Future F-16 variations possible?

On 3/3/2021 at 5:52 PM, Berserk said:

 

 

That cable managment ;D

One variation that I would love to see is the F16 XL. I don't know if anyone else is interested in it but I definitely think its doable since NASA has all the flight information available and it just so happens to be the only cranked arrow delta wing that the USA thought of making. It had so many benefits due to its design. I believe it would have been an incredible addition and would love to see it in game. If any modders are interested and wanna  take lead on design then I would be happy to help in any way I could. I don't have much knowledge on modding but I'm a quick learner. Regardless I just thought that particular variation was incredible. 

I think the A variant could b interesting although I think ED efforts should be finish the current module and there’s a provision to update the flying dynamics so I think that would b better fist  

1 hour ago, Bozo_ said:

I think the A variant could b interesting although I think ED efforts should be finish the current module and there’s a provision to update the flying dynamics so I think that would b better fist  

Guys, there are no available documents for anything other than the block 50/52, we won't see an A model before its documents are released, which might be in a looooong time. No reason to even discuss this at the moment. Safe flights.

6 hours ago, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Guys, there are no available documents for anything other than the block 50/52, we won't see an A model before its documents are released, which might be in a looooong time. No reason to even discuss this at the moment. Safe flights.

So whats the difference between 50 and 52? only the engine?,

or 52 is that variant with 3 MFDs and CFTs? or that's 52+?

I'd love to see 3rd MFD like in the hornet. I think I've read somewhere that it was 52+ Advanced version. but not sure

16 hours ago, Furiz said:

So whats the difference between 50 and 52? only the engine?

Yes - F110-GE-129 in the 50 and the F100-PW-229 in the 52.

16 hours ago, Furiz said:

or 52 is that variant with 3 MFDs and CFTs? or that's 52+?

50+/52+ has CFTs and APG-68(V)9, no idea if it has a 3rd MFD - I thought that was something in the newer F-16s such as the F-16E/F Block 60 - I'm pretty sure that has an AESA RADAR so good luck with that.

16 hours ago, Furiz said:

 

So whats the difference between 50 and 52? only the engine?,

or 52 is that variant with 3 MFDs and CFTs? or that's 52+?

 

I'd love to see 3rd MFD like in the hornet. I think I've read somewhere that it was 52+ Advanced version. but not sure

 

The block 52 is identical to the block 50 with the engine being different. I am not quite sure if the block 60 aircraft has the triple MFD setup, but I know the block 70 has. These are way advanced versions of the F-16 that I can promise you we won't see in this decade. If you want three MFD's go fly the hornet IMHO.

The block 52 version I was thinking of was the one I think delivered to greece, I did a google search so wiki info poped up, it was labeled as F-16C/D Block 52M.

This is a quote from a wiki page,

"In 2005, the Greek government ordered 30 more F-16C/D, 20 single-seat and 10 double-seat. These aircraft are called F-16C/D Block 52+ Advanced, but are known in the Hellenic Air Force as F-16 Block 52M (due to improved computing power for mission computer MMC). The differences between the normal Block 52+ and Block 52+ Advanced are that the Advanced version has a LINK 16 Communications System, more powerful Mission Control Computer, an extra Multi Function Display with a movable map navigation, advanced Debriefing System and the capability of carrying the RECCE Reconnaissance Pod. They also feature major upgrades by Lockheed Martin and Hellenic Aerospace Industry. The first aircraft were delivered to Hellenic Air Force in May 2009 and they are flying with the 335 Squadron "Tiger" in Araxos air base"

But I know Wiki can be wrong so I though I'd ask here:P

Block 40

On 3/28/2021 at 1:36 PM, Furiz said:

The block 52 version I was thinking of was the one I think delivered to greece, I did a google search so wiki info poped up, it was labeled as F-16C/D Block 52M.

This is where things can get really complicated. Even aircraft that are officially the same type and block delivered to different countries can have widely different equipment. A USAF F-16C Blk.50 isn't the same as a Greek F-16C Blk.50 and the Turkish F-16C Blk.50 is different still. 

Some of the Greek F-16C Blk.50M features are also implemented in the USAF CCIP improvements, which we have in DCS. 

On 3/27/2021 at 9:19 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

Guys, there are no available documents for anything other than the block 50/52, we won't see an A model before its documents are released, which might be in a looooong time. No reason to even discuss this at the moment. Safe flights.

This isnt true. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

1 minute ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

This isnt true. I have the F16A -1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My bad, yes we have a -1, but good luck making a module when you only have 1/3 or less of the required information to actually make the thing happen.

My bad, yes we have a -1, but good luck making a module when you only have 1/3 or less of the required information to actually make the thing happen.

Just now, llOPPOTATOll said:

Just because it isnt published on the internet doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Hence the "we won't see an A model before its documents are released"

Hence the "we won't see an A model before its documents are released"

3 minutes ago, llOPPOTATOll said:

how do you know the documents arent released.

I don't.

+1 for the same block 50 that we have, D model.

Would be so nice for squadron training, weapon employment ease and multiplayer taste. F-16 is currently the most popular aircraft in MP servers along with the Hornet.

On 3/31/2021 at 9:17 AM, SpaceMonkey037 said:

My bad, yes we have a -1, but good luck making a module when you only have 1/3 or less of the required information to actually make the thing happen.

There's only one publicly available document for the Hornet too and we got one of those, so what's available to us is not necessarily the same as what's available to ED. 

5 hours ago, Bunny Clark said:

There's only one publicly available document for the Hornet too and we got one of those, so what's available to us is not necessarily the same as what's available to ED. 

Theres a whole lot more then 1 document for our hornet publicly available.

49 minutes ago, IkarusC42B Pilot said:

Theres a whole lot more then 1 document for our hornet publicly available.

There are other documents, sure, but not NTRP 3-22.4-FA-18A-D or NTRP 3-22.2-FA-18A-D which give a similar level of information to the publicly available HAF F-16CJ-34. I don't know if ED has full or partial access to those documents or if they have some other way of getting information on tactical systems, but they certainly have access to something that isn't publicly available. 

Even though I'd prefer a 2009-2010 HAF F-16D Block 52+ Peace Xenia IV, I think the best option for ED would be to model a 2007 F-16DM-50. All the avionics would be the exact same as in our current F-16CM-50 and the only work that would have to be done is to model the rear cockpit internally (mostly copy paste) and externally, integrate the rear and front cockpit and make some slight adjustments to the flight model.

Then we would have the first multi-role trainer aircraft in DCS that is actually combat capable. This would allow experienced pilots to teach new pilots everything from takeoff and landings to SEAD and BVR from the backseat, fully able to see what the trainee is doing. It'd even allow potential DCS customers to come along for an actual combat mission during free weekends and experience the joy that is DCS without having to invest hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours up front before knowing if they'll even enjoy it.

F-16 Viper Block72 simulator

Damn that middle display would be so useful. Hopes hopes hopes hopes...

General feel for me for all planes is I wish they would start with the earliest variants, and then work up to the latest variants. Primarily because of a silly reason, where to me that feels more like a progression. As opposed to starting with the latest and greatest possible, and then working backwards.

2 hours ago, Monkwolf said:

General feel for me for all planes is I wish they would start with the earliest variants, and then work up to the latest variants. Primarily because of a silly reason, where to me that feels more like a progression. As opposed to starting with the latest and greatest possible, and then working backwards.

If this was how we would create modules we would be stuck with WW1 bi-planes only. I don't think that's what we want.