F/A-18 vs F-16 Turn rate?

LOL

 

You need to spend less time playing games and more time learning about aerodynamics

 

Hint: yes, you are right pulling g's will result in losing speed. But if you cannot see how that increases your turn rate (because of the lower speed and higher G's), you do not understand the game that you are playing

It depends if you already reached the max sustained rate under the g limiter, as i said, we dont know these parameters in the GAO report

Hint: before thinking that someone doesnt know something you know, read again, because you might be the wrong one

why should the paddle switch help you having a better sustained turn rate? pulling more g's will result in losing speed, if above the sustained level, sadly we dont know how many g's the GAO hornet is pulling to sustain that turn rate, or how fast is he going while sustaining it, you would need a chart that we dont have, so the information is quite not usable.. we dont even know if, for example, he's using the paddle switch considering that it's a performance test

Well first, the DCS Hornet reaches its best STR above the 7.5 g limit, and second - this is not even what I was talking about, I meant that it will not lose any dogfights to the Viper any time soon because the ability to yank the stick and point your plane where and when you want it is actually quite a bit more important than a slight edge in STR, so even if the Viper will have that edge at some point, it won't help very much.

In fact the biggest buff to its dogfighting ability will be the g-tolerance revamp, mentioned by Wags, because then you might actually be able to fly like a Viper is designed to without blacking out.

Yes, and this is what I get in dcs:

 

2019-11-20 17:25:38.926 INFO SCRIPTING: ## TurnRate ## : Script initialized

2019-11-20 17:25:38.926 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: Counter, Alt(m), GS(km/h), GS(Mach), Turn Rate(deg/s)

2019-11-20 17:26:15.096 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 0 44 714 0.584 18.9

2019-11-20 17:27:26.271 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 51 641 0.524 18.7

2019-11-20 17:28:01.872 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 2 37 695 0.568 19.1

2019-11-20 18:11:20.803 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 97 755 0.617 19.4

 

seems pretty close to me.

Yes, 19.4 deg/sec, that's 0.2 deg/sec more than the GAO report.

In short you just confirmed what I've already said, the Hornet is slightly overperforming atm, which when put together with the fact that the F-16 is slightly underperforming both in STR, level acceleration & G-onset, makes for a very noticable advantage in the Hornets favor that the real life aircraft just does not possess.

This, however, is nothing but your own speculation, so leave that to yourself and don't present it as a source, thanks.

No it's not, you can calculate it quite easily. So you can stop being smug, thanks.

Well first, the DCS Hornet reaches its best STR above the 7.5 g limit, and second - this is not even what I was talking about, I meant that it will not lose any dogfights to the Viper any time soon because the ability to yank the stick and point your plane where and when you want it is actually quite a bit more important than a slight edge in STR, so even if the Viper will have that edge at some point, it won't help very much.

 

In fact the biggest buff to its dogfighting ability will be the g-tolerance revamp, mentioned by Wags, because then you might actually be able to fly like a Viper is designed to without blacking out.

2 deg/sec might seem like a small difference to you, but it becomes quite noticable in a dogfight between pilots of equal skill. The F-14 currently holds about a 2 deg/sec advantage over the Hornet, and that quickly becomes deciding in a turn fight.

the ability to yank the stick and point your plane where and when you want it is actually quite a bit more important than a slight edge in STR, so even if the Viper will have that edge at some point, it won't help very much.

 

that's just wrong, maybe in wrong flight models where you dont lose the speed that you should that might feel worth to pull max g's for snap opportunities, start to have a plane that slows down as it should and take the time that it would need to take to take back the speed and you'll start thinking in a different way.

Bad flight models, bad habits.

The GAO report posted earlier, it gave a 19.2 deg/sec max STR @ SL & 12.3 deg/sec STR at 15 kft for an F/A-18C epe w/ 2x AIM9 + 2xAIM120 & 60% fuel. That means a clean jet without pylons, just the extra weight of the missiles (wing tip & fuselage stations don't really add any drag). So add about 0.3 deg/sec for the weight decrease & ever so slight drag reduction and you end up at 19.5 deg/sec for a clean jet.

Some people do not need sources, they just feel it.

Sustained 6.5g turn @330kts, that is what I read from Display pilot J.Meister in a lot 20 in the yearbook 2016 swiss air force black on white.

Regarding acceleration:

According RW datas (GAO) of the hornet with 402 engine (max thrust, 2aim 9, 2aim 120, 60%fuel) accelerates:

at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 21seconds.

at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 34.6 seconds

at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 55.8 seconds

My test in dcs:

at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 22.5seconds (+1.5sec).

at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 35.8 seconds (+1.2 sec)

at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 58.5 seconds (+2.7 sec)

This does not feel like overpowered.

(You can find the Trk files in the hornet thread, accelleration and altidute.)

Cheers

Yes, 19.4 deg/sec, that's 0.2 deg/sec more than the GAO report.

 

In short you just confirmed what I've already said, the Hornet is slightly overperforming atm, which when put together with the fact that the F-16 is slightly underperforming both in STR, level acceleration & G-onset, makes for a very noticable advantage in the Hornets favor that the real life aircraft just does not possess.

Wowzers, an entire 0.2 deg/s! Which is a whole 1% of difference!!!11one. This is obviously a conspiracy because such things as measurement errors, differences between individual aircraft (in rl), and slight and acceptable modelling deviations in DCS could never possibly combine to create a difference as enormous as 1%. We should boycott all ED products until the Hornet's turn rate is adjusted to 19.2 because this will change everything and it will get absolutely dumpstered by the Viper in a dogfight and order will be restored.

No it's not, you can calculate it quite easily. So you can stop being smug, thanks.

I think you should have a chat with Boeing, Lockheed Martin and all those guys, because I believe they are still wasting their time testing this stuff with real airplanes and wind tunnels and such, which is obviously retarded because it takes you five minutes to easily calculate it on a piece of paper.

that's just wrong, maybe in wrong flight models where you dont lose the speed that you should that might feel worth to pull max g's for snap opportunities, start to have a plane that slows down as it should and take the time that it would need to take to take back the speed and you'll start thinking in a different way.

Bad flight models, bad habits.

Let's put it this way, if I pull hard, shoot and hit you, who cares how slow I am after that?

Wowzers, an entire 0.2 deg/s! Which is a whole 1% of difference!!!11one. This is obviously a conspiracy because such things as measurement errors, differences between individual aircraft (in rl), and slight and acceptable modelling deviations in DCS could never possibly combine to create a difference as enormous as 1%. We should boycott all ED products until the Hornet's turn rate is adjusted to 19.2 because this will change everything and it will get absolutely dumpstered by the Viper in a dogfight and order will be restored.

I don't know where you got the idea that anyone wanted to boycott ED over a slight performance discrepancy, or that I care about which aircraft wins a dogfight. All I care about is that RL performance is matched as closely as possible, and I'm quite patient about it too, not once having threatened to do anything. So you can pack your childish attempts at ridicule away thank you very much.

Also your results hide the real problem, which is suspicious performance above 0.7 mach, which becomes clearer and clearer the higher you go. At 15 kft the DCS Hornet is already pulling 1.1 deg/sec more than the figures in the GAO report, and that without using the paddle.

Also if you don't like threads like these then simply don't read them. You're here on your own accord, no'ones forcing you to give a damn about any of this.

I think you should have a chat with Boeing, Lockheed Martin and all those guys, because I believe they are still wasting their time testing this stuff with real airplanes and wind tunnels and such, which is obviously retarded because it takes you five minutes to easily calculate it on a piece of paper.

You really ought to read up on aero before you start poking fun at someone who actually understands it.

Start here:

https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/shortw.html

Some people do not need sources, they just feel it.

 

Sustained 6.5g turn @330kts, that is what I read from Display pilot J.Meister in a lot 20 in the yearbook 2016 swiss air force black on white.

 

Regarding acceleration:

According RW datas (GAO) of the hornet with 402 engine (max thrust, 2aim 9, 2aim 120, 60%fuel) accelerates:

 

at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 21seconds.

at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 34.6 seconds

at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 55.8 seconds

 

My test in dcs:

at 5k ft from M0.8 to M1.08 in 22.5seconds (+1.5sec).

at 20k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 35.8 seconds (+1.2 sec)

at 35k ft from M0.8 to M1.2 in 58.5 seconds (+2.7 sec)

 

This does not feel like overpowered.

(You can find the Trk files in the hornet thread, accelleration and altidute.)

 

Cheers

I would urge you to look up the same reports for the F-16. The falcon acceleration seems to be underperforming by 30% at 20,000 lbs. Where is should make those transitions in as little as 13 seconds. It takes 18 seconds in game. So either the drag is too high or the thrust is too low.

The performance issues are compounded because blackouts in the Viper start at just over 6g, and you get initial GLOC several g before the 9g limit. So whatever the energy bleeding snap turning ability of the F-16, no one can really say because we currently pass out before you get close. With g warmups you can barely reach 9g for a split second.

The F-16 with the reclined seat was designed to allow for 9g turns and even has a special O2 setting for high g maneuvers (which currently does nothing in EA).

Meanwhile the Hornet, which has an upright seat can easily pull sustained 9.6g with the g-limiter switched off with no hint of GLOC onset after a warm-up I don't have any data on g tolerance in the F/A-18 but it seems the g force tolerance in the planes is somewhat reversed atm.

I suspect that once the g tolerance performance issues are sorted out, and hopefully the drag model as well (which is currently causing buggy resonance oscillations that can cause GLOC while flying level) the planes will match their RL advantages and disadvantages more accurately.

Let's put it this way, if I pull hard, shoot and hit you, who cares how slow I am after that?

yeah and i'm sure you'll fly this way in real life if for example there's the possibility that you dont hit me and then have to give up angles after that because you fall down like a rock, trading your life for a snapshot that if you miss you can't fight anymore. as i said, wrong flight models lead into this kind of bad habits.

2 deg/sec might seem like a small difference to you, but it becomes quite noticable in a dogfight between pilots of equal skill. The F-14 currently holds about a 2 deg/sec advantage over the Hornet, and that quickly becomes deciding in a turn fight.

F-14 also has a very good ITR and small turn radius, while F-16 has neither. These are the reasons it does so well, not just STR alone.

I don't know where you got the idea that anyone wanted to boycott ED over a slight performance discrepancy, or that I care about which aircraft wins a dogfight. All I care about is that RL performance is matched as closely as possible, and I'm quite patient about it too, not once having threatened to do anything. So you can pack your childish attempts at ridicule away thank you very much.

You do care though, otherwise you wouldn't be constantly comparing the two, posting in every 18 vs 16 thread and demanding changes on the basis of "this plane should beat that plane because I read that somewhere on the Internets".

Also your results hide the real problem, which is suspicious performance above 0.7 mach, which becomes clearer and clearer the higher you go. At 15 kft the DCS Hornet is already pulling 1.1 deg/sec more than the figures in the GAO report, and that without using the paddle.

It does turn slightly faster, but not by 1.1 deg/s.

2019-11-20 20:53:38.567 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: Counter, Alt(m), GS(km/h), GS(Mach), Turn Rate(deg/s)

2019-11-20 20:55:06.236 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 0 4489 876 0.756 12.7

2019-11-20 20:55:43.139 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 4519 927 0.801 12.8

2019-11-20 20:56:57.777 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 2 4561 1206 1.043 10.1

2019-11-20 20:58:55.718 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 3 4598 939 0.812 12.6

2019-11-20 20:59:53.584 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 4 4571 968 0.836 12.7

2019-11-20 21:02:37.962 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 5 4572 849 0.734 12.3

2019-11-20 21:02:57.849 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 6 4587 813 0.703 12.0

This could be specific to the Hornet, or something general like how DCS models the atmosphere. Too lazy to check if the Viper's performance matches right now. Could also be that the "12.3" figure is fantasy because there is no proper document about F-18 performance, just random stuff from the internet that people assume to be true.

You really ought to read up on aero before you start poking fun at someone who actually understands it.

 

Start here:

https://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/shortw.html

You impress me more and more, not only do you have the ability to highly accurately predict the performance of any aircraft by doing a quick calculation on a napkin, but you also only needed to go through an "aerodynamics for dummies" course to do that! Do you happen to have 180 IQ?

yeah and i'm sure you'll fly this way in real life if for example there's the possibility that you dont hit me and then have to give up angles after that because you fall down like a rock, trading your life for a snapshot that if you miss you can't fight anymore. as i said, wrong flight models lead into this kind of bad habits.

How about not going for it unless you know you'll hit, then you won't have to deal with all that falling down like a rock stuff and further unpleasantries? Also, there's more nuance to it than pulling on the stick until you're at 50 knots, you know. And do I need to mention the slight differences between DCS the video game and real life and how that affects the decision making?

Also, how is DCS Hornet's FM bad now? Because you think it's off by 1% from some chart? (let's assume it's real). Yeah, horrible FM, ED should totally rework the whole thing from scratch.

How about not going for it unless you know you'll hit, then you won't have to deal with all that falling down like a rock stuff and further unpleasantries? Also, there's more nuance to it than pulling on the stick until you're at 50 knots, you know. And do I need to mention the slight differences between DCS the video game and real life and how that affects the decision making?

 

Also, how is DCS Hornet's FM bad now? Because you think it's off by 1% from some chart? (let's assume it's real). Yeah, horrible FM, ED should totally rework the whole thing from scratch.

Making suggestions to adapt to the current FM would be quite reasonable if it wasn't in very early EA. Given the GLOC from oscillations confirmed bug during level fight, the flight model isn't perfected yet and has bigger issues than just the turning rate. Early g-loc and excessive drag also limit our options in combat making suggestions to adjust your flying moot since the avenues for adaptation are currently blocked (eg bleeding energy at higher speed sustainable turns for alpha = instant blackout, vs sharp turns at lower speed to avoid blackout results in a high risk of stalling). Moreover, according to acceleration tables for the block 50 engine, the stripped down viper in DCS is currently behaving like one that weighs 7000lbs more.

Once these issues are addressed, then it will make more sense to argue about whether the relatively minor rate turn difference should be looked into.

I'm not complaining here, because even with all that the Viper is still a fun plane to fly. I'm just looking forward to the time when the Viper FM is a bit more polished, however long that takes. In the meantime, I'm enjoying the Hornet FM very much, definitely no complaints there :thumbup:

How about not going for it unless you know you'll hit, then you won't have to deal with all that falling down like a rock stuff and further unpleasantries? Also, there's more nuance to it than pulling on the stick until you're at 50 knots, you know.

if you dont, then you will not be able to get the nose on the plane which can keep a better sustained rate, as long the fight goes as much harder will be for you to point the nose since he will always be in a position where you'll need to pull more and more to point your nose on him, but hey, i expect you to understand this kind of basic BFM principles reading your signature.

F-14 also has a very good ITR and small turn radius, while F-16 has neither. These are the reasons it does so well, not just STR alone.

And yet the F-16 actually has the smallest sustainable turn radius...:music_whistling:

Also funny how the real life pilots don't find the Hornets pitch rate to be the end all in a dogfight...

You do care though, otherwise you wouldn't be constantly comparing the two, posting in every 18 vs 16 thread and demanding changes on the basis of "this plane should beat that plane because I read that somewhere on the Internets".

Aha, so now I'm "demanding" changes, pitchfork, torch and everything eh?

Sorry but you clearly don't know my posting history, but to brief you: My main focus upon the release of a module in DCS is to flight test and compare it with available documentation in order to make sure the FM is as accurate as possible, which usually never happens on the first try, and I don't expect it to either as this isn't a simple thing to achieve and I admire the guys who have to code this stuff. I then provide feedback until the FM at least matches the available documentation, leaving any quirky flight characteristics (e.g. F-14 high AoA rudder effectiveness, dutch roll etc) to be addressed by the only ones who truly knows about it, the SMEs aka the RL pilots or engineers who work/worked on the a/c.

Hence you'll see posts by yours truly relating to flight performance in the subforum of basically every jet fighter module in DCS, I didn't just start doing this yesterday. The F-16 just so happens to be the newest module and still needs some adjustments, so currently I'm more focused on its FM.

I don't have any feelings attached to any one particular aircraft, my wish & main focus is that they all fly as realistically as possible, pure and simple.

It does turn slightly faster, but not by 1.1 deg/s.

 

2019-11-20 20:53:38.567 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: Counter, Alt(m), GS(km/h), GS(Mach), Turn Rate(deg/s)

2019-11-20 20:55:06.236 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 0 4489 876 0.756 12.7

2019-11-20 20:55:43.139 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 4519 927 0.801 12.8

2019-11-20 20:56:57.777 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 2 4561 1206 1.043 10.1

2019-11-20 20:58:55.718 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 3 4598 939 0.812 12.6

2019-11-20 20:59:53.584 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 4 4571 968 0.836 12.7

2019-11-20 21:02:37.962 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 5 4572 849 0.734 12.3

2019-11-20 21:02:57.849 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 6 4587 813 0.703 12.0

15,000 ft

M 0.65 = 4.6 G's (12.5 deg/sec)

M 0.75 = 5.5 G's (13.0 deg/sec)

M 0.80 = 6.0 G's (13.3 deg/sec)

This could be specific to the Hornet, or something general like how DCS models the atmosphere. Too lazy to check if the Viper's performance matches right now. Could also be that the "12.3" figure is fantasy because there is no proper document about F-18 performance, just random stuff from the internet that people assume to be true.

Aha, so now you're arguing against the actual documentation there is available? Well we certainly know what box to put you in then.

You impress me more and more, not only do you have the ability to highly accurately predict the performance of any aircraft by doing a quick calculation on a napkin, but you also only needed to go through an "aerodynamics for dummies" course to do that! Do you happen to have 180 IQ?

You misunderstand, said course was for you :thumbup:

I'd recommend reading up on lift coefficients first, as you seem to believe these aircraft rely on secret woodoo magic to stay airborne. If we're lucky you will then soon understand why calculating the STR or ITR is very easy when the engineers & test pilots already did all the hard stuff for you, aka an EM chart.

I've done lots of duels with the F-16 in the other sim against the best opponent could think of (no joke). In every case the fuel load played a big role in determining the winner. The pilot with the lighter fuel load had a distinct advantage (until he went dry!).

Both of these modules are in early access, and whatever errors there are in the final release will have a smaller effect than your fuel load going into a duel.

...

 

It does turn slightly faster, but not by 1.1 deg/s.

 

2019-11-20 20:53:38.567 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: Counter, Alt(m), GS(km/h), GS(Mach), Turn Rate(deg/s)

2019-11-20 20:55:06.236 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 0 4489 876 0.756 12.7

2019-11-20 20:55:43.139 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 1 4519 927 0.801 12.8

2019-11-20 20:56:57.777 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 2 4561 1206 1.043 10.1

2019-11-20 20:58:55.718 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 3 4598 939 0.812 12.6

2019-11-20 20:59:53.584 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 4 4571 968 0.836 12.7

2019-11-20 21:02:37.962 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 5 4572 849 0.734 12.3

2019-11-20 21:02:57.849 INFO SCRIPTING: TR: 6 4587 813 0.703 12.0

...

 

When I used that test mission and looked at some of the other tracks people were posting in support of certain outcomes I had the following observations.

1. The test mission is the same for everyone and enforces some flight discipline as it won't record outside of it's parameters for sustained turn. It's a very narrow focused tool we can use.

2. Using infobar or tacview might be accurate or not, either way it does NOT enforce any parameters for a sustained turn. We have to take their word for it.

3. Outcomes using the test mission seem to be close to the GAO document.

4. Some of the posted tracks that were being cited as evidence would not have produced an output from the test mission, nowhere even close.

I pointed all of this out previously and was largely ignored by a certain posters almost completely, but was challenged to provide a track. I did so and there was no further comment on that either.

My numbers for the Hornet were quite close to the GAO document, like yours, and they showed the F-16 becoming superior at higher speeds at 15,000ft or higher, all measurements taken using the test mission file script output.

So, I gave up arguing. They'll use whatever 'evidence' they have that fits their narrative and seem to have a wind source that far exceeds my own.

Lastly, to be clear, I am not saying that the current state is correct, I would have *expected* more of a difference, but I can't definitively say that something is not well modeled.

I've done lots of duels with the F-16 in the other sim against the best opponent could think of (no joke). In every case the fuel load played a big role in determining the winner. The pilot with the lighter fuel load had a distinct advantage (until he went dry!).

 

Both of these modules are in early access, and whatever errors there are in the final release will have a smaller effect than your fuel load going into a duel.

I tested the acceleration of the F-16 with 10% fuel (around 20,000 lbs in game) and according to the acceleration charts for the block 50 engine, the performance was that of an F-16 weighing 27,000 lbs at sea level. An F-16 with 100% fuel (around 27,000 lbs in game) accelerated like an F-16 that weighed 36,000 lbs according to those same charts for the F110-GE-129.

The main issues I've noted in the DCS F-16 FM so far:

- Noticable lack in level flight acceleration

- too low a G-onset rate (still trying to figure out the exact onset rate to be expected, but 9 G/s at least according to one pilot who mentioned that 9 G can be reached in under a second)

- inability to each 9.3 G in a level horizontal turn (this and onset rate is obviously DFLCS related)

- Slightly underperforming in sustainable load factor / STR below 400 kts

I have full confidence in ED getting it all right in the end however, it's just about being patient.

The main issues I've noted in the DCS F-16 FM so far:

 

- Noticable lack in level flight acceleration

- too low a G-onset rate (still trying to figure out the exact onset rate to be expected, but 9 G/s at least according to one pilot who mentioned that 9 G can be reached in under a second)

- inability to each 9.3 G in a level horizontal turn (this and onset rate is obviously DFLCS related)

- Slightly underperforming in sustainable load factor / STR below 400 kts

 

I have full confidence in ED getting it all right in the end however, it's just about being patient.

Just curious, does ED recognize your skills?

Just curious, does ED recognize your skills?

Do you mean in terms of some kind of rpg GLOC fitness training for playing a certain number of hours regularly? I don't think so. But you can do g warmups that will give you X seconds to reach and sustain <8g without instantly blacking out.

And yet the F-16 actually has the smallest sustainable turn radius...:music_whistling:

At slow speed where it turns like a brick. While the 14 can match the 16's best rate while needing less speed and thus having a smaller radius, which does matter and you know it.

Also funny how the real life pilots don't find the Hornets pitch rate to be the end all in a dogfight...

Could that be because they don't routinely over-g it like people do in dcs? There's quite a bit difference between going 450-500kts and having an ability to pull 10g to trade speed for angle and still come out of that with a nice 350kts versus having to start at those 350kts because otherwise you will just overshoot if the opponent does anything. And btw there's plenty of articles written by pilots where they say that Hornet's nose authority is a very strong point, you just choose to pretend they don't exist.

Aha, so now I'm "demanding" changes, pitchfork, torch and everything eh?

 

Sorry but you clearly don't know my posting history, but to brief you: My main focus upon the release of a module in DCS is to flight test and compare it with available documentation in order to make sure the FM is as accurate as possible, which usually never happens on the first try, and I don't expect it to either as this isn't a simple thing to achieve and I admire the guys who have to code this stuff. I then provide feedback until the FM at least matches the available documentation, leaving any quirky flight characteristics (e.g. F-14 high AoA rudder effectiveness, dutch roll etc) to be addressed by the only ones who truly knows about it, the SMEs aka the RL pilots or engineers who work/worked on the a/c.

 

Hence you'll see posts by yours truly relating to flight performance in the subforum of basically every jet fighter module in DCS, I didn't just start doing this yesterday. The F-16 just so happens to be the newest module and still needs some adjustments, so currently I'm more focused on its FM.

 

I don't have any feelings attached to any one particular aircraft, my wish & main focus is that they all fly as realistically as possible, pure and simple.

So why don't you stick to discussing the F-16 alone? There's enough documentation available for it, unlike the 18, to analyze, so that you don't need to base your arguments on "some pilots say that 16 is better than 18 in dogfights, but it isn't in game, pls nerf thx". To even do this you should at least try to understand the reasons the DCS Hornet is stronger in BFM compared to the real one, and protip: it isn't because it "might" (don't even have detailed documentation, so essentially unconfirmed) be turning some 0.2 deg/s faster in a sustained turn.

It does seem like the F-16 is underperforming in certain aspects, but to show this you don't need to compare it to another aircraft, in fact even ED themselves explicitly stated that they don't take such comparisons seriously. Use the available data for the F-16.

15,000 ft

M 0.65 = 4.6 G's (12.5 deg/sec)

M 0.75 = 5.5 G's (13.0 deg/sec)

M 0.80 = 6.0 G's (13.3 deg/sec)

This is wrong in more ways than one: firstly the methods you use are prone to producing errors because there is nothing that forces you to stay within set flight parameters, you should use the sustained turn rate check mission instead.

And second, you convert two different two-figure measurement outputs into a three-figure result which is an incredibly amateurish mistake, because you should know that since school, if you paid attention. This alone makes me doubt about you having any background in the subject beyond the aero for dummies course you linked.

Aha, so now you're arguing against the actual documentation there is available? Well we certainly know what box to put you in then.

Show me some real documentation about the 18, similar to what we have on the 14 and 16, not just some random report which contains 2 data points. Send through PM to not violate forum rules.

You misunderstand, said course was for you :thumbup:

 

I'd recommend reading up on lift coefficients first, as you seem to believe these aircraft rely on secret woodoo magic to stay airborne. If we're lucky you will then soon understand why calculating the STR or ITR is very easy when the engineers & test pilots already did all the hard stuff for you, aka an EM chart.

I prefer to read proper textbooks when looking into something even for hobby purposes, in this case I have this one. So don't need your link, but thanks for your concern. You though, should read up on significance arithmetic and error propagation, or better yet stop skipping science classes to play DCS if you're still in school.

And second, you convert two different two-figure measurement outputs into a three-figure result which is an incredibly amateurish mistake, because you should know that since school, if you paid attention. This alone makes me doubt about you having any background in the subject beyond the aero for dummies course you linked.

Aha, I wonder why it's industry std. to measure load factors and not rate then.. the answer is pretty obvious, but I'll keep you guessing, it's quite amusing.

I prefer to read proper textbooks when looking into something even for hobby purposes, in this case I have this one. So don't need your link, but thanks for your concern. You though, should read up on significance arithmetic and error propagation, or better yet stop skipping science classes to play DCS if you're still in school.

Excellent, so tell me where in your textbook does it say that you cannot precisely calculate changes to STR & ITR based on increases/decreases in weight with known data points collected through flight testing? I'm all ears! :D