G from 14-17 seconds. "   

In many of those airshow demo videos, the F-16 is not sustaining 9G.  What the jet is doing is pulling 9G at around 400knots and basically riding its limiter down to about 5.5g.  Hence it is a very quick  decelerated turn; and giving a tighter turn radius than a full 9G sustained turn.       

Maybe the grey area in the fm is the area above the sustained turn rate line  to max instantaneous turn rate  or where it hits maximum instantaneous turn rate and back down the limiter.  Meaning the negative Ps lines between the two.  There are ways to convert it from feet per second  to degrees completed vs time.  But the question is how well is it reflected in simulators as to the  real thing.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Kefa

[macedk]

We will never get a 1 to 1, you all know that right ?

[Temetre]

Am 17.5.2023 um 19:25 schrieb GGTharos:

Took me 10 seconds to google, and you can definitely get a lot more good stuff when it comes to this:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7907702_G-induced_loss_of_consciousness_Case-control_study_of_78_G-LOCs_in_the_F-15_F-16_and_A-10

 

This is tip of the iceberg stuff.  Any SME who wants you to understand this stuff will answer 'it depends' to the question of 'how should I model g tolerance?', because it does.

 

Those are just accidents though, arent they? Where the pilot didnt withstand the amount of G he was supposed to, usually because he made a mistake.

Quoting the report:

Zitat

A poor anti-G straining maneuver was cited in 72% of the mishaps, fatigue and G-suit malfunction in 19%, low G-tolerance at 14%, and 37% were student pilots. 

Like, the numbers youre citing are the exception to the rule, so to speak. It doesnt even say "pulled too many Gs", but rather describes personal, physical and mechanical problems.

Zitat

Though it is difficult to predict who will experience G-LOC, emphasis on prevention must be concentrated in training and in pilots new to the aircraft.

^Again, these G-loc's shouldnt have happened and they need to make sure better that pilots can deal with the strain, which they are expected to.

 

I would prefer if we play an experienced, average pilot that knows how to fly the plane and deal with G-forces. Not simulate a student pilot making a life-threatening mistake.

Edited May 23, 2023 by Temetre

[Gungho]

On 5/21/2023 at 3:43 PM, BIGNEWY said:

We have watched the same videos and have been in touch with both. We are investigating as there is a conflict with the available performance charts for the Block 50. Both former F-16 pilots flew the Block 30 and not the Block 50, and the Block 50 is much more heavy aircraft that MAY explain it. Again, we are investigating and seek to make the most accurate simulation possible.

thank you

I really like the attention to the pilots opinion. It really shows the dedication the mods have for the most realistic flight sim in the world. I am looking forward to the findings.

My theory is that the rate of turn/heading change per second exchanged for the amount of speed change/energy bleed does not seem right. It bleeds too much energy for subpar turn rate. Or possibly like any plane the induced drag at slower airspeeds and higher angle of attack may also be too great. The f16 pilot may feel that the f16 should be easily recovering airspeed at these slowed airspeeds and medium angles of attack without dumping the nose for a 0g condition. Recovery of speed/energy may be possible at slow airspeeds and higher angles of attack with the f16. 

12 hours ago, macedk said:

We will never get a 1 to 1, you all know that right ?

Doesnt mean we should give up all together a resigning attitude wont get us anywhere either.

[macedk]

On 5/24/2023 at 4:36 AM, Gungho said:

I really like the attention to the pilots opinion. It really shows the dedication the mods have for the most realistic flight sim in the world. I am looking forward to the findings.

My theory is that the rate of turn/heading change per second exchanged for the amount of speed change/energy bleed does not seem right. It bleeds too much energy for subpar turn rate. Or possibly like any plane the induced drag at slower airspeeds and higher angle of attack may also be too great. The f16 pilot may feel that the f16 should be easily recovering airspeed at these slowed airspeeds and medium angles of attack without dumping the nose for a 0g condition. Recovery of speed/energy may be possible at slow airspeeds and higher angles of attack with the f16. 

Doesnt mean we should give up all together a resigning attitude wont get us anywhere either.

Just play the game

[SteelPig]

15 minutes ago, macedk said:

Just play the game

Just avoid the forum. 

[macedk]

3 hours ago, SteelPig said:

Just avoid the forum. 

Forum is full of good training tools and tips. 

 

[SteelPig]

8 hours ago, macedk said:

Forum is full of good training tools and tips. 

 

So you have your reasons, just like other ones. 

[macedk]

6 hours ago, SteelPig said:

So you have your reasons, just like other ones. 

But of course

[Alcatraz SVK]

F16 seems like it is bleeding energy too fast when turning according to pilots who flew it in real life. Will that change ? You pull stick and you are from 440 to 300 knots faster than speed of light.

[Gungho]

On 5/27/2023 at 3:33 PM, Alcatraz SVK said:

F16 seems like it is bleeding energy too fast when turning according to pilots who flew it in real life. Will that change ? You pull stick and you are from 440 to 300 knots faster than speed of light.

You slowdown fast and you dont even get that much instantaneous turn rate for exchange of that precious airspeed. It really isnt a fair trade atm.

[wilbur81]

9 hours ago, Gungho said:

You slowdown fast...

You mean like this? (watch the bleed-down in a pylon-less Viper, at full AB, at 600 ft AGL, and 8ish G)

 

Edited May 30, 2023 by wilbur81

[Gungho]

On 5/30/2023 at 4:42 PM, wilbur81 said:

You mean like this? (watch the bleed-down in a pylon-less Viper, at full AB, at 600 ft AGL, and 8ish G)

 

 

I know and its turn rate is waay better than in sim.

Edited June 1, 2023 by Gungho

[wilbur81]

On 6/1/2023 at 12:33 PM, Gungho said:

I know and its turn rate is waay better than in sim.

 

Nonsense... 

[Glide]

Unfortunately, you can't see the fuel flow or the RPM indicator, so you can't know what the pilot is doing with the throttle.

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, gortex said:

My opinion: speaking only about its in-game performance, the F-16 is by far the worst dogfighter of all the NATO 4th gen fighters in DCS.  You have to be at over 500 knots to hold a 9g turn in a clean configuration, and then you black out in a few seconds regardless of g warmups.  It's a comically large turn radius.

Completely expected.  There's no ps=0 line for the F-16CJ at 9g below that speed, and that's a fact for most if not all fighters.

 

3 hours ago, gortex said:

The gun is harder to aim than the other jets, too.  I know about the components of the gunsight and how they should be used, but for some reason it is less stable and jitters around more than the F-18 and F-15.

Ok, the sight is a separate subject.  But it could also have to do with FLCS behavior.

 

3 hours ago, gortex said:

Great module for everything else, but if you want to do BFM look elsewhere.

It BFMs just fine.

 

3 hours ago, gortex said:

8.8g at 365 knots. I cannot replicate that with any fuel setting.  The best I can do is 8.4g, and that's with 100lb of fuel.

Which F-16?  And does your expected value match the charts?  In this case I would suspect the FLCS is guarding the gate a little too zealously.

[GGTharos]

You said 'hold', this is at least ps=0 in my interpretation

Do you mean the maximum g attained?

As for BFM, I disagree.  The F-16 has a significant rate advantage if you play your game right.  It's hard for an eagle or hornet pilot to compete with that, and it's more than decent in the vertical as well.  If missiles are involved things change a bit but not that much.

[wilbur81]

1 hour ago, gortex said:

 Hornet uses the paddle switch because that is a fact of multiplayer.

Then go back and do the tests with no paddle switch for an accurate accounting of the Hornet's in-game modeling (the FC3 F-15C is pretty exaggeratedly over performing, clearly). There won't be a single Hornet SME out there that will have accurate data on performance of the Hornet under extended G-limiter-override flight; nor will there be any charts available to ED that will give accounts of Charlie Hornet performance with the paddle pulled for full turns, BFM, etc. (Other than the "33% boost of current available G" from the NATOPS). The closest thing out there would be the Finnish performance manuals for their 9G capable Hornets...but that is obviously not the jet ED is simulating. 

Edited June 5, 2023 by wilbur81

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, gortex said:

@GGTharos Here is some quick data I ran today, ~200ft asl.  Every jet has a clean configuration. Fuel loads are the same as the Just Dogfight server, i.e. about 5 minutes.  Hornet uses the paddle switch because that is a fact of multiplayer. See for yourself how the jets we were discussing perform.  I'm guessing that it's even worse for the F-16 at higher altitudes.

Disclaimer: I make no claims about real world performance or how accurate DCS is.  This is just how the jets perform in the game (and no wonder the F-15 dominates BFM, holy smokes!).  Error is +/- 0.1g.

 

This is good work, but don't talk yourself out of flying F-16's yet.  I don't particularly care about the dogfight server fuel loads, they're completely meaningless (ie. your dogfight situation is contrived).

Is this max g or sustained?  If max, there's definitely a problem unless it's enough fuel to worry the FLCS.

Edited June 5, 2023 by GGTharos

[Braunn]

Found another pilot who claims F-16 sustained G capabilities. Dan "Two Dogs" Hampton. Chapter one in his book "Viper Pilot".  But I'm not sure if he means the A model, but assume it, because it's in a chapter who explains the evolution of the Wild Weasel squadrons where F-16 takes over for the F-4, and even overlapping with F-4 for a while. 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Braunn

[_SteelFalcon_]

Also hasard lee talks about it in a recent episode of Fighter Pilot Podcast about sustaining Gs in the centrifuge

[Temetre]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb gortex:

@GGTharos Here is some quick data I ran today, ~200ft asl.  Every jet has a clean configuration. Fuel loads are the same as the Just Dogfight server, i.e. about 5 minutes.  Hornet uses the paddle switch because that is a fact of multiplayer. See for yourself how the jets we were discussing perform.  I'm guessing that it's even worse for the F-16 at higher altitudes.

Disclaimer: I make no claims about real world performance or how accurate DCS is.  This is just how the jets perform in the game (and no wonder the F-15 dominates BFM, holy smokes!).  Error is +/- 0.1g.

 

Sorry if its slightly OT, but this makes me wonder, why do people say the Mirage 2000 is a bad rate fighter, that its delta wing is too draggy in turning fights?

Trialing the thing and seeing graphs like this make it look like a pretty damn good rate fighter, beside top tier nose authority.

Edited June 6, 2023 by Temetre

[wilbur81]

3 hours ago, gortex said:

What they might not know, and what others seem not to know, is the relative performance of our jets, how they actually stack up against each other in the game.

 

This is my point: You cannot determine the assertion of this thread, "The F-16 is Still Underperforming" by comparing it to the Hornet's "Cheat-Mode" in DCS even if the whole online world is cheating. And, again, I know of at least one online Hornet pilot who never uses the Paddle switch, and has beaten and lost to Vipers... just like in the real world, where Hornet and Viper pilots beat and lose to each other. I think the Hornet ABSOLULTELY overperforms when the paddle is pulled...much like the Eagle when flown over 10g.... I stand by my point made above. You can make these points in a thread entitled, "The Hornet over-performs with the Paddle Switch," or "Eagle over performs...etc. etc." To put the point another way: You can't say the DCS Viper is "underperforming" when comparing to unrealistic performers (i.e. Paddle-Switched Hornet or Dinosaur-FC3-Flight Modeled-Eagle) in DCS.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2023 by wilbur81

[Temetre]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb gortex:

Yes, the M2K is a great fighter for BFM.  Its STR is good, while its instantaneous rate is insanely good.  It's only big weakness for BFM is the low velocity of its cannons.

Another thing about the M2K is the superb handling.  It feels like driving a sports car compared to the F-16's handling, which feels like driving a Toyota Corolla by comparison.

Pilots have had very good things to say about the M2K.  There just aren't that many anglophones who have flown it, and so it lacks the notoriety of the teen-series jets.

I did get to hear the opinion of a French pilot who has flown the rl Hornet and M2K.  All he had clearance to tell us is that the M2K is a great dogfighter, but that the Hornet is better when they are both slow.

Thx, thats a good reality check. The M2K felt amazing to me, smooth and reactive in almost every regimes I put it, with acceleration to rival the F-16. That was a surprised to me, considering how F-16/F-18 got the notoriety of being the best dogfighters ever made, and people often downplay the Mirage.

But I dont wanna derail the thread, Im kinda ignorant about the F-16 (and its a capable plane anyway). Curious to see where this flight model discussion goes. 

Edited June 6, 2023 by Temetre

[Glide]

I spend a lot of time chasing Ace-level Mig-29's around in the sim, so that's my reference.  On paper, the Mig is the better fighter, and that's my experience as well.  I can out turn them for a short while, but I can't catch them until they make a mistake (Ace level doesn't seem to make mistakes) or they run low on fuel and head for the nearest airbase or faceplant.  It would be a lot more fun if the Viper could keep up to them, but I think the numbers are pretty close.