[CHECKING] Turn Rate

[aaron886]

You have the test conditions from the report...is the DCS F-18 performance reasonable close?

No! That's 3 degrees per second off, which is a very significant difference in the world of fighter performance. You can regularly find videos of F-16s performing 17 or 18 second turns at sea level, which corresponds to a 20-21 degree per second turn rate. This graph, for what it's worth, gets you close to that: http://www.f-16.net/forum/download/file.php?id=4437&sid=86ba2980defc386845075f45a417ad11&mode=view. In contrast, you'll never see a legacy Hornet at an airshow put up better than a 20 second turn, whether its got -400s or -402s. I encourage you to prove me wrong.

 

 

There are no good graphs, but we don't use the graphs to build an FM, only to check it.

That's interesting to read. Understandable, especially given the current climate. However, the aerodynamic model data will only be as good as whatever experimental or derived data the team has found, and that is never a substitute for observable data. I've always thought ED could do a better job of using popularly available sources like video or brochure data, for all its flaws. In a lot of these cases the straight mathematical approach just isn't enough. I know Yo-Yo would hate to read that.

 

 

So no graph no check, i got it, well, after that i'll stop trying to understand how's the hornet winning rate fights against the viper

Unfortunately this is the state of bug reporting. Nobody legally has any hard proof. We know the Viper has superior maximum sustained turn performance, but can we get ED to move some numbers based on that alone? I hope so.

 

 

The result might be nothing at all - ie. the airframe handles it fine, but life expectancy is reduced ... and in a shooting match you're not going to worry about airframe hours. You can have reduced airframe hours or go to 0 hours right now because you didn't use the switch.

A frustrating problem, if off-topic. I agree that yours is actually the realistic answer, as opposed to artificial limits imposed for the sake of "balance." (Not that I'm opposed to an option existing, server-side.)

Edited October 29, 2019 by aaron886

[NineLine]

Before everyone gets all excited, we havent stated that there isn't something wrong, we just need to research a better way of checking it, and it's not as easy as just changing a value somewhere.

 

We might have excellent info to create the FM, but lack things like turn rate charts to check it. So before we get all carried away with ourselves please check that the thread title is still [CHECKING].

[Robin_Hood]

Here's a thought: we know there's a bug in the weight calculation, and that this weight is fed into the FCS. Could it affect sustained turn rate ? Now I can imagine how it wouldn't (because we are talking moderate Gs here), but I like to be cautious around these issues (instantaneous turn rate is obviously affected because of the g-limit). Unless we are sure it has no impact, wouldn't it be reasonable to wait until this is adressed before testing turn rates again ?

Also, I have seen concerns about weapons drag (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245521), which would definitely impact sustained turn performance.

 

For what it's worth, I have obtained the attached charts in the current version of DCS (probably the stable branch).

Edited October 29, 2019 by Robin_Hood

[Prancingkiller]

Here's a thought: we know there's a bug in the weight calculation, and that this weight is fed into the FCS. Could it affect sustained turn rate ? Now I can imagine how it wouldn't (because we are talking moderate Gs here), but I like to be cautious around these issues (instantaneous turn rate is obviously affected because of the g-limit). Unless we are sure it has no impact, wouldn't it be reasonable to wait until this is adressed before testing turn rates again ?

Also, I have seen concerns about weapons drag (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245521), which would definitely impact sustained turn performance.

 

For what it's worth, I have obtained the attached charts in the current version of DCS (probably the stable branch).

 

that's the kind of charts that i'd like to see published as a plane get released, i got higher turn rate values then the ones in the image that you posted, expecially sea level with same loadout (for example i'm getting more then 19°/s at sea level and 0.55M LINK ACMI), so i guess that's an amatorial chart and not one released by ED, but let's keep this thread clean as NineLine said, to let devs reply as some news comes in

Edited October 29, 2019 by Prancingkiller

[Raijin]

that's the kind of charts that i'd like to see published as a plane get released, i got higher turn rate values then the ones in the image that you posted, expecially sea level with same loadout (for example i'm getting more then 19°/s at sea level and 0.55M LINK ACMI), so i guess that's an amatorial chart and not one released by ED, but let's keep this thread clean as NineLine said, to let devs reply as some news comes in

 

@PrancingKiller

 

Your internet expertise amuse us all. please keep posting all your theories...

it makes my days less boring.

[Prancingkiller]

@PrancingKiller

 

Your internet expertise amuse us all. please keep posting all your theories...

it makes my days less boring.

 

these are numbers, but thank's a lot man, now let's just wait for news

[falcon_120]

As far as I see the OP is stating a totally valid concern regarding substantial differences in performance against "supposed" RL performance, this needs at least investigation.

 

You Raijin, on the other hand, seems to be only a troll. So please let the grown ups discuss.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

[Raijin]

these are numbers, but thank's a lot man, now let's just wait for news

 

Just fly and have fun, stop trying to find problems that we can't find the answer.

They have SMEs that flew both the Viper and the Hornet, wait for them to flag anything abnormal.

Turn rate, turn radius, or whatever u might need it's classified dude.. Just because you heard "pilots" saying that the viper is better doesnt mean it's true..

Your quest to solve ur frustrations is amusing..

 

Go to speed and angels and ask pilots there.. see what they think about ur theories.

I would pay to see a discussion between u and mover.

[Figaro9]

No! That's 3 degrees per second off, which is a very significant difference in the world of fighter performance. You can regularly find videos of F-16s performing 17 or 18 second turns at sea level, which corresponds to a 20-21 degree per second turn rate?

 

Would you mind to share your excellent 16 seconds sustained turn technique ? Sounds really magic. What configuration/altitude/atmosphere/ fuel state did you use ? I can not reproduce, not even clean, sl, 60% fuel...

 

I get exactly the same sustained rates as robin hood.

ED nailed the best str. 19.2deg/sec bstr (sea level, 2x9+2ac, 60% fuel).

Overriding the g-limit has marginal impact on bstr 19.5 deg/sec

 

I get 12.7 deg/s @ 15k ft bstr. (instead of 12.2 RW).2x9+2ac, 60% fuel.

 

I get 10.7 deg/sec @ 15K ft with 2x9+2AC+3 x 330gal, 60% initial fuel, which again is very close to RW graphs.

 

That is no way 3 degress off!There is more or less no issue with best str. There might be one with drag ( @ speeds above bstr.)

[Raijin]

As far as I see the OP is stating a totally valid concern regarding substantial differences in performance against "supposed" RL performance, this needs at least investigation.

 

You Raijin, on the other hand, seems to be only a troll. So please let the grown ups discuss.

 

Enviado desde mi SM-G950F mediante Tapatalk

 

based on what? we dont know..u dont know..we will never know

[Prancingkiller]

Just fly and have fun, stop trying to find problems that we can't find the answer.

They have SMEs that flew both the Viper and the Hornet, wait for them to flag anything abnormal.

Turn rate, turn radius, or whatever u might need it's classified dude.. Just because you heard "pilots" saying that the viper is better doesnt mean it's true..

Your quest to solve ur frustrations is amusing..

 

Go to speed and angels and ask pilots there.. see what they think about ur theories.

I would pay to see a discussion between u and mover.

i hoped that at least this place was kid's-free..

dude you said it, just go fly and have fun, we'll keep talking about some serious things that shouldnt affect your way to have fun with DCS. dont worry, now stop typing and let ED do his job

[Raijin]

i hoped that at least this place was kid's-free..

dude you said it, just go fly and have fun, we'll keep talking about some serious things that shouldnt affect your way to have fun with DCS. dont worry, now stop typing and let ED do his job

 

Look who is talking, your discussions at Speed and Angels were the most childish ever.. everyone still laugh at your theories there..

Why people on forums call other kids just because they don't agree with them?

[Raijin]

Just ask Lex, Mover, GB, ... real life pilots what they think instead of making fantasy theories.

It's useless u try to prove ur points with ur non-pilot background..

have BMS experience doesnt qualify u for nothing

[Prancingkiller]

Look who is talking, your discussions at Speed and Angels were the most childish ever.. everyone still laugh at your theories there..

Why people on forums call other kids just because they don't agree with them?

 

People's still laughing because few have been and sadly are able to understand little things ^^ that's a report bug section and the first post is a very specific question, [checking] so i guess you shouldnt type offtopic things while ED is investigating isnt true?

sadly couldnt get in touch with Mover, and i wont talk about the other, in order: BFM instructor, 25 years airplane mechanic and test pilot, no names needed.

btw wich theories? lol type in PM because i dont think we are really on topic here

Edited October 29, 2019 by Prancingkiller

[Raijin]

People's still laughing because few have been and sadly are able to understand little things ^^ that's a report bug section and the first post is a very specific question, [checking] so i guess you shouldnt type offtopic things while ED is investigating isnt true?

sadly couldnt get in touch with Mover, and i wont talk about the other, in order: BFM instructor, 25 years airplane mechanic and test pilot, no names needed.

btw wich theories? lol type in PM because i dont think we are really on topic here

 

You pose as an expert but in fact you are just an arrogant player that even when told that you were wrong by real pilots you think you are right.

[Prancingkiller]

not replying man, that's a bug section, if you need to say anything just add me on discord, same name, and let's talk

really interested in hearing wich theories i have that you are talking about lol

[aaron886]

Lovely, exactly the kind of exchange everyone needs.

 

 

 

Would you mind to share your excellent 16 seconds sustained turn technique ? Sounds really magic. What configuration/altitude/atmosphere/ fuel state did you use ? I can not reproduce, not even clean, sl, 60% fuel...

 

 

Took me a while to read through your abbreviations, but I got there. That number was a sloppy assesment from Tacview on my part, thank you for the correction. I based it solely on the original post. It's difficult to assess accurately given pilot technique, but being a little more conservative I'm still seeing about 21 degrees/sec average. Note that he's got the pylons removed, which should actually bring it closer to the visual evidence of air show performances. That's a 17.1 second turn, still too fast.

 

 

 

Speaking of those, I can tell you right now from personal interaction, the now-retired US Navy F/A-18C TACDEMO flew their minimum radius turn maneuver beginning at 350 KCAS bleeding to 330 KCAS. It was always an approximately 21-second turn or more, roughly a 17 deg/sec turn rate. (Like the one I linked earlier, a 21.5 second turn.) That 20 knot bleed is approximately equal to 1 knot/sec, which is not an insignificant amount and yields even better than sustained turn rate at conditions. Whether or not 330-350 are in the rate band and correspond to maximum turn rate is up to your analysis, the reality of that is U//FOUO and off the table for discussion.

 

 

I think that's a significant difference. It should not have turn rate parity with the F-16CJ. Unfortunately, that's not the only (or most glaring) flight model issue as you say. I wonder if a single AIM-9 still causes massive roll-off under G as it did last time I touched DCS.

[NineLine]

Please, guys, if you have relevant information to add here, then do so, new tracks, new info, whatever, but please don't turn this into a fight, be respectful to each other. If more of you have tracks with the Hornet over-performing, please include them, thanks.

[Nomad]

Please, guys, if you have relevant information to add here, then do so, new tracks, new info, whatever, but please don't turn this into a fight, be respectful to each other. If more of you have tracks with the Hornet over-performing, please include them, thanks.

You mean if someone has a track of Hornet overperforming, because so far there haven't been any.

 

THAT behavior is something that should get fixed.Hilariously a not too small percentage of those players is probably at the same time jabbering constantly about maximum realism in various forms here in the forums, regarding g-tolerance,warm-up etc.

You can't fix that without adding other unrealistic limitations, like disabling the paddle switch.

[Snappy]

You mean if someone has a track of Hornet overperforming, because so far there haven't been any.

 

 

You can't fix that without adding other unrealistic limitations, like disabling the paddle switch.

 

Yea well as I wrote there could be consequences with increasing over limit g, which can modelled instead of disabling the paddle switch.

Yes, over-g might only result in increased maintenance checks/reduced airframe life, but then the other modules whose developers did model over-g induced damage up to breakup/wing loss should be given the same treat.

 

 

Because last time I checked,the hornet wasn‘t built of some super-secret unbreakable material unavailable to other manufacturers,especially grumman ironworks which certainly didn‘t get their name for nothing.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Snappy

[Nomad]

Yea well as I wrote there could be consequences with increasing over limit g, which can modelled instead of disabling the paddle switch.

Yes, over-g might only result in increased maintenance checks/reduced airframe life, but then the other modules whose developers did model over-g induced damage up to breakup/wing loss should be given the same treat.

It depends on how the aircraft in question and how much you over-G by though, doesn't it? You can't just apply blanket changes like that.

 

 

Because last time I checked,the hornet wasn‘t built of some super-secret unbreakable material unavailable to other manufacturers,especially grumman ironworks which certainly didn‘t get their name for nothing.

Well, right now the DCS Hornet is actually built of a super-secret unbreakable material called "no overstress damage model", which makes you able to do 30g if you pull the circuit-breakers. But that is getting fixed of course, however even when that is modeled, it is unlikely that holding paddle switch will have any immediate effect.

[Snappy]

It depends on how the aircraft in question and how much you over-G by though, doesn't it? You can't just apply blanket changes like that.

 

 

 

 

Well, right now the DCS Hornet is actually built of a super-secret unbreakable material called "no overstress damage model", which makes you able to do 30g if you pull the circuit-breakers. But that is getting fixed of course, however even when that is modeled, it is unlikely that holding paddle switch will have any immediate effect.

 

 

 

I didn‘t say they should be implemented in a blanket way..Of course it depends on the level of over-g .Level of damage would ideally relate to the amount of over-g.

 

 

Yea I was referring to the real aircraft regarding the material, but never mind.

Looking forward to see the over-stress damage model implemented, that should at least put a damper on some of the most ridiculous exploitation.

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

Snappy

[Prancingkiller]

You mean if someone has a track of Hornet overperforming, because so far there haven't been any.

 

what about the first post ACMI, 22 °/s is correct for you? have you tried the hornet vs viper fight on DCS right now?

 

and btw, once again, this thread is not for discussions, and have not been started for that, seems like you guys have a problem understanding different parts of the forum are for different purposes, the question of this thread is clear, and it's not formulated for you, and you are not the users that should reply in this thread

Edited November 1, 2019 by Prancingkiller

[Hummingbird]

The problem I see atm is that the F/A-18 is out rating the F-16 at any speed, and this I have real trouble believing is realistic.

 

As tested (unlimited fuel enabled to ensure consistency):

 

I'd expect the F/A-18 to have a great instantanous rate, allowing it to bring the nose round quicker for the first half of a turn, but after that the higher parasitic drag of its design should start to affect it, and as a result I don't see it being capable of as high a sustainable rate as the F-16, or even the F-15. This is also what you hear again and again from the pilots.

 

Now I know the below isn't particularly scientific, but it appears apparent at airshows as well (albeit the below is a Super Bug, and not a Hornet, but they should be similar):

HBlP4cCRVmk

Edited November 1, 2019 by Hummingbird

[Figaro9]

Devs can not base the fm upon assumptions and feelings, nor airshows.

 

 

display pilot J. Meister Swiss AF says he is flying his three-sixty at airshows with 330kts, 6.5g (source Schweizer Luftwaffe Jahrespublikation 2016)