Can an F-14 overturn an F-16 !?

I friggin hate sounding like the old salt all the time but this pic illustration is crap. The data is wrong at least in part (I did not check, but doesn't look correct). But the entire premise conveys information that is at best misleading, and more likely harmful to inexperienced pilots. To the dude who posted it, you generally seemed like you didn't know - so this isn't directed at you.

 

The 15 & 16 are doing about 200 kts more than the f-14. Yet the chart is titled "radius at max sustained rate." those are not best rates. Best rate for a viper at 10k is about 20 deg/sec, provided the pilot is at a more reasonable BFM speed of 450-500 kts. At that speed and load its radius drops to ~2300 ft radius as well. If its a radius fight the viper could conceivably bleed another couple hundred kts and drop that radius down to under 1800 ft.

 

Otherwise 14 deg/s and 4k ft at 650 kts is pretty accurate.

 

All of this "Will F-XX out turn F-xx" posts to be honest are pretty meaningless. I suspect few posters of those questions have the stick skills to hit those numbers, particularly in more difficult to fly planes like the f-14b. In my old salty opinion, most virtual pilots would do well do spend more time learning about turn circles and bubbles, pursuit types, WEZ, in/out of plane, 3/9 lines, visual cues on their canopy, and where the fuk they should be putting their lift vector, all while sustaining airspeed and flying with precision. Without time in type practicing and perfecting your BFM skills it doesn't matter what your flying, you're gonna lose.

I welcome legit criticism, but all you've provided above is infact a very salty and more importantly completely incorrect opinion, as:

1. There's absolutely no wrong or false information contained within the illustration, infact all the numbers are pulled directly from the official performance manuals of the respective aircraft. (Already provided Syndrome with said charts so he can see your error)

2. There's also nothing misleading about the illustration as it's very specific about what it is conveying, i.e.: Radius at max sustained rate. This btw is incredibly important to know as the highest sustainable rate is generally what a fighter pilot should strive to achieve in an angles fight, as anything above this means either a loss in speed/energy or altitude/potential energy.

3. The F-16 is not capable of sustaining 20 deg/sec at 10 kft. Infact it can't even achieve 20 deg/sec instantanous at 10 kft combat loaded (6x AAMs + 50% fuel).

Also I have since updated the illustration to contain more aircraft as well as a placement marker 10 sec into the turn as well as G's pulled:

An apology is in order.

I welcome legit criticism, but all you've provided above is infact a very salty and more importantly completely incorrect opinion, as:

 

1. There's absolutely no wrong or false information contained within the illustration, infact all the numbers are pulled directly from the official performance manuals of the respective aircraft. (Already provided Syndrome with said charts so he can see your error)

 

2. There's also nothing misleading about the illustration as it's very specific about what it is conveying, i.e.: Radius at max sustained rate. This btw is incredibly important to know as the highest sustainable rate is generally what a fighter pilot should strive to achieve in an angles fight, as anything above this means either a loss in speed/energy or altitude/potential energy.

 

3. The F-16 is not capable of sustaining 20 deg/sec at 10 kft. Infact it can't even achieve 20 deg/sec instantanous at 10 kft combat loaded (6x AAMs + 50% fuel).

 

 

Also I have since updated the illustration to contain more aircraft as well as a placement marker 10 sec into the turn as well as G's pulled:

 

 

 

 

An apology is in order.

Sorry dude but your ms paint chart is shit. I've read maybe 100 POH in 23 years as a pilot and i've never seen a turn performance or Vn diagram that doesn't state drag and GW config and throttle/conditions. 10,000 ft at what drag index? What weight? Mil or AB? because its a pretty big friggin difference.

F-16CJ manual I'm looking at has a clean f-16 @2200lb STD at sea level with max rate of 24.9 max AB @Ps -400 and 24.2 MIL at Ps-800. If you're talking zero SEP, Max AB is 21.3 d/s.

I also take issue with any chart that has max rate at 10,000 ft then lists the speed at 600+ kts. And, even if I were for some reason that hot at the merge, max rate gives a radius of ~3200ft. Perhaps most absurd part however is that you're comparing radius between three jets, but you've got two at 600+ and the other at 450kts? What exactly do you think your chart shows?

Or maybe you were talking about a different config? That's why we label charts in RL where people die.

Oh !#&*^... I remember you now! You were the dude arguing GB and Lex about how to fly a Hornet! Remember that? Sk00tch remembers...

btw angles fight? Glad you read Shaw, but that was when missiles with forward quarter capability were all the rage. Its a history book. Even in the never actually happens in real life guns only neutral set, at the 90 if we're two circle I do not give a damn about radius. I can trade angle for range/Vc anytime, the goal is to get offensive ASAP and that = rate. Radius is irrelevant. A

1-circle is different and beyond scope, much less forgiving and more variables. But that's the only time I care about radius, in which case I don't care about rate. I've making excursions, off plane, whatever TF i can to cross your tail.

Hope you enjoyed your apology. Now apologize to the community for chasing most of the guys with actual jet time off the boards with crap like this

Sorry dude but your ms paint chart is shit. I've read maybe 100 POH in 23 years as a pilot and i've never seen a turn performance or Vn diagram that doesn't state drag and GW config and throttle/conditions. 10,000 ft at what drag index? What weight? Mil or AB? because its a pretty big friggin difference.

 

F-16CJ manual I'm looking at has a clean f-16 @2200lb STD at sea level with max rate of 24.9 max AB @Ps -400 and 24.2 MIL at Ps-800. If you're talking zero SEP, Max AB is 21.3 d/s.

 

I also take issue with any chart that has max rate at 10,000 ft then lists the speed at 600+ kts. And, even if I were for some reason that hot at the merge, max rate gives a radius of ~3200ft. Perhaps most absurd part however is that you're comparing radius between three jets, but you've got two at 600+ and the other at 450kts? What exactly do you think your chart shows?

 

Or maybe you were talking about a different config? That's why we label charts in RL where people die.

 

Oh !#&*^... I remember you now! You were the dude arguing GB and Lex about how to fly a Hornet! Remember that? Sk00tch remembers...

 

btw angles fight? Glad you read Shaw, but that was when missiles with forward quarter capability were all the rage. Its a history book. Even in the never actually happens in real life guns only neutral set, at the 90 if we're two circle I do not give a damn about radius. I can trade angle for range/Vc anytime, the goal is to get offensive ASAP and that = rate. Radius is irrelevant. A

 

1-circle is different and beyond scope, much less forgiving and more variables. But that's the only time I care about radius, in which case I don't care about rate. I've making excursions, off plane, whatever TF i can to cross your tail.

 

Hope you enjoyed your apology. Now apologize to the community for chasing most of the guys with actual jet time off the boards with crap like this

The only thing crap here is your attitude, coming out swinging and denigrating anothers' friendly attempts at helping people understand a subject.

It's pretty obvious that the illustration is for loaded aircraft in a light fighter configuration at 10 kft, keeping things as apples to apples as possible, that is:

F-14B = 55,600 lbs, 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

F-16C Blk.50 = 26,000 lbs, 4x AIM120 + 2x AIM9's + 2 empty fuel tank wing pylons (DI = 48-50, 25% fuel)

F-15C = 41,000 lbs, 4xAIM7's/120's + 4x AIM9's, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

F-4E = 42,777 lbs, 4xAIM7's, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

In short: NOT sea level and not completely clean running on fumes either.

Why you want to muddy the waters with completely clean aircraft running on fumes and going downhill (Ps=-), at SL no less! (don't think you quite thought that one through buddy), I don't know. The relevant information is obviously for a combat loaded aircraft as well as its Ps=0. Best rate, as in instantanous rate wasn't even talked about until you brought it up, esp. since it's a momentary state.

Finally I've never argued with any actual pilots about how to fly a Hornet, so not sure what you're on about there. Hence I doubt I have chased anyone away.

The only thing crap here is your attitude, coming out swinging and denigrating anothers' friendly attempts at helping people understand a subject.

 

It's pretty obvious that the illustration is for loaded aircraft in a light fighter configuration at 10 kft, keeping things as apples to apples as possible, that is:

F-14B = 55,600 lbs, 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

F-16C Blk.50 = 26,000 lbs, 4x AIM120 + 2x AIM9's + 2 empty fuel tank wing pylons (DI = 48-50, 25% fuel)

F-15C = 41,000 lbs, 4xAIM7's/120's + 4x AIM9's, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

F-4E = 42,777 lbs, 4xAIM7's, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

 

In short: NOT sea level and not completely clean running on fumes either.

 

Why you want to muddy the waters with completely clean aircraft running on fumes and going downhill (Ps=-), at SL no less! (don't think you quite thought that one through buddy), I don't know. The relevant information is obviously for a combat loaded aircraft as well as its Ps=0. Best rate, as in instantanous rate wasn't even talked about until you brought it up, esp. since it's a momentary state.

 

Finally I've never argued with any actual pilots about how to fly a Hornet, so not sure what you're on about there. Hence I doubt I have chased anyone away.

This.

The 14 is much more challenging to fly at the edge of its flight envelope where it starts to compete with the 16 in terms of turn rate. If you really want to be competitive with the 14 in a turn fight, you're going to have to practice a bunch. With the 16, you just pull the stick back and watch your air speed... same with the 18... not as much feel or effort required. Even real pilots kinda said the same thing, which is neat that we can experience that in DCS.

IRL, tomcat pilots never really flew the 14 to the edge of its envelope. I've read that the airframe was 10g rated, but that doesn't mean she liked it there. I also have it on pretty good authority that when BFM training against F-18C's, they kept the 14 under 7g, which may explain why so many pilots felt like the 14 was a dog in a turn fight... <shrug>

After flying the 14 exclusively the last 8 months, i hopped in the 18 to try out TWS last week... she feels like she's flying through mud. Very odd feeling... I don't like it at all... feels very under-powered in a turn fight... but i digress.

F-14B = 55,600 lbs, 4xAIM7 + 4xAIM9, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

F-16C Blk.50 = 26,000 lbs, 4x AIM120 + 2x AIM9's + 2 empty fuel tank wing pylons (DI = 48-50, 25% fuel)

F-15C = 41,000 lbs, 4xAIM7's/120's + 4x AIM9's, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

F-4E = 42,777 lbs, 4xAIM7's, otherwise clean (50% fuel)

.

Thanks hb for declaring drag and fuel state your drawing is based on.

Now we can check your figures...

The DCS F15 with declared config (4x9 & 4x7, 50% fuel, di23.8 ) weighs 39`547lbs (29`498+6729+33200), not 41`000lbs. Based on that she would sustain 14.4dgs, not 13.9dgs as written in the sketch.

The DCS F16 Block 50 with di 50 and 50% fuel (not 25% as you post above, typo?) weighs ~ 25`200lbs (19`518+3422+~2250). According the charts you can therefore expect ~14.7 dgs (14.2+GWeffect 800lbs =0.5) instead of 14.2 as shown in the sketch.

The sketch / config declaration seems to be at least sloppy... if not misleading. And as sk000tch mentioned, radius has a minor impact in a rate fight anyway.

Additionally: Thanks to the higher (best sustained turning) speed the F15 and F16 have higher total energy state which they can trade for angles, as you know. Hence the radius will decrease.

So beside config, fuel state and ps you would probably like to add the total energy state to your chart to enhance the picture?

Damnit sk00tch, you're giving me a hardon. I could read you all day. Thought about writing a book?

Thanks hb for declaring drag and fuel state your drawing is based on.

 

Now we can check your figures...

 

The DCS F15 with declared config (4x9 & 4x7, 50% fuel, di23.8 ) weighs 39`547lbs (29`498+6729+33200), not 41`000lbs. Based on that she would sustain 14.4dgs, not 13.9dgs as written in the sketch.

 

The DCS F16 Block 50 with di 50 and 50% fuel (not 25% as you post above, typo?) weighs ~ 25`200lbs (19`518+3422+~2250). According the charts you can therefore expect ~14.7 dgs (14.2+GWeffect 800lbs =0.5) instead of 14.2 as shown in the sketch.

 

The sketch / config declaration seems to be at least sloppy... if not misleading. And as sk000tch mentioned, radius has a minor impact in a rate fight anyway.

 

Additionally: Thanks to the higher (best sustained turning) speed the F15 and F16 have higher total energy state which they can trade for angles, as you know. Hence the radius will decrease.

So beside config, fuel state and ps you would probably like to add the total energy state to your chart to enhance the picture?

First of all I think we should concentrate on the weights & performance of the real aircraft and not the DCS ones if we want to seriously compare these aircraft, as e.g. the DCS F-15 seems to be missing its wing pylon weight etc..

That said to have a smaller radius at the same max STR is advantageous as it gives you the ability to break a 2 circle 'head on' stalemate by forcing a 1 circle fight, where you then have the definitive advantage. Furthermore it also allows you to burn off excess energy/speed more freely as you know you will do better sustained at a lower speed than your adversary who in order to match your initial instantanous turn rate will quickly be dumping speed/energy himself, and thus he quickly ends up below his optimum STR speed at which point he is then entirely defensive.

Incidently this is also what we're often seeing with F-14 v F-15 matchups ingame as well, i.e. if the F-15 doesn't make use of the vertical and attempts to enter into a strictly horizontal turning competition with the F-14, then the eagle relatively quicly ends up getting plucked by the cat.

Btw: The sketch is NOT meant to convey that a merge will always happen at the best STR speeds of the individual aircraft, esp. since it almost never does, ae depending on the initial speed at the merge the first turn is either going to be one of a higher or lower rate than the max STR. The sketch is merely meant to illustrate the amount of space each aircraft is operating within once settled at the optimum STR.

1. The STR of JAS39 was claimed to be 20 deg /sec (source: flight international), not 20+deg/sec.

2. JAS39 can outturn F-16? According to Combat Aircraft interview, energy-wise, JAS39 was always outmaneuvered by F-16. I will post a scan of the article later.

Well, why does anyone ignore the fact that F-16 outturns F-14 at 10000ft with more afterburner duration and payload drag index

Well, why does anyone ignore the fact that F-16 outturns F-14 at 10000ft with more afterburner duration and payload drag index

Well it doesn't really, they are both virtually the same in STR whilst the F-14 just manages it at a lower speed. Furthermore they both mount the F110 GE engine, the F-14 just has two of them but at the same time also contains over twice the internal fuel capacity of the F-16. (16100 lbs vs 7200 lbs)

So I wouldn't expect the AB duration to be much different between the two. If it is noticably different due to the different intake design etc, then the fact that the F-16 is at ~35% (not 25, that was a typo) fuel capacity whilst the F-14 is at 50% should make up for that difference. In other words the F-16 shouldn't have an AB duration advantage in the configuration/weights compared.

Can the F-16 give MiG-28 pilots the bird whilst flying inverted, that's the real question here?

Anything else is just numbers!

:music_whistling: :music_whistling: :music_whistling:

Damn dude... you could have saved me 45 minutes and some numb legs from tapping out that essay on the can. Ain’t easy reading EMs on a phone!

 

I seem to be arguing in every thread so think I might be a bit irritable/bored. Injuries and illnesses have TFR’d me straight & level most of last few months

I do that, too ;) Btw, enjoyed and agreed with all your comments. People worry too much about min/maxing numbers (gamer term for tey to game the system) and worry not nearly enough about their actual stick and rudder skills O7

A skilled pilot makes all the difference if the opposing one is lacking, there's no doubt about that or arguing against it.

The sketch I made is meant purely as a visual illustration for those who arent savvy with EM charts and/or simply don't have the information at hand. In short it is meant as an easy to read illustration for those with an interest in knowing about the the sustained turning capabilities of the aircraft alone. The rest is up to the pilot.

This

The 14 is much more challenging to fly at the edge of its flight envelope where it starts to compete with the 16 in terms of turn rate. If you really want to be competitive with the 14 in a turn fight, you're going to have to practice a bunch…

IRL, tomcat pilots never really flew the 14 to the edge of its envelope. I've read that the airframe was 10g rated, but that doesn't mean she liked it there

IAs far as f-14 vs f-16, my money is and always will be on the pilot. Above all, hope you are the better pilot (or that f-14 is using rule of thumb airspeeds). Generally speaking, f-16 has the advantage in almost everything, even ignoring aim-9x vs. M's, likely incorrect assumption that DCS pilots can hold max rate in a 14 (she is a bit more tricky to handle than the FBW birds). Despite what everyone around here seems to think the 14 ain't all that in the vertical. If she goes out of plane it will almost always be downhill as she bleeds airspeed fast. After the first turn seems most will try to pull a viper downhill. Viper would be well advised not to follow, or get slow with the big cat. Keep speed and turning room as much as possible, watch for wings to sweep forward, at that point you should be able to get inside bubble, stay lag until stable on canopy, pull for lead and shoot her fat ass -- it's a big ass and pretty hard to miss.

I agree, quoting my prior post. I co-own a su-29 with an ex-eagle driver who got to play with 14’s. Dead give way is the wing sweep. They are great instantaneous through the first turn but need to go nose low to rate with an f-15, when the wings come forward the nose is going down. But its always going to come down to pilot

A skilled pilot makes all the difference if the opposing one is lacking, there's no doubt about that or arguing against it.

 

The sketch I made is meant purely as a visual illustration for those who arent savvy with EM charts and/or simply don't have the information at hand. In short it is meant as an easy to read illustration for those with an interest in knowing about the the sustained turning capabilities of the aircraft alone. The rest is up to the pilot.

A skilled pilot makes all the difference. FTFY. No "if the other is lack, or if starting from defensive." It ain't the crate.

I’ve flown a lot of BFM and never once whipped out a fn POH to check turn performance. Besides that, as I said, the chart was totally misleading, represented information irrelevant to any tactical scenario, and was deliberating misleading in the irrelevant information it represented.

A literal trifecta of garbage. I would have been nicer about this buy you pissed me off. Expect more of this....

btw, I searched for the thread... It totally was you with the g-limited thread. Throwing a big hissy about how it jerked when pulled, all the hornet drivers were like don't ever pull the limiter, like 8,000 combined hours and nobody ever pulled it. But you griped, eventually Lex left, said something about this kind of shit is what makes things unrealistic. Pulling limited should result in damage (which, btw, in assessing whether you are offensive or defense in BFM, a damaged aircraft is even higher than outnumbered and low fuel state). My guess is you've got no idea what the consequences of gonking a $30M piece of government equipment, that then requires pulling every panel, checking stress gauges, inspecting everything with a flashlight, and heavy maint if it fails. Ever seen a hot shit naval aviator get demoted to assistant crew chief for the night?

The only thing crap here is your attitude, coming out swinging and denigrating anothers' friendly attempts at helping people understand a subject.

It's pretty obvious that the illustration is for loaded aircraft in a light fighter configuration at 10 kft, keeping things as apples to apples as possible

…..

In short: NOT sea level and not completely clean running on fumes either.

 

Why you want to muddy the waters with completely clean aircraft running on fumes and going downhill (Ps=-), at SL no less! (don't think you quite thought that one through buddy), I don't know. The relevant information is obviously for a combat loaded aircraft as well as its Ps=0. Best rate, as in instantanous rate wasn't even talked about until you brought it up, esp. since it's a momentary state.

 

Finally I've never argued with any actual pilots about how to fly a Hornet, so not sure what you're on about there. Hence I doubt I have chased anyone away.

First off, you came at me bro, I didn’t start this. You got all butt hurt because I clowned on your MS Paint. I’ve said it before, but you are literally comparing the turning radius of a Ferrari, Lambo and Porsche, except the Porsche was doing 60 mph and the Italian’s 100mph. Worse, having driven neither of them, nor likely raced a circle track, you then got on a soap box and preach about how all circle track drivers would care about turn radius.

You’re a lot less savvy with EM charts than you seem to think. Why is the first chart always sea level with Ps lines at upwards of -800? I posted sea level numbers because that’s what I posted before. I could have just as easily posted loaded up at 40k showing 4d/s. I get that you know nothing about actual aviation, which is fine as this is a place for simmers, but the point was to emphasize why we label charts.

You might be surprised to learn that those charts are not actually made in MS Paint. It’s a combination of empirical data and equations, which, if you want a technical discussion about what Ps or Rutowski paths are, we can have one. I’d rather not relive that part of my life, and I don’t expect many players want spend weeks learning understand the calculus of why Specific Excess Power is equal to the product of velocity and the difference of Trust Available and Drag, divided by weight; or how those plots describe aircraft performance, not directions. Those Ps contours are obtained by repeated solution and interpolation over a mesh of points, where lift equal load factor * weight.

It would, as you say, be rather silly for the first chart in the f-16 flight manual to include a curve for sea level performance with a vertical decent of 800 fps? Perhaps there’s something more to it? Hmm, makes you wonder about eh? Maybe the ms Paint chart was deficient in some respect after all?

I’m looking at my instructor materials and the first slide (actually second slide,j first is title) literally says GOAL OF ACM:

• gain firing solution and kill enemy,
  
• deny firing solution to enemy
  

Now, that seems a bit more practical? Pursuit Curves, turn circles, bubble, RAC, offensive vs. defensive tactics, coms proficiency, and ultimate section tactics are what result in the “GOALS of ACM.”

I am some/many people here know all of this, but many don’t. Core concepts like 3/9 line, what turning room is, what lateral separation is, what turn circle, bubble and post are, control zone, how to control RAC to maneuver attack window/wez. Actually, lets stop there a sec…. RAC, RAC, RAC, RAC (its important)

RAC – Range, angle, closure.

If I’m offensive:

• I can trade angle off for decreased range and increased closure.
  
• I can trade altitude for airspeed to reach WEZ
  
• I can trade airspeed for altitude to avoid an overshoot
  

fyi, turning room belongs to whoever takes it. If you see it, tighten up and take it out for angle off else your opponent will

If I’m defensive:

If Bandit has positional angular advantage, my goal is to immediately increase angle off

Maintain tally over shoulder – do not lose tally, watch for and defeat initial weapon employment

Maneuver to deny follow on, neutralize advantage when opportunity and transition to high aspect.

Pursuit curves

When is lead pursuit appropriate? (to employ weapons or decrease range)

When Is pure appropriate? When you creeping on his bubble trying to get on plane, or concerned about an overshoot

When is lag appropriate? Manage closure, correct back to control zone, solve RAC problems.

Flow – one circle v two circle (ignore others for now)

During 1-circle, radius has advantage. Pitch out of plane to improve radius if necessary, first cross is only chance to bug out usually. In a radius fight, turn rate is irrelevant.

During 2-circle, turn rate advantage creates angular advantage, decreasing angle off. Depending on airframe, pilot may wish to trade some potential or kinetic and pitch down for energy – (F14 F14 F14!)

Look, practical short semi-drunken tips without a single chart (imagine what I could do with a couple planes on the ends of sticks)

Once you can execute BVR without mistakes (sort, commit, lock, launch on single or multiple targets as required, on time, know how to recognize if you’re winning/losing,, whether to follow on or bug out, how to dictate flow from BVR transition, how to execute 1v1 BFM, then the real fun – SEM and engaged/free fighter doctrine. In short, engaged fighter keeps bandit busy, free fighter maneuvers for kill. The importance of formation – e.g Combat spreads, lead trail, wing, high low, the importance of free fighter maneuvering out of phase, but if you can’t maintain formation while executing BVR or create/solve BFM problem, you can’t fight as part of a section.

Sorry to be a dick dude but damn, I feel my retaliation was proportionate.

A skilled pilot makes all the difference. FTFY. No "if the other is lack, or if starting from defensive." It ain't the crate.

Sorry but the crate actually matters, hence why we're not flying around in biplanes anymore.

I’ve flown a lot of BFM and never once whipped out a fn POH to check turn performance. Besides that, as I said, the chart was totally misleading, represented information irrelevant to any tactical scenario, and was deliberating misleading in the irrelevant information it represented.

1) No, because you're supposed to know what the best maneuvering speed of your aircraft is by heart.

2) No, the sketch/illustration was/is not deliberately misleading or misleading at all, it shows what it says it shows. You just need to stop making up stuff about what it was intended for.

A literal trifecta of garbage. I would have been nicer about this buy you pissed me off. Expect more of this....

I p*ssed YOU off? Yeah, sure. Doesn't take a genius to see who came in with an attitude.

btw, I searched for the thread... It totally was you with the g-limited thread. Throwing a big hissy about how it jerked when pulled, all the hornet drivers were like don't ever pull the limiter, like 8,000 combined hours and nobody ever pulled it. But you griped, eventually Lex left, said something about this kind of shit is what makes things unrealistic. Pulling limited should result in damage (which, btw, in assessing whether you are offensive or defense in BFM, a damaged aircraft is even higher than outnumbered and low fuel state). My guess is you've got no idea what the consequences of gonking a $30M piece of government equipment, that then requires pulling every panel, checking stress gauges, inspecting everything with a flashlight, and heavy maint if it fails. Ever seen a hot shit naval aviator get demoted to assistant crew chief for the night?

Throwing a hissy? You fail to understand that this is a sim, i.e. the aircraft should behave as close to the real one as possible. Hence like I said in that thread, I don't care what the normal procedure is, when you pull the override it should function as it does in real life.

That someone wanted to turn that into a whine about "you're trying to tell a real hornet pilot how to fly the hornet!" is just proof of how some people are only here to pick a fight or attempt to sound clever instead of actually reading & attempting to understand the contents of others posts.

So if I scared anyone off (which I still don't believe I did) then said persons need to grow a pair, sorry.

First off, you came at me bro, I didn’t start this. You got all butt hurt because I clowned on your MS Paint.

I came at you? Haha, you were clowning an illustration for no reason as you ASSUMED it was showing something it was never meant to. Don't blame me for your lack of decorum.

I’ve said it before, but you are literally comparing the turning radius of a Ferrari, Lambo and Porsche, except the Porsche was doing 60 mph and the Italian’s 100mph. Worse, having driven neither of them, nor likely raced a circle track, you then got on a soap box and preach about how all circle track drivers would care about turn radius.

Your next example at completely ignoring what was written and just wishing to throw a few insults.

What I actually said is that all fighter pilots care about their optimum STR & at what speed it occurs, something I know for a fact and have several F-16 jocks to confirm.

You’re a lot less savvy with EM charts than you seem to think. Why is the first chart always sea level with Ps lines at upwards of -800? I posted sea level numbers because that’s what I posted before. I could have just as easily posted loaded up at 40k showing 4d/s. I get that you know nothing about actual aviation, which is fine as this is a place for simmers, but the point was to emphasize why we label charts.

Aaah, so you're so blinded by your desire to stand on said soapbox that you accuse me of wanting to stand on, that you actually missed the title of sketch you say? Gotcha.

You might be surprised to learn that those charts are not actually made in MS Paint. It’s a combination of empirical data and equations, which, if you want a technical discussion about what Ps or Rutowski paths are, we can have one. I’d rather not relive that part of my life, and I don’t expect many players want spend weeks learning understand the calculus of why Specific Excess Power is equal to the product of velocity and the difference of Trust Available and Drag, divided by weight; or how those plots describe aircraft performance, not directions. Those Ps contours are obtained by repeated solution and interpolation over a mesh of points, where lift equal load factor * weight.

You might be surprised to learn that said EM charts aren't allowed to be posted on this forum, otherwise I would've simply posted those ;) (As I did many times before it was outlawed on these forums)

It would, as you say, be rather silly for the first chart in the f-16 flight manual to include a curve for sea level performance with a vertical decent of 800 fps? Perhaps there’s something more to it? Hmm, makes you wonder about eh? Maybe the ms Paint chart was deficient in some respect after all?

Just for kicks, where exactly on the sketch is it you see it say that "this is all you need to know" ?

I’m looking at my instructor materials and the first slide (actually second slide,j first is title) literally says GOAL OF ACM:

• gain firing solution and kill enemy,
  
• deny firing solution to enemy
  

 

Now, that seems a bit more practical? Pursuit Curves, turn circles, bubble, RAC, offensive vs. defensive tactics, coms proficiency, and ultimate section tactics are what result in the “GOALS of ACM.”

 

I am some/many people here know all of this, but many don’t. Core concepts like 3/9 line, what turning room is, what lateral separation is, what turn circle, bubble and post are, control zone, how to control RAC to maneuver attack window/wez. Actually, lets stop there a sec…. RAC, RAC, RAC, RAC (its important)

 

RAC – Range, angle, closure.

 

If I’m offensive:

• I can trade angle off for decreased range and increased closure.
  
• I can trade altitude for airspeed to reach WEZ
  
• I can trade airspeed for altitude to avoid an overshoot
  

fyi, turning room belongs to whoever takes it. If you see it, tighten up and take it out for angle off else your opponent will

 

If I’m defensive:

If Bandit has positional angular advantage, my goal is to immediately increase angle off

Maintain tally over shoulder – do not lose tally, watch for and defeat initial weapon employment

Maneuver to deny follow on, neutralize advantage when opportunity and transition to high aspect.

 

Pursuit curves

When is lead pursuit appropriate? (to employ weapons or decrease range)

When Is pure appropriate? When you creeping on his bubble trying to get on plane, or concerned about an overshoot

When is lag appropriate? Manage closure, correct back to control zone, solve RAC problems.

 

Flow – one circle v two circle (ignore others for now)

 

During 1-circle, radius has advantage. Pitch out of plane to improve radius if necessary, first cross is only chance to bug out usually. In a radius fight, turn rate is irrelevant.

 

During 2-circle, turn rate advantage creates angular advantage, decreasing angle off. Depending on airframe, pilot may wish to trade some potential or kinetic and pitch down for energy – (F14 F14 F14!)

 

Look, practical short semi-drunken tips without a single chart (imagine what I could do with a couple planes on the ends of sticks)

 

Once you can execute BVR without mistakes (sort, commit, lock, launch on single or multiple targets as required, on time, know how to recognize if you’re winning/losing,, whether to follow on or bug out, how to dictate flow from BVR transition, how to execute 1v1 BFM, then the real fun – SEM and engaged/free fighter doctrine. In short, engaged fighter keeps bandit busy, free fighter maneuvers for kill. The importance of formation – e.g Combat spreads, lead trail, wing, high low, the importance of free fighter maneuvering out of phase, but if you can’t maintain formation while executing BVR or create/solve BFM problem, you can’t fight as part of a section.

 

Sorry to be a dick dude but damn, I feel my retaliation was proportionate.

Yes, you are being quite unpleasant indeed. But like a couple of good pilot friends already told me, there are unpleasant characters within every field.

Guys if you’re set on having this argument then why don’t you take it to PMs, otherwise can we chill out a bit?

Guys if you’re set on having this argument then why don’t you take it to PMs, otherwise can we chill out a bit?

Trust me I wish we could've stuck to simply discussing the performance of these aircraft objectively and try to learn from each other. I don't get why insults are ever necessary on a forum about aircraft... but for some it must be like politics.

there are dogfight server all over the place

TAW dogfight server had good fuel load, why don't you guys get up

and do the fighting then show us the in-game clips to prove your point.

keyboard warriors are no fun at all.

I'll get roasted for this, but I'm saying it anyway: :-)

I am skeptical of third party aircraft, missiles, etc. in DCS in terms of performance. The F-14 and the Phoenix in DCS seem invincible, over-powered, over-performing, etc. compared to the hundreds of books, videos, documentaries, conversations and the like that I've been reading and watching over the past 25 years. Maybe I'm wrong and the F-14B - Phoenix in game are really accurate, but I'm just skeptical. I think ED does it right and puts in the time with their in house models... 3rd party? I'm not sure. I'm probably wrong... just how I feel.

1. The STR of JAS39 was claimed to be 20 deg /sec (source: flight international), not 20+deg/sec.

2. JAS39 can outturn F-16? According to Combat Aircraft interview, energy-wise, JAS39 was always outmaneuvered by F-16. I will post a scan of the article later.

...During Red Flag the Gripens didn't even need to use their EWS39. They remained undetected anyway. And no disrespect to the Norwegian pilots because I know they're just as well trained as us, but during a combat exercise with the Royal Norwegain Air Force, 3 Swedish Gripens went up against 5 RNAF F-16's. The Result was 5-0, 5-0, 5-1 after having flown 3 rounds. During Loyal Arrow in Sweden, 3 F-15C's from the USAF were intercepted by a Gripen acting as an aggressor. The result was 2 F-15's having been shot down and one managed to escape due to better thrust/weight. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter, or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that perfomed all planed starts, while others where sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up

F-16 has a higher TWR, but one need to consider drag and wing loading too. The Gripen has much lower drag. And far lower wing loading. It can reach supersonic speeds on dry thrust while carrying a full armament of four AMRAAM's two Sidewinders and an external fuel tank. Even though the Gripen lacks the TWR of the F-16 it can nearly match it in climb rate thanks to low drag. The Gripen has positive lift on all control surfaces at all times. The F-16 needs to kill lift in order to turn by forcing the tail down. The Gripen just adds lift in front of the CG with the canards and the aircraft turns by itself. The canards then stabilize the turn rate, creating minimal drag. The IRIS-T is now being integrated for the Gripen. And with its modern infrastructure it can make much better use of it than the F-16. The Gripens ITR is much better than the F-16's and will therefore get its weapons on the F-16 first. The Mirage 2000 for example wins 9 times out of 10 against the F-16 in WVR, and nearly always kills the F-16 during the first turn. This is thanks to its higher ITR. And the Gripen has a higher ITR than the Mirage 2000.

Gripen is pretty much as agile it can get. G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), the Gripen platform is designed with tactics in mind. Gripen fight not only with missiles and bullets but with information, superior situation awareness is the key in modern warfare..

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/arguments-of-choosing-jf-17-thunder-over-jas-39-gripen.61786/page-12#ixzz3HTrGkfru

...During Red Flag the Gripens didn't even need to use their EWS39. They remained undetected anyway. And no disrespect to the Norwegian pilots because I know they're just as well trained as us, but during a combat exercise with the Royal Norwegain Air Force, 3 Swedish Gripens went up against 5 RNAF F-16's. The Result was 5-0, 5-0, 5-1 after having flown 3 rounds. During Loyal Arrow in Sweden, 3 F-15C's from the USAF were intercepted by a Gripen acting as an aggressor. The result was 2 F-15's having been shot down and one managed to escape due to better thrust/weight. One Gripen pilot knocked down five F-16 block 50+ during close air combat in Red Flag Alaska. And the Gripens never lost any aerial encounter, or failed their mission objectives. It was the only fighter that perfomed all planed starts, while others where sitting on the ground waiting for the weather to clear up

 

F-16 has a higher TWR, but one need to consider drag and wing loading too. The Gripen has much lower drag. And far lower wing loading. It can reach supersonic speeds on dry thrust while carrying a full armament of four AMRAAM's two Sidewinders and an external fuel tank. Even though the Gripen lacks the TWR of the F-16 it can nearly match it in climb rate thanks to low drag. The Gripen has positive lift on all control surfaces at all times. The F-16 needs to kill lift in order to turn by forcing the tail down. The Gripen just adds lift in front of the CG with the canards and the aircraft turns by itself. The canards then stabilize the turn rate, creating minimal drag. The IRIS-T is now being integrated for the Gripen. And with its modern infrastructure it can make much better use of it than the F-16. The Gripens ITR is much better than the F-16's and will therefore get its weapons on the F-16 first. The Mirage 2000 for example wins 9 times out of 10 against the F-16 in WVR, and nearly always kills the F-16 during the first turn. This is thanks to its higher ITR. And the Gripen has a higher ITR than the Mirage 2000.

 

Gripen is pretty much as agile it can get. G onset rate at least 6 G/s (1-9 G in 1.2 s), the Gripen platform is designed with tactics in mind. Gripen fight not only with missiles and bullets but with information, superior situation awareness is the key in modern warfare..

 

 

Source: http://defence.pk/threads/arguments-of-choosing-jf-17-thunder-over-jas-39-gripen.61786/page-12#ixzz3HTrGkfru

Not going to argue which aircraft is better at BFM, but just a couple of points:

The F-16 features relaxed static stability by design, and as such also gets lift from its horizontal stabs as it only needs a brief down stab to initiate the turn and after that some upward stab (thus positive lift) to prevent the aircraft from tightening up by itself.

Also 6 G/s onset rate isn't that great, the F-16 will put on G's faster than this and so will the Gripen I'm sure. The Eurofighter for example is capable of onset rates in the 10-11 G/s region.

6 G/s is simply the old NATO std. for centrifuge ROR profiles, but it either has been or is being changed with newer centrifuges being capable of matching the onset rates of the real aircraft.

As for the M2000 winning 9 times out of 10 vs the F-16 in WVR, that is simply untrue. The M2000 might have a higher ITR, but if it misses its first shot it's now purely defensive as the F-16 can keep turning at a high rate whilst the M2000 can't.

Trust me I wish we could've stuck to simply discussing the performance of these aircraft objectively and try to learn from each other. I don't get why insults are ever necessary on a forum about aircraft... but for some it must be like politics.

You're right Hummingbird, but just let it go.

Those enraged posts / bad education speech were red flags right from the start, and eventually the moderators will deal with it.

Not going to argue which aircraft is better at BFM, but just a couple of points:

 

The F-16 features relaxed static stability by design, and as such also gets lift from its horizontal stabs as it only needs a brief down stab to initiate the turn and after that some upward stab (thus positive lift) to prevent the aircraft from tightening up by itself.

 

Also 6 G/s onset rate isn't that great, the F-16 will put on G's faster than this and so will the Gripen I'm sure. The Eurofighter for example is capable of onset rates in the 10-11 G/s region.

 

6 G/s is simply the old NATO std. for centrifuge ROR profiles, but it either has been or is being changed with newer centrifuges being capable of matching the onset rates of the real aircraft.

 

As for the M2000 winning 9 times out of 10 vs the F-16 in WVR, that is simply untrue. The M2000 might have a higher ITR, but if it misses its first shot it's now purely defensive as the F-16 can keep turning at a high rate whilst the M2000 can't.

Have you seen a Gripen in the air? The thing is that it turns extremely hard - without any excessive alpha. It looks like it just carvs through the air. I remember an airshow in Denmark where a Danish F-16, a German Eurofighter and a Gripen where flying after each other. The Eurofighter does these crazy high alpha double afterburner slow sliding turns, the F-16 looking more nimble but a lot of "sliding" - and then the Gripen that looks like it can turn 30% faster with hardly any alpha or loosing any speed. Just slicing the air. And from going straight to full turn in no time at all.

Look at this video from 2 minutes and forward:

And this diagram claims that the new Gripen E should be close to 30 degrees in sustained turn ratio. But that seems over the top even though some test pilot of the E said it should be labeled a 10G fighter instead of 9G... And the chart looks fishy overall - seems like all the Eurocanards are "dream performing" - the F-15 should do better than that etc. It looks like the F-16 matches what has been said in this thread rather well though - but the F18 should be a bit better? The Su-27

From:

https://dailycaller.com/2016/01/22/american-gripen-the-solution-to-the-f-35-nightmare/

Have you seen a Gripen in the air?

Unless you have EM charts for those aircraft you are mostly just blowing into the wind - EM charts were partly created to compare aircraft on basic metrics like STR and ITR.

Airshows: your eyes cannot determine in any way things like Vertical Velocity, weight, AoA, Velocity etc etc from looking at a flying object thus it is mostly useless for comparison.

That chart is not just fishy it is ludicrous and it actually originated from another journalist as part of the anti F-35 BS that was flying around for years. The purpose of the chart is to show some aircraft in a good light and others in a bad light - safe in the knowledge that 95% of the readers (100% of the DailyCaller readers) don't know what they are looking at.

ITR and STR are variables and the best way to picture what happens to these throughout a flight envelope is to get hold of some old EM charts yourself and start there. :thumbup: