correct as is F16 Still Underperforming

[DummyCatz]

49 minutes ago, darkman222 said:

I understand what EM diagrams are for and that we need numbers to model the flight model after. But can you actually read out the energy bleed rate from them ? How is this being modelled?

You can work it out with the SEP equation posted above. Take note of the test conditions in the EM diagram and do the following:

1. Find out the speed of sound in ft/s at the altitude of test condition. Try using the Standard Atmosphere chart from -1-1.

2. Select a mach number you want to test, and convert it to ft/s by multiplying the speed of sound in ft/s. This is the 'V' in the equation.

3. Select a Ps curve you want to check against. With mach number and Ps, you can pinpoint the required normal load factor in the EM chart.

4. Calculate bleed rate dV/dt using formula Ps * 32.174(gravity constant) / V. This is in ft/s^2 for now.

5. Convert it to knots per sec to be tested against. Set HUD unit to KTAS as well.

And you're good to go with the bleed rate testing.

Edited May 17, 2023 by DummyCatz

[Temetre]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb GGTharos:

On what basis do you say they don't do good work?  Your feelings?

You're straight up thinking ridiculous thoughts, basically all-or-nothing thinking.

I mean your answer kinda sounded like all or nothing to me, on bare face. Like as if players would have to fix it, even if something seems too bviously wrong based on all the earlier discussions and evidence.

Thats why I put that what you said to a logical extreme, where it would clearly seem silly to both of us. Because I didnt think you ment that, I gave you the benefit of the doubt^^

vor 14 Stunden schrieb GGTharos:

Yep, then ED will look into it.  I just think people are expecting more than they're going to get.  Again, it won't be based on youtube videos or what people feel it should be.  I'm not saying that those sources aren't useful starting points.  What I am saying is that they are only starting points into an investigation, and you have to do a bit more than just repeat a mantra based on 'I think that'.  You're immediately at a disadvantage because the devs have done their legwork, so you have to do yours and show they implented/heard wrong or you have received new data.

Correct me if I wrong, but didnt we have posted evidence that in a spinner, an F-16 pilot would need to endure 9G for 30 seconds? And a Eurofighter would need to endure it for 15 seconds? Thats a pretty massive starting point, even if you consider adverse factors in real flight.

I think our pilot in an F-16 cant even take 9G for 3 seconds without starting to black out, literally loss of consciouss setting it? Thats seems clearly extreme. If that was real, then even the logic behind making 9G planes would be questionable. And pilots have pulled 12G for a second or so, which is MUCH harder than even 9G. I think F-14s have logged 12G, and sometimes the plane broke, sometimes the pilot recovered it.

So I would wonder what data EDs current G-model is based on? I almost wonder if its an outdated legacy system or so. I dont got good evidence myself, or know how to find it, thats difficult to do in itself. But eg this one is a german documentary about pilot training for a Eurofighter, repeating an often made claim:

http://idlw.de/duenne-luft-und-schwerkraft-teil-2

Zitat

 „Mit Einführung des Eurofighter wurde es wichtig den Piloten eine Trainingsmöglichkeit zu geben, um Lastvielfache unter sicheren Bedingungen am Boden erfahren zu können. Die Piloten müssen dabei nachweisen, dass sie neun G für 15 Sekunden aushalten können, ohne Einschränkung der Handlungsfähigkeit. Das ist Hochleistungssport.“

(my translation:) "With Introduction of the Eurofighter, it became important to give Pilots the ability to train multiple-G forces in a safe environment on the ground. The pilots have to proof, that they can bear 9G for 15 seconds, without limitation of their capability to act. That is extreme sport."

edit: Uh this is good, a pilot posted her initial 9G training on youtube, so even a less experienced pilot I assume? This is >9G from 0:6 to 0:22, if I see correctly.

Googling for "g-qualification" seems pretty solid. Here its 0:35 to 0:51, another 15 second trip. 

Its brutal, but this is 15 seconds, reports no vision loss. They seem to bear it pretty well, frankly. First clip ends early, but the guy is pretty quickly back up to speed.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Temetre

[Temetre]

Ah, here it is, 30 seconds and 9G. What a machine! Gripen pilot apparently.

Or take this, Air Racer pulling 11.2G apparently. Even if its for half a second or so, thats way more brutal than 9G, and hes just continueing his precision flying afterwards:

Edited May 17, 2023 by Temetre

[GGTharos]

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

I mean your answer kinda sounded like all or nothing to me, on bare face. Like as if players would have to fix it, even if something seems too bviously wrong based on all the earlier discussions and evidence.

No, just because you believe it's 'obviously' wrong, doesn't doesn't mean it is.  You're not the first and not the last to make such claims.

 

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

Correct me if I wrong, but didnt we have posted evidence that in a spinner, an F-16 pilot would need to endure 9G for 30 seconds? And a Eurofighter would need to endure it for 15 seconds? Thats a pretty massive starting point, even if you consider adverse factors in real flight.

So ok, you're still not getting it.  This isn't evidence, this is one exceptional individual, maybe two, in exceptional condition doing AGSM training in a controlled environment.  The only thing that matters is the GLOC studies.  Not youtube videos, not individual accounts, but the studies that show what the average human capacity is in combat.

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

I think our pilot in an F-16 cant even take 9G for 3 seconds without starting to black out, literally loss of consciouss setting it? Thats seems clearly extreme. If that was real, then even the logic behind making 9G planes would be questionable. And pilots have pulled 12G for a second or so, which is MUCH harder than even 9G. I think F-14s have logged 12G, and sometimes the plane broke, sometimes the pilot recovered it.

The brain has enough exygen supply for about 4-5sec, depending on how high the g is.  GLOC studies show GLOC at lower g than 9, in real fighters ... not centrifuges.  Look up the STOHL curve, which DCS models.  DCS also does not model the punishing effects on subsequent high g pulls if you overdo one and start to grey out (so, your g tolerance tanks) and yes you can be lights out at 7 g if you do things wrong.   Just like that.   As a civillian, some people will be lights out at 4g.  Do not underestimate how insanely situational this is.

 

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

So I would wonder what data EDs current G-model is based on? I almost wonder if its an outdated legacy system or so. I dont got good evidence myself, or know how to find it, thats difficult to do in itself. But eg this one is a german documentary about pilot training for a Eurofighter, repeating an often made claim:

It's based on the STOHL curve, which isn't outdated.  Documentaries are meaningless - I'll say again, videos etc have very little worth if you're going to discuss realism.

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

(my translation:) "With Introduction of the Eurofighter, it became important to give Pilots the ability to train multiple-G forces in a safe environment on the ground. The pilots have to proof, that they can bear 9G for 15 seconds, without limitation of their capability to act. That is extreme sport."

The Eurofighter is also an extreme aircraft.  You're not going to hold 9gs in the viper like you will in a lightly loaded EF.

3 hours ago, Temetre said:

edit: Uh this is good, a pilot posted her initial 9G training on youtube, so even a less experienced pilot I assume? This is >9G from 0:6 to 0:22, if I see correctly.

Again, stop with the centrifuge videos...they're not relevant.  They are training in controlled conditions, not combat.   The pilot is well briefed, exercised, prepared etc.  Yu cannot guarantee any of this in combat.  We also don't know if they show an average pilot for the type or an exceptional individual.  You can say though that pilots who can't handle the g will be rejected for a given aircraft. 

4 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

Interesting is, when speed drops bellow 450 knots, Gs also drops (430=7,5G), if going faster, Gs rises (480=9,2+G). 450 is lets say, somehow the border that separates Gs.

Is that maximum or sustained g?  If it's maximum (instantaneous) then it sounds like there might be a problem.

[skywalker22]

4 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Is that maximum or sustained g?  If it's maximum (instantaneous) then it sounds like there might be a problem.

I'm talking about sustained Gs.

I would say our F-16 looks pretty fine regarding speed bleed rate.

Edited May 17, 2023 by skywalker22

[skywalker22]

  

5 hours ago, skywalker22 said:

I did some test yesterday, will also upload the video I did from it.

So, circuling around @5000ft AGL, started with 2000lbs of fuel, no pylons installed: speed at 450knots, I could sustain 8-5G to 9G constantly. When fuel dropped under 500lbs, I could easily hold 9+ Gs.

Interesting is, when speed drops bellow 450 knots, Gs also drops (430=7,5G), if going faster, Gs rises (480=9,2+G). 450 is lets say, somehow the border that separates Gs.

Here is the video I promised of my test from yesterday, how can our F-16C sustain the Gs at 450 knots:

 

[Temetre]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb GGTharos:

No, just because you believe it's 'obviously' wrong, doesn't doesn't mean it is.  You're not the first and not the last to make such claims.

Okay, now youre just being dishonest. Ive given you the benefit of the doubt, so how about you return the favour?

I called it "obvious", but before I was more specific with "so clearly seem wrong". Because all evidence points to it being wrong. Ive pointed out that I dont have exact evidence for the speicfic situation, but everything creates a "seemingly" obvious picture of the 3 second blackout being wrong.

Im ready to accept my assumptoins being wrong if you can deliver contrary evidence.

vor 1 Stunde schrieb GGTharos:

So ok, you're still not getting it.  This isn't evidence, this is one exceptional individual, maybe two, in exceptional condition doing AGSM training in a controlled environment.  The only thing that matters is the GLOC studies.  Not youtube videos, not individual accounts, but the studies that show what the average human capacity is in combat.

The brain has enough exygen supply for about 4-5sec, depending on how high the g is.  GLOC studies show GLOC at lower g than 9, in real fighters ... not centrifuges.  Look up the STOHL curve, which DCS models.  DCS also does not model the punishing effects on subsequent high g pulls if you overdo one and start to grey out (so, your g tolerance tanks) and yes you can be lights out at 7 g if you do things wrong.   Just like that.   As a civillian, some people will be lights out at 4g.  Do not underestimate how insanely situational this is.

It's based on the STOHL curve, which isn't outdated.  Documentaries are meaningless - I'll say again, videos etc have very little worth if you're going to discuss realism.

The Eurofighter is also an extreme aircraft.  You're not going to hold 9gs in the viper like you will in a lightly loaded EF.

Again, stop with the centrifuge videos...they're not relevant.  They are training in controlled conditions, not combat.   The pilot is well briefed, exercised, prepared etc.  Yu cannot guarantee any of this in combat.  We also don't know if they show an average pilot for the type or an exceptional individual.  You can say though that pilots who can't handle the g will be rejected for a given aircraft. 

And thats just sounds so biase. The maing thing youre doing is just to disregard every single bit of evidence brought up. "Its so situational I cant accept your points", yeah how about you actually do something useful then and bring a good counter-example? And no, I dont care about civilian pilots, I dont care about pilots without G-suits or training, nor about people not prepared. Youre just giving vague annecdotes and seperate studies and claim this matters.

We are talking fighter pilots, and you cannot even accept the discrepancy between 15 seconds of 9G being part of normal pilot qualification, and our F-16 pilot not just losing capability to act after 3 seconds, but literally the brain shutting down.

Its like youre claiming any military or producer buidling extensive 9G capable planes are actually stupid, because pilots cant do that for more than 3 seconds. They shouldnt even try considering how quickly their bodies fail.

 

Blue Angels pilots taking 10G for 3-5 seconds, my 11.2G example, ever direct example I bring is directly discounted by you. You cannot even explain why my example is wrong, you just say you arent convinced due too some aribtrary level of standard you want before even thinking about what this means.

Among your G-LOC studies, have you also seen numbers how often G-LOC doesnt happen at 9G? Because if G-LOC happens its often considered an accident, or a mistake made. Because pilots are trained to sustain this, thats why regular centrifuge training is a thing.

Edited May 17, 2023 by Temetre

[darkman222]

I really cant read through all that stuff any more. We dont need any pseudo scientific discussion here. Threre is  given amount of time an F16 pilot has to withstand 9G. Otherwise he is not qualified to fly the F16, and is not in the cockpit any more.

What is so complicated about the approach that if the DCS pilot cant stand the amount of time, a real pilot has to, then something is off. Take the DCS F16, make a g warmup, then speed up to 600 kts pull 9 Gs count the time until blackout. Take the measured time to an SME and ask if the DCS pilot would have been qualified for the F16.

No need to prove that you can sustain 450 kts while the pilot is on the edge of conciousness, when the slightest tighter pull is about to knock him out.

Edited May 17, 2023 by darkman222

[SickSidewinder9]

1 hour ago, darkman222 said:

I really cant read through all that stuff any more. We dont need any pseudo scientific discussion here. Threre is  given amount of time an F16 pilot has to withstand 9G. Otherwise he is not qualified to fly the F16, and is not in the cockpit any more.

What is so complicated about the approach that if the DCS pilot cant stand the amount of time, a real pilot has to, then something is off. Take the DCS F16, make a g warmup, then speed up to 600 kts pull 9 Gs count the time until blackout. Take the measured time to an SME and ask if the DCS pilot would have been qualified for the F16.

No need to prove that you can sustain 450 kts while the pilot is on the edge of conciousness, when the slightest tighter pull is about to knock him out.

 

This x1000

[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

Quote

This study determined the trends of reported G-induced loss of consciousness (G-LOC) mishaps from 1980--1999, and determined potential risk factors in pilot characteristics; specifically, 30/60/ 90-h and sortie history, total flight hours, total hours in the aircraft, age, height, weight, and BMI. Using aircraft malfunction mishaps to reflect a cross-section of USAF pilots, potential risk factors were determined using a case-control method; cases were all G-LOC mishaps and controls were aircraft malfunction mishaps. The data consisted of 2002 mishap pilots in the history of the F-16, F-15, F-15E, and A-10 from 1980-1999. During this time, G-LOCs represented only 2.5% of all mishaps. The mean engagement number for G-LOC mishaps was three at an average of 8 Gs. 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. Within pilot characteristics, only two factors were found to be statistically significant: the time in the aircraft and pilot age. In the F-16, there was a 3.5 times greater chance of experiencing a G-LOC mishap if the pilot had less than 600 h in the aircraft [3.5 (1.7-7.2, 95%CI)], and a 9.5 times greater chance in the F-15 [9.5 (2.2-41.9, 95%CI)]. There was a 4.5 times greater chance of experiencing a G-LOC mishap if under the age of 30 in the F-16 [4.5 (2.3-8.5, 95% CI)] and a 3 times greater chance in the F-15 [2.8 (1.2-6.8, 95% CI)]. 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.

 

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.

Edited May 17, 2023 by GGTharos

[skywalker22]

Damn, you are faster then google it self, 10 seconds.

Anyway, blacking out has nothing to do with this topic here.

[jackmckay]

Guys, I am pretty much convinced that F16 is the best recreated module in DCS yet. I wasn't convinced myself till late clean tests but it seems that this module got the most care seen in DCS. There are probably some other issues like pylon/weapon drag still to be fine tuned but its on the right track. compared to others it still leads by spear length. you cant break its wings as seen on other modules egg. i've seen several airshow displays and I personalty find it top tier plane besides rafale, eurofighter and fulcrum. its ground observation, true, but still it rocks in DCS. I've noticed that air brakes are not as effective as I expected egg. and I had some struggle to slow it down on low level so it really manages energy very good by my perspective. most of you complaining should force other modules to come closer to that level even not perfect in overall. the real deal could come in case that someone does some CFD(virtual wind tunnel) vs DCS engine comparison and in that case we could have some top level physics evaluation that experts in field can stand behind. till then, we have no solid ground expect charts from pilot manuals to refer on. here are my 50 cents. have fun.

[Furiz]

The end part,  mentioning drag of the pylons.

Edited May 19, 2023 by Furiz

[mytai01]

I was wondering if the Flight model is going to get anymore attention? I'm hearing real fighter pilots of these jets complaining about excessive drag issues on the DCS: F-16 and F/A-18. Especially, in clean configuration.

[darkman222]

3.2.1. and the thread is locked

Seems like the F16 FM will be undergoing minor tweaks. But for the F18's FM a major overhaul was announced. I think about a year ago. I am wondering when and if that thing will stop wobbling around as it does since relase.

[mytai01]

I believe, C.W. Lemoine has said something about having too much drag from the wing pylons, and that it was pretty good without the pylons.

[Furiz]

Yes, ED said they are talking to him so that's the result, I guess this shows ED agrees that drag from pylons need to be adjusted.

[Braunn]

So far I have heard three F-16 pilots say it bleeds too fast still. C.W Lemoine, Max Afterburner and now Grey Ghost. 
 

 

[BIGNEWY]

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

[Willdass]

Awesome to hear @BIGNEWY!  We all want the same thing and it's great to hear that you are taking this information into consideration.

Small correction, but I believe MaxAfterburner flew the Block 52 in the Thunderbirds. I guess the weight should be roughly the same as the Block 50 (?).

[BIGNEWY]

It depends on the year, they certainly flew Block 32 with the PW engines.

[Willdass]

31 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

It depends on the year, they certainly flew Block 32 with the PW engines.

He said 52 in one of his videos.

Edit: Thunderbirds swapped from 32-> 52 in 2008, and he was a Thunderbird in 2016-17.

Edited May 21, 2023 by Willdass

[Braunn]

Didnt know Thunderbirds were basically a test bed for structural demands. They sure are using Block 52s as well. Anyhoo, it's great to see the ED team is on the ball and strive for realistic flight characteristics like many of us nerds are. I dont care about occationally losing dog fights to good pilots in those darn <profanity> box Hornets and Migs in the rate fight but at the same time reading and hearing so many comments from F-16 pilots saying how "invincible" they felt in the Viper is a little contradictory to the DCS experience so far. 

https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2017/04/25/f-16-block-52-upgrades-set-to-take-thunderbirds-into-the-future

I know however the C model is NOT the A model Viper and I believe a lot of the stories of dogfighting excellence comes from the A model, or earlier versions than the C Block 50, which had more aggressive avionics controlling the leading edge flaps etc. 

 

[Kefa]

I don't know if this was posted before.  But the narrator  for this I believe is General Dynamics F-16 test/program pilot Neil Anderson.  While the jet is not a Block 50,  Anderson none the less talks about 9G's and the duration the pilot could possibly be experiencing them in a turn.  

 

[wilbur81]

Even in your video, that Viper is not sustaining 9gs (in that aggressive, slick demo config) for more than a second or two. I think ED has this stuff REALLY close. If we're going to nitpik pilot feedback too much, we'll have to give the Hornet less drag as well, according to Gonky here: (I'm mostly playing, Gonky is an AWESOME and humble fighter pilot who might be one of the worst DCS Hornet BFM'ers I've ever seen.  )

)