noted F-16A

[Furiz]

 

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Try telling that to people after newer Su-27/MiG-29 variants; they would have to spend time and resources to model all that new stuff to make a new aircraft they already have.

 

SU 27 or MiG 29 are low fidelity models.

 

In any case I've made my point perfectly clear.

[Northstar98]

3 minutes ago, Furiz said:

SU 27 or MiG 29 are low fidelity models.

 

So even more work? And the MiG-29 won't be low fidelity when the 9.12 FF module comes out.

[coolneko]

On 2/4/2021 at 8:16 AM, bies said:

 

 

• F-16A Block 15 weights 7310kg, Block 50CJ we have weights 9027kg, nearly 2 tons of difference with identical wing means some massive differences in handling regardless of the engine, it's like slick F-16 vs F-16 loaded with 7-8 Mk-82 bombs both trying to turn. That's why some guys are complaining our F-16 doesn't turn as they expect and push ED to verify it's flight model. But ED made it correctly using NASA wind tunnel tests, late ground attack Vipers simply fly as the one in DCS, Soviet Union collapsed, there was no need to high performance dogfighter anymore. There was a need for a heavy bomb truck for low threat enviroment operations. That's why late Vipers are so overweight and lost their dogfighting edge. Plus dogfighting is no more a thing in ~2007 datalink/AMRAAM era.

 

 

 

F-16A's with a PW200 engine and 23,900lbs of thrust compared to the F-16C's GE129 engine with 29,500lbs of thrust is a pretty big difference, almost 6000lbs, which generously offsets the weight difference between the two blocks. The DCS viper's flight model is being questioned because it doesn't line up with EM diagrams, and is still in early access. ED also agrees with this and has stated that they are going to refine it. It has nothing to do with a certain block being a 'sead variant' or a 'ground attack variant'. 

 

Block 40/50's were being developed in the mid to late 80's BEFORE the soviet union collapsed, with the block 50s rolling out in 91. The fall of the USSR has nothing to do with vipers gaining weight. Its because of new avionics being added as technology advances. If you want to compare the DCS vipers' performance to a real life one, look at the HAF viper with conformal fuel tanks. 

 

That being said, I would absolutely pay $60-80-whatever for an F-16A for all the reasons you posted. No datalink, no aim120, primitive cockpit, and maybe a chance of ED adding the B61 . Maybe a 3rd party could develop it instead of ED considering their workload, but honestly it probably won't sell as much as an F-4 or F-111 or whatever is next down the pipeline. 

 

 

[Exorcet]

34 minutes ago, coolneko said:

 

 

That being said, I would absolutely pay $60-80-whatever for an F-16A for all the reasons you posted. No datalink, no aim120, primitive cockpit, and maybe a chance of ED adding the B61 . Maybe a 3rd party could develop it instead of ED considering their workload, but honestly it probably won't sell as much as an F-4 or F-111 or whatever is next down the pipeline. 

 

 

That's not even necessarily a problem. If it takes less work to make, it could be more profitable despite selling less. Anyway I definitely want variations of existing planes. ED can do things according to their own priorities, but at some point I absolutely want "repeat" modules. They're distinct enough and DCS isn't just a sim, but an aviation encyclopedia of sorts.

[bies]

On 2/7/2021 at 5:13 AM, coolneko said:

F-16A's with a PW200 engine and 23,900lbs of thrust compared to the F-16C's GE129 engine with 29,500lbs of thrust is a pretty big difference, almost 6000lbs, which generously offsets the weight difference between the two blocks.

 

It's not about T/W in case of F-16, this was very good in every variant. 

It's about F-16 wing surface.

 

1) F-16 had been designed, with it's wing and lifting body, optimal to maneuver in air combat with about two tons lighter airframe than what it became in mid 2000s. It's a massive difference.

 

Heavy block 50CCIP still has exactly the same wing and lift as the first lightweight F-16A.

 

Higher mass with identical wing means it requires higher AoA to generate needed lift for given turn, this means higher drag and more power wasted to fight additional drag in identical turn thus effective T/W of heavier plane in turn is always lower.

 

That's why during the turn lighter F-16 variants will always have advantage if T/W is somewhat similar and some advantage even if it's slightly worse. Simply by having lower wing loading - the most basic advantage in maneuver air combat since the rise of military aviation.

 

(To make things even worse even the first F-16A has been designed with higher wing loading than i.e. F-15 to optimize F-16 for minimal drag in turn, it gave great results together with instable design, but there was no significant margin of wing surface left in case of mass increase.)

 

Note how after the first mass increase from YF-16 to F-16A wing surface has been immediately increased from 280 sq ft (26 m2) to 300 sq ft (28 m2).

From F-16A to F-16C b50 CCIP surface remained the same despite way bigger mass increase. Problem had become so obvious, for Block 70 they eventually had to increase its wing surface - but this increased drag, especially in turn, wasting engine power increase benefits, fuel hungry engine, thus CFT practically permanently mounted for more fuel and yet another drag increase) - moral is simple, first design was optimal, later it lost its balance and it can't be restored by simply increasing wing surface or engine power.)

 

 

2) Additional mass means bigger inertia, lightweight variants were able to change the plane of maneuver faster and had quicker possible G-onset rate.

 

 

3) Third factor was fuel consumption. Both F-16A and F-16C CCIP have the same amount of fuel. When we increased engine power to compensate higher mass the plane will burn it's fuel a lot faster using 29500lbf engine vs 24500lbf engine. With similar T/W.

That's why F-16A was known to outlast every opponent in BFM still having fuel to spare. Later heavier F-16s lost this advantage as well burning through internal fuel rather quickly.

 

 

Gero Finke, Luftwaffe Eurofighter Pilot and True grit developer, mentioned the same about his EF vs F-16 BFM engagements:

Quote

If you are strictly focussing on WVR („Dog Fight“) engagements, some aspects on the more modern (F-16) variants are not helping. The engines got bigger and bigger, the stuff they put in and on the airframe got more and more, but what remained is a pretty small wing area that has to deliver the lift. It is pretty exactly half of the Typhoon (50 square meter). So even if you jettison most of your stuff in the F-16 prior to going into a WVR fight (which you most probably should do in any case) and consider that against missiles like an IRIS-T there are not many seconds that you can use your afterburner because of your proper IRCM, the F-16 looses out on the aerodynamical aspect.

 

Real life F-16 pilots on F-16.net also agree for BFM lightweight F-16A with lower win loading and Block 30 with the highest T/W were significantly better for BFM than late block 50 variants.

 

But those cold war days BFM was bread and butter for the F-16 in air combat, all 1980s Israeli kills in all out war were achieved in a dogfight, AMRAAM didn't exist.

 

 

I think both cutting edge flight characteristics of nimble and lightweight F-16A and it's 1980s gameplay revolving around close in dogfighting with guns and heatseakers, F-16s true nature, and manual A/G weapon employment would make F-16A so attractive in my opinion.

Edited June 2, 2021 by bies

[Berserk]

F-16A hot scramble during the Cold War. In those days, the Soviet giant with Warsaw Pact still existed, both sides were much more serious about security than they are today. Military expenditure and measures were incomparably greater. 

 

Here F-16A intercepting Soviet IL-18 Coot and An-12 Cub by the coast of Norway, 1988.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Berserk

[Falconeer]

On 2/7/2021 at 12:05 PM, bies said:

 

Heavy block 50CCIP still has exactly the same wing and lift as first lightweight F-16A.

 

the first F-16A had much smaller horizontals than later versions

[bies]

1 hour ago, Falconeer said:

the first F-16A had much smaller horizontals than later versions

Yes, up to block 10. Starting from F-16A block 15 from 1981 (by far the most produced one) F-16 received enlarged horizontal stabilator due to "small tail" being constantly tilted when hauling bombs increasing trim drag. F-16A block 15 "big tail" was also beneficial in high AoA and loss of control situations.

 

Somewhere around block 50 they came to conclusion F-16 lost so much of it's maneuverability they considered to significantly increase it's wing area to 375 ft² but this adds more cruise drag and a lot of turn drag nullifying additional thrust, additional thrust sucks fuselage fuel in a minute so it needs Conformal Fuel Tanks as standard which adds even more weight and drag nullifying the thrust once again...

 

In short - when F-16 mass went out of control somewhere around block 40/50 there was no way to balance things again for maneuverability/performance/fuel consumption/range perfectly like in was in first F-16A, engineering is always a compromise.

 

But with USSR collapse + introduction of AMRAAM maneuver air combat stopped being nearly as important as during the Cold War so they accepted it as it was.

 

That's why guys struggle in DCS F-16 block 50CCIP in BFM gunzo calling ED to "change it's FM". Mass-wise it's like F-16A with 16 Mk.82 trying to turn, it's crazy when you think about it.

 

First-hand information:

Quote

"The block 50/60 series are still very good airplanes, and lightly loaded, more than capable of holding their own in a fight. But, because of their higher weight, they just can't turn as quick as the earlier blocks could.

 

This was lamented by some of the pilots I had at Eglin- we had block 15's through block 50's there. The pilots loved the power and avionics capability of the 50's, but in a straight out visual guns 'fight', the lighter blocks held the upper hand in maneuvering."

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by bies

[coolneko]

On 3/19/2021 at 4:15 AM, bies said:

That's why guys struggle in DCS F-16 block 50CCIP in BFM gunzo calling ED to "change it's FM". Mass-wise it's like F-16A with 16 Mk.82 trying to turn, it's crazy when you think about it.

 

Guys are struggling because the STR and ITR are still off, along with gloc occuring so quickly. The FM is unfinished, ED has said so themselves. It has nothing to do with blk15 vs blk50. Obviously the A is more maneuverable. 

 

I think a blk30 would be easier to make using the cockpit textures that we already have and would also help provide that 'pinnacle dogfighter' viper too. Unfortunately it wouldn't fit for early 80s coldwar scenarios though, but the F16a would require remaking most if not all of the assets from scratch.

[Thunder_]

Agreed finish completely the Block 50 first and would b great to see an A around 

[kseremak]

F-16A gameplay would be fantastic, 100% close maneuver air dogfighting with guns and winders!

Modern F-16C = AIM120 long range BVR and smart cruise missiles at cost of losing significant part of maneuverability.

 

The problem is you could theoretically dogfight in F-16C, even if it is not as nimble as early variants, but only in scripted artificial enviroment, i.e. setting some mission when you intentionally load planes with guns and winders only, for fun. But in more realistic scenario like SP missions or campaigns or MP servers you will never be close enough to dogfight against AIM120 armed enemy. Or you will die in a second.

 

I hope when current F-16C will be finished we will have some pure dogfighting earlier F-16. Long live ED!

[Bremspropeller]

Even though I'd love a vanilla Block 15, you'll have to keep in mind that you'll only get Limas and Mikes in that jet.

No AMRAAMs, no Sparrows (unless an ADF jet).

 

You're down to being a "Super F-5" against late Floggers and Fulcrums lobbing those shiny new BVR missiles at you...

 

 

Not sure if a Block 25 or Block 30/32 isn't a better deal. You could uncheck some loadout-options, but you'll still have a competitive platform for 90s scenarios.

Likewise an MLU - but that would kind of defeat the purpose of making an A in the first place.

Edited May 31, 2021 by Bremspropeller

[Harlikwin]

On 2/6/2021 at 9:13 PM, coolneko said:

 

 

F-16A's with a PW200 engine and 23,900lbs of thrust compared to the F-16C's GE129 engine with 29,500lbs of thrust is a pretty big difference, almost 6000lbs, which generously offsets the weight difference between the two blocks. The DCS viper's flight model is being questioned because it doesn't line up with EM diagrams, and is still in early access. ED also agrees with this and has stated that they are going to refine it. It has nothing to do with a certain block being a 'sead variant' or a 'ground attack variant'. 

 

Block 40/50's were being developed in the mid to late 80's BEFORE the soviet union collapsed, with the block 50s rolling out in 91. The fall of the USSR has nothing to do with vipers gaining weight. Its because of new avionics being added as technology advances. If you want to compare the DCS vipers' performance to a real life one, look at the HAF viper with conformal fuel tanks. 

 

That being said, I would absolutely pay $60-80-whatever for an F-16A for all the reasons you posted. No datalink, no aim120, primitive cockpit, and maybe a chance of ED adding the B61 . Maybe a 3rd party could develop it instead of ED considering their workload, but honestly it probably won't sell as much as an F-4 or F-111 or whatever is next down the pipeline. 

 

 

 

Yeah, but not "OUR" block 50... I mean link16 was not on any US jet prior to the late 90's so our Block50 has way more capabilities than it did in 91 and thats something I think alot of people don't understand. Same thing with the Lot20 hornet. 

Moreover, for example for MP, you can't just "turn off " systems. And in a competitive server people pull out the stops to "win". I've seen server admins try to damage systems before. Guess what happens, call for a repair and those get turned back on. Its kinda lame really.

 

25 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Even though I'd love a vanilla Block 15, you'll have to keep in mind that you'll only get Limas and Mikes in that jet.

No AMRAAMs, no Sparrows (unless an ADF jet).

 

You're down to being a "Super F-5" against late Floggers and Fulcrums lobbing those shiny new BVR missiles at you...

 

 

Not sure if a Block 25 or Block 30/32 isn't a better deal. You could uncheck some loadout-options, but you'll still have a competitive platform for 90s scenarios.

Likewise an MLU - but that would kind of defeat the purpose of making an A in the first place.

 

 

Yeah, block 15 would IMO be best for the 80's and a good competitor to the 9.12 Mig 29 we will hopefully get (still hoping for more modern than 9.12 tho). 

Edited May 31, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Northstar98]

On 5/31/2021 at 5:05 PM, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, block 15 would IMO be best for the 80's and a good competitor to the 9.12 Mig 29 we will hopefully get (still hoping for more modern than 9.12 tho). 

 

If we're getting the 9.12, then the F-16A Block 15 is the direct contemporary.

 

And no map is better than northern/central Germany, as both are based on the map. 

[Harlikwin]

nvm

 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

On 3/20/2021 at 7:54 PM, coolneko said:

 

Guys are struggling because the STR and ITR are still off, along with gloc occuring so quickly. The FM is unfinished, ED has said so themselves. It has nothing to do with blk15 vs blk50. Obviously the A is more maneuverable. 

 

I think a blk30 would be easier to make using the cockpit textures that we already have and would also help provide that 'pinnacle dogfighter' viper too. Unfortunately it wouldn't fit for early 80s coldwar scenarios though, but the F16a would require remaking most if not all of the assets from scratch.

 

Yeah, it depends on what you really want to fill in tho. I have alot easier time pretending the blk50 is a blk30 than a blk15.

[bies]

On 5/31/2021 at 5:41 PM, Bremspropeller said:

Even though I'd love a vanilla Block 15, you'll have to keep in mind that you'll only get Limas and Mikes in that jet.

No AMRAAMs, no Sparrows (unless an ADF jet).

 

The very definition of exciting, attractive, engaging close air combat, only visual dogfight with guns and heat seekers.

Air superiority concept of John Boyd, Pierre Sprey and fighter mafia.

It worked great in the Middle East 1980s when Israeli lightweight F-16s with guns and heat seekers and F-15s decimated MiG-23s and 21s. All F-16 kills were achieved in close visual dogfights.

 

Why DCS tournaments organized by ED or YT community guys or exRL pilots are close dogfights with guns or hear seekers? Because that's the core of exciting air combat, not some AMRAAM tennis which can be learned in one day.

Who would feel the excitement when two guys would click the button 20nm from each other and run.

 

I've seen a lot of interviews with RL pilots they stated even if BFM is unrealistic after the Cold War and in simulated wars like "Red Flag" they didn't see even one merge for years - they still seek any opportunity to train BFM just because it's lot more fun - After BVR training "there is simply nothing to talk about at the bar".

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by bies

[Bremspropeller]

I'm not sayting you're wrong, but I think you should consider that BFM is not the end-all of what user want to experience.

Also, the Bekaa-valley operations were conducted in very specific circumstances and they're not an indication for what your classic multiplayer encounter would look like.

 

You could have that same heaters-only experience in a pre-AMRAAAM Block 30. It would be cool if timeframes could be locked in the mission-editor.

Say a mid-80s bird, a mid-90s bird and a ~2010 bird with all the bells and whistles. But then I don't know, how many panels were changed in the Block 30 cockpit over that timeframe. Probably a couple, so those options would require a lot more modelling and coding.

 

At the end of the day, it's not what you or me want, but what ED considers a module that sells well.

[kseremak]

1 hour ago, bies said:

Why DCS tournaments organized by ED or YT community guys or exRL pilots are close dogfights with guns or hear seekers? Because that's the core of exciting air combat, not some AMRAAM tennis which can be learned in one day.

Who would feel the excitement when two guys would click the button 20nm from each other and run.

 

Look at any move with an air combat, it's all about close air combat or close ground bombing with pilot skill and manual weapon, even if it's not realistic in today's technology. Just wait for Top Gun 2.

Why there were dozens of air combat simulators and no ballistic missile operator simulator typing some coordinates and pressing the pickle? Because his job is boring, automated and doesn't require any skill. If the fight in Top Gun 1986 would be like fire AMRAAM from the distance and return to boat, it wouldn't encourage anyone to join the naval aviation.

That's why F-16A would be a day one buy for me, or MiG-29A, Mirage F.1, MiG-23, A-6, A-7, F-8, MiG-17, F-4 Phantom. 80's Pre-AMRAAAM Block 30 would be nice as well, better performance at cost of simpler weapons and avionics.

Edited June 4, 2021 by kseremak

[TheCabal]

The F-16A in a cold war environment and doing what it was build for with the old cockpit... a dream.
Is everyone pretending to have not watched Iron Eagle, played Falcon AT-3.0? Seems we F-16A guys are a niche within a niche.

[Gunfreak]

I know you can't actually get it like a A block 5,10 or 15.

But I'm thinking purly situatinal awerness here. 

The A model had 1 display on the left side? Was that purly for weapons selection ect? I assume it did not have a proper HDS like in the block 50? 

[VarZat]

The pre MLU had the radar between the legs and SMS display on the left. Thats it

[janitha2]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

I know you can't actually get it like a A block 5,10 or 15.

But I'm thinking purly situatinal awerness here. 

The A model had 1 display on the left side? Was that purly for weapons selection ect? I assume it did not have a proper HDS like in the block 50? 

just like @VarZat says block As had one display between the legs that displayed radar and mavericks. 

[Falconeer]

Well an A model too can have different Blocks, so depending on what you are looking for, i think these are the most noticable:

 

Cockpitwise:

As mentioned above, radar display between the pilots legs

SMS system consists of push buttons

A different side stick and a smaller HUD

Consoles are arranged a bit different (no CMDS panel, radios panels, etc)

 

Outside:

Different antennas and their locations below intake for example)

Different launchers (so no LAU129 launchers)

Smaller horizontal stabilizers

[Gunfreak]

Thanks guys. What would the radar actually look like/show in early 80s models? I assume it wouldn't look like the HDS in the Block 50?

The only air to air weapon the F16 had at that time was Sidewinder. So I assume it didn't have any lock on ability from the screens?