Jump to content

Hummingbird

Members
  • Content Count

    3797
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hummingbird

  1. Well it can, but on the EF the engines are very close together, which means TVC won't be able to enhance roll as much as for example on a wide nacelle fighter such as a Flanker. But honestly I don't think it's necessary either, as the EF already rolls plenty fast Adding TVC will mainly help remove AoA restrictions and improve low speed handling, whilst it will also help basically eliminate trim drag in maneuvers.
  2. Well I think part of the reason countries are less interested in it than expected is due to the extra drag it will generate, i.e. you're sacreficing some sustained performance for a higher permissable AoA & improved low speed characteristics, the latter of which aren't really vital for the air superiority role. Also should TVC be added later it might make the AMK redundant.
  3. In terms of parasitic drag the missile armament on the F-14 is so well integrated into the airframe that indeed it won't make as much of a difference when they're gone as it will when the F-16 is clean of its missile armament, that is true. However the F-14's armament is also heavier, which itself affects the L/D ratio via more of a decrease in wing loading when said armament is gone. So all in all I'd say the F-14 might possibly benefit a tiny bit less going from its 4x4 load out to clean than the F-16 does going from its 2x4 load out to clean, mainly due to the considerably high
  4. I'm afraid you're not reading the DI chart correctly, because: 4x AIM-120B (DI=4 a piece) [stations 2,3,7 & 8] 2x AIM-9L (DI=4* a piece) [stations 1 & 9] (EDIT*: 6 points can be removed from DI as basic aircraft includes 2x AIM9's on the wingtips, basic DI being 2) ____________________________ DI = 18 for stores only + 2x AIM9 launcher (DI=0 a piece, integrated with wing tips) [stations 1 & 9] 4x LAU-129/A launcher rails + adapter (DI=6 a piece) [stations 2,3,7 & 8] 2x NJETT wing fuel tank pylons (DI=8 a piece
  5. F-14B/D's max STR at 10 kft with 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, 55,620 lbs is 14.1 dps (not 13.9) @ M=0.62 . F-16C Blk.50's max STR at 10 kft with 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9, 26,000 lbs is 14.2 dps @ M=0.86. That's straight off of the charts. F-14B 55.6klbs / 10 kft: F-16C DI50 26klbs / 10 kft:
  6. Well, if we assume 50% fuel and the typical A/A load out, i.e. 4x AIM7 + 4x AIM9 for the F-14B/D, and 4xAIM120 + 2xAIM9 for the F-16C, then their max sustained rates are actually almost identical (14.1 vs 14.2 dps @ 10 kft), they just occur at very different speeds. The F-14's max STR happens around M=0.6, where'as it occurs around M=0.85 for the F-16C. In a dogfight this means that the F-14 has the advantage that its max STR turn is a tighter radius lower G turn, and hence the F-16 shouldn't stay in the horizontal with the F-14. as that will eventually let the F-14 reverse in beh
  7. Once both FMs are accurate to real life performance then the F-14B & F-16C Blk.52 are going to be very tough matches for each other in a guns only dogfight, it basically coming down to who'ever can suck the other into his/her favorite domain.
  8. @HeatblurDevTeam, I'll hold back with the testing until you guys give the go ahead then.
  9. No, the EF has the lower wing loading, esp. once you start loading up the aircraft. And wing loading certainly has something to do with sustainable turn rate as a lower W/L means less Cl required pr. G and thus less drag generated as well. Remember the drag equation: Cdi = (Cl^2) / (pi * AR * e) Cd = Cdo + Cdi D = Cd * A * .5 * r * V^2 Now guess where most of the drag comes from in a turn?: From the lift generated, i.e. the lift induced drag (Cdi). Next we got trim drag, and sincethe EF features a longer coupled canard config it also require
  10. Well since we have the RL performance charts we can easily tell wether it's accurate or not, and atm it isn't But there's a whole seperate thread dealing with this, so I'll leave it at that.
  11. Thing is sweep angles under 52 deg don't generate particularly strong vortices by themselves, which leads to early break up. The Rafale's LERX solves this and the canards help strengthen them further when riding the lift limit. On the EF the strakes help strengthen the strong vortices already forming on the wing, however at low speed & high AoA they are not as strong in the end as on the Rafale thanks to the LERX + close coupled canards combination, hence the EF ends up with a lower max controllable AoA and thus Clmax as result. (i.e. the Rafale's tightest turn will be tighter, and it's la
  12. Keep in mind that lift and drag go hand in hand. The advantage the Rafale has in sweep angle is mitigated by the disadvantage in W/L which means a higher required Cl pr G. Furthermore the actual L/D ratio of the aircraft in various conditions depends on other factors than just the AR, as mentioned W/L, thickness ratio, trim drag, LE + TE devices etc all influence this. So you cannot claim the Rafale has a higher L/D ratio under all conditions.
  13. Right, then we agree that in DCS something is up
  14. There's a lot more to L/D ratio than just wing sweep mate
  15. The EF doesn't need LERX to generate vortices, a wing sweep angle of over 52 deg generates strong vortices over the top of the wing. The Rafale on the other hand needs the higher swept LERX for these vortices to form. And the Rafale's canards are essential pitch control surfaces just as on the EF, no difference in that respect at all, they just have different added benefits. The close coupled canards add more to the Clmax (esp. at low speeds) as the vortices that form over the edges of the carnard start closer to the main wing. The strakes on the EF are there to achieve a similar
  16. Yeah, but we won't be flying it in a sim until som 20 years later
  17. Here I disagree, they both act as control surfaces (hence why both aircraft deflect their canards downward when in a turn, to prevent uncontrollable pitch up [longitudinal instability]), EF's long lever arm just means less deflection required for the same applied force, which in turn means less trim drag in turns = the whole point of the long lever arm. Meanwhile the Rafale had to be carrier capable, thus a close coupled canard config was chosen as it provides a higher max Cl at low speeds where the aircraft is more stable (canards now pivot up to lift the nose).
  18. Ofcourse the strakes interact with the wings, that's the point of them being there, as vortex generators to generate a vortice over the wings: As for your figures, they're quite low for the Rafale, listed empty weight at Dassault is 10,000 kg, incidently the RAF lists about the same for the FGR4 Typhoon, ~10,000 kg. But let's go ahead and use empty weights of 11,000 kg for the EF and 9,850 kg for the Rafale as listed on Wiki. Empty W/L: 9,850 kg / 45.7 sq.m. = 215.5 kg/sq.m. 11,000 kg / 51.2 sq.m. = 214.8 kg/sq.m. Internal fuel capacit
  19. No Mover, in DCS I am not incorrect. In real life however, that was the question. And I know about the paddle, but things don't work like that in DCS.
  20. Ah didn't think yuou were talking about the LERX, well given they're deltas, and the fact the EF has dedicated vortice generators, I doubt the Rafale benefits comparatively here. (Also more sweep, more vortice generation benefits off the wing itself) And yes the Rafale is lighter, but it also has quite a bit less thrust, hence the T/W is lower, it's weight/wing (wing loading reversed) is also higher. The Rafale is also smaller, however conversely it also requires a higher Cl for the same overall lift/weight, which means more lift induced drag. Now it's impossible for us
  21. The EF features LE devices as well, camber & chord increasing LE slats, pretty large ones at that. As for the Rafale's wider fuselage, it's mostly counted in with the reference wing area on both aircraft due to their delta wing body design, so in this case I'd say a narrower fuselage is an advantage as that means more of the Ref.area is actual wing. The slightly lower sweep angle of the Rafale's wing does help improve lift, esp. at low speeds, but as does the EF's lower wing loading and larger LE devices. In other words based on the aerodynamic layout coupled with FLCS restrict
  22. Well you could also say that the Hornet can outrate the Viper, in ITR & STR, at all speeds up till the point where the Hornet is G-restricted, which I think is what some are asking you wether is the case IRL. Because that's how it currently stands in DCS, and if you pull the paddle in the DCS Hornet you'll outrate the DCS Viper at any speed, the DCS Hornet being able to reach 9 G at a lower speed than the DCS Viper, instantanous AND sustained. Now we do know the DCS F-16 is underperforming in both areas atm, and we've been told the FM isn't finished, so this isn't a complaint,
  23. I agree with that bies, albeit I'd argue the EF's HMD & IR sensor system was and still is a major advantage in its favour, it just really lacks an AESA radar (coming soon) as well as something akin to the Rafale's SPECTRA CM system.
×
×
  • Create New...