F-16 vs Mig-15

[Xavven]

Good show! I agree the MiG-15 is fun as a challenge, but only from a "this is a video game and I want to beat something on boss-level" mindset. The fact that it's so difficult pushes you to get better.

 

If I'm in the mindset that I want a realistic experience, this pulls me out of it. I believe the MiG-15 is not performing anywhere near real-life accuracy. I'm not basing that on any stats or charts since I don't have them, just that that a 4th gen fighter (F-16) should probably easily handle a 1st/2nd gen fighter (MiG-15) in BFM.

[razo+r]

On 3/22/2021 at 5:07 AM, Theodore42 said:

[video]

 

Yes here you go.

Ace AI MiG-15 vs F-16

 

I had to study my BFM to get this because the Korea Era fighters are so maneuverable. You MUST fly proper BFM to defeat them, but if you do, then you will be rewarded.

And never are my mistakes more obvious than when flying against a MiG-15. This makes studying BFM fast and easy!

 

I almost wonder if the AI for later eras are assuming it is an IR dogfight? Or if there is something different about later era fighters that makes them less punishing in BFM.

 

In short, this is the most fun I've had fighting an AI, ever, in any game. I've been posting videos of me dogfighting 2 or 4 hostile AIs because I was looking for a challenge. But this is the best

 

Edit:

Okay I should give some commentary on what to do:

1. You have to stay at the low end of corner speed, 330kts, to keep with him.

Otherwise his turn radius is too small. Also this is the only way to run him out of energy. If you do normal F-16 things he will always be at corner speed and always be able to get inside of whatever normal F-16 things you're doing.

2. Use advantages: 8Gs and acceleration.

Staying at 330kts is fine and all but it isn't going to get you an advantage. Fortunately the F-16 can accelerate from 330kts to 450kts in a few seconds. Doing this at the right time can give an advantage.

Pulling 8Gs when he is on your tail will get him off your tail. Also, if you manage to be going 450kts in the right place, you can pull 8G+ down to 330kts and get an advantage. And look really cool while doing it.

3. The vertical is useless.

The F-16 is a race car going around the Indy 500 and the MiG-15 is a go-cart going around a go-cart track. There needs to be a follow up maneuver after whatever you do in the vertical. As I said earlier, when you get a bunch of energy on the MiG-15 but the MiG is at corner speed.... He is just going to whip his light little low-turn-radius fighter around on you.

In my experience the AI didn't mess with the vertical unless he could use it to get an advantage on me (while I was doing something stupid). If you're better than me maybe to can figure something out.

 

Anyway, this MiG-15 AI has taught me more about BFM than any other, and I STILL haven't beaten it. (Although I have had opportunities that I was unable to execute on.) Don't feel like you're doing something wrong if you can't get this guy. If you're playing against something less than ACE AI then you should be able to get a few opportunities doing what I've listed above.

But as for the Ace AI, you really have to know what you're doing much more than you do against any modern jet fighter.

 

Crazy fun though.

 

 

You are trying to re-invent the wheel with this. If you have fun this way, sure, go ahead and keep having fun, that's good. But as many people already wrote before you, and this is not a meme (at least not against AI), use the vertical.

 

Here, I'll show you:

 

 

Works every single time.

 

Get fast enough before merge, climb up, loop around and shoot him. If you miss, climb again and repeat.

 

If you have stores, are higher or have less speed before merging, just fly level for a bit to gain speed and then go up.

 

Or drag him down in a spiral / scissor, accelerate in level flight and then go vertical.

 

Also, regarding AI. As I stated in a post before:

 

If AI is slower than you -> it will follow you.

 

If AI is faster than you -> it will go vertical.

Edited March 23, 2021 by razo+r

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, Xavven said:

... a 4th gen fighter (F-16) should probably easily handle a 1st/2nd gen fighter (MiG-15) in BFM.

like the F-14s that easily handled aggressors A-4 ? .. or the F-4s that easily handled the vietnamese MiG-17 and -19 ? 

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, Rudel_chw said:

like the F-14s that easily handled aggressors A-4 ? .. or the F-4s that easily handled the vietnamese MiG-17 and -19 ? 

 

I do get what you are saying. Just because something is a higher generation, it doesn't mean it is automatically superior in a 1 vs. 1 dogfight, and training made a huge difference in that era. That said, while your first comparison is maybe valid, your second one I don't really accept as a rebuttal, because the F-4 is a 3rd gen fighter and the MiG-17 and -19 are 2nd/3rd gen fighters depending on who you ask. They're closer to each other in development and capability and so I wouldn't expect there to be as big an advantage to the newer plane.

 

To clarify what I was trying to say, if I'm not mistaken the F-16 was influenced heavily by Boyd's work, who famously gave birth to EM theory. Wouldn't a lightweight fighter designed to dominate the dogfight right from the design phase, 20 years after the development of the MiG-15 have numerous advantages over it? Am I wrong to expect that an F-16 with afterburner on should win a rate fight against a MiG-15 without afterburner when both are flown correctly?

 

But this is speculation on my part. I think it's time for me to hop into DCS and see if the MiG-15 Ace AI is defying physics like I found the L-39 to be. I am willing to bet that it pulls too little G for the turn rate it gets.

 

Also, rizo+r,  while your kill is valid and I'm not against head-on shots as a matter of principle, the issue I personally have with the MiG-15 is its sustained turn rate (Ps=0). I find it extremely difficult to get to its control zone. Otherwise, yeah, take high aspect gun shots all day if you want.

[Xavven]

OK, I did a test and found that the MiG-15 doesn't appear to be rating faster than physics allow at a given speed and G. I clocked him at about 21 seconds to go 360 degrees. He was at between 320 and 350 knots and was pulling 4 to 7 G but probably averaged around 6 G, at about 1000 ft in a level turn, which checks out with a calculator I found on http://www.csgnetwork.com/aircraftturninfocalc.html.

 

However, he didn't bleed very much speed, if at all, in a near-level turn when pulling close to 7 G, full fuel, and he has no afterburner.  I believe the issue with the AI flown MiG-15 in DCS is not UFO physics, but rather a higher TWR than the real MiG-15 has, or extremely under-calculated drag. With a TWR of around 0.55 to 0.75 on its best day, it should not be able to sustain that turn. In the F-16, I can sustain about 5.7 G in the same flight regime, but only if I have under 40% fuel and full afterburner, and my TWR is greater than 1 at that point. Now wing design plays a role, but I think it's clear to me there's an issue with the MiG-15 flight model and/or its thrust.

[Theodore42]

2 hours ago, Xavven said:

To clarify what I was trying to say, if I'm not mistaken the F-16 was influenced heavily by Boyd's work, who famously gave birth to EM theory. Wouldn't a lightweight fighter designed to dominate the dogfight right from the design phase, 20 years after the development of the MiG-15 have numerous advantages over it? Am I wrong to expect that an F-16 with afterburner on should win a rate fight against a MiG-15 without afterburner when both are flown correctly?

 

Yes but for that you would have to use a human player, as Razor said, since the ace AI won't get into losing engagements.

In any strategic fight between dissimilar opponents (dogfights, MOBAs, even chess) victory is dependent on the exploitation of imbalances.

I say, do any dumb thing in the Viper as long as you can undo it (like blow all your speed in an 8G turn and then get it back with acceleration).

 

Quote

However, he didn't bleed very much speed, if at all, in a near-level turn when pulling close to 7 G, full fuel, and he has no afterburner.  I believe the issue with the AI flown MiG-15 in DCS is not UFO physics, but rather a higher TWR than the real MiG-15 has, or extremely under-calculated drag. With a TWR of around 0.55 to 0.75 on its best day, it should not be able to sustain that turn. In the F-16, I can sustain about 5.7 G in the same flight regime, but only if I have under 40% fuel and full afterburner, and my TWR is greater than 1 at that point. Now wing design plays a role, but I think it's clear to me there's an issue with the MiG-15 flight model and/or its thrust.

 

When I flew against them in the Sabre they seemed comparable but I dunno for sure.

 

4 hours ago, razo+r said:

 

You are trying to re-invent the wheel with this. If you have fun this way, sure, go ahead and keep having fun, that's good. But as many people already wrote before you, and this is not a meme (at least not against AI), use the vertical.

 

Here, I'll show you:

 

 

Works every single time.

 

 

...

 

 

If AI is slower than you -> it will follow you.

 

If AI is faster than you -> it will go vertical.

 

 

It looks to me like he could have shot you just as easily as you shot him.

Of course, you shot him and he didn't shoot you, which is what matters 

Edited March 23, 2021 by Theodore42

[Xavven]

4 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

 

Yes but for that you would have to use a human player, as Razor said, since the ace AI won't get into losing engagements.

In any strategic fight between dissimilar opponents (dogfights, MOBAs, even chess) victory is dependent on the exploitation of imbalances.

I say, do any dumb thing in the Viper as long as you can undo it (like blow all your speed in an 8G turn and then get it back with acceleration).

 

 

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by the first sentence. I think the F-16 should outrate the MiG-15 in a 2-circle, in STR. Are you saying that statement is only valid vs a human player flying the MiG?

 

 

4 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

When I flew against them in the Sabre they seemed comparable but I dunno for sure.

 

The Sabre has flight model problems as well, IMO. During one of the DCS free module time periods when COVID first hit, I got obsessed with the racing map that comes with the F-18 called "River Run". I copied it and edited it so I could fly the course in a bunch of different aircraft. To my surprise, I could easily get record times in the Sabre, even besting the F-15 Eagle. In the Viper it was much more difficult and I'd have to fly the course with no errors to get even close to the same times. In particular, the Sabre wouldn't lose speed in sharp turns and was 100% responsive with no sluggishness. I mean, it really felt closer to Ace Combat than DCS.

 

4 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

It looks to me like he could have shot you just as easily as you shot him.

Of course, you shot him and he didn't shoot you, which is what matters 

 

I agree with you here. I was beating around the bush with my initial commentary, so I'll be more blunt now. By flying up high and turning around, razo+r is really just resetting the fight / merge shaping. If we're going to allow head on shots, then why not just shoot him at the first merge? There's an oft-spoken rule in guns only 1 vs. 1 fights that you don't do that because the point of the exercise is to fly BFM, and a head-on shot at the merge is... not practicing BFM.

 

On the other hand, by flying up high and shooting the MiG-15 in the face while diving, while the MiG is climbing and probably at or near stall speeds, you have nose control and he has less nose control, so you have a gunnery advantage.

 

Still, I come down on the side of that defeating the purpose of practicing a dog fight. If all we cared about was shooting the MiG-15 down in a no-holds-barred, realistic fight, then I'll take AMRAAMS and shoot him from 25 miles away, and an AIM-9X in case he gets the jump on me. But again, that's not actually the point of dogfighting, nor the point of this thread. OP is wondering why the MiG-15 AI is so difficult in guns-only. In my experience, the Su-27 Ace AI is an absolute calkwalk in comparison to the MiG-15 Ace AI, and the Su-27 is an actual peer aircraft to the F-16 (well sort of). That just doesn't pass the gut check to me.

[Theodore42]

7 hours ago, Xavven said:

I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by the first sentence. I think the F-16 should outrate the MiG-15 in a 2-circle, in STR. Are you saying that statement is only valid vs a human player flying the MiG?

 

The F-16 might have a better turn rate than the MiG in most situations.... maybe.

1. BUT, as you say, it is a "TWO-circle"... with two radii... and the MiG-15's radius is MUCH smaller. It's even smaller than its contemporary, the Sabre.

2. Also the F-16 turns to slush under 300kts... and especially under 250. The MiG can be WELL under his corner speed and still pull his nose around on you if he really wants to.

When you merge with a MiG-15 be going RIGHT at the bottom of corner speed, 330kts. Keep that 330 all the way through. This keeps your turn radius as small as possible. The MiG will do the same thing, but when he sees your guns bearing down on him, he will stop caring about corner speed and just pull through to neutralize the position.

3. Due to the MiG's relative lack of punishment while maneuvering slowly, flying a perfect corner speed turn in an F-16 vs a MiG-15 ain't gonna get ya no obvious advantages. He can, and will, just pull his MiG around on you whenever you are flying against him like he is a giant modern fighter with 2 engines and afterburners glowing.

THEREFORE, to beat the MiG, you have to follow up this maneuver with a plan to exploit your advantages against the fact that you just made him blow all his energy.

 

The MiG-15 can get on your tail as well. Even though the F-16 turns faster, it has to go faster. So the F-16's turn radius is much larger than the MiG's. But the MiG can just do some lead pursuit and stay with you. By pulling lead the MiG-15 is keeping up with your greater speed with a smaller radius- taking the shorter way around the circle.

1. When the MiG starts pulling lead on you (to stay on your tail he MUST lead a LOT), be going 440kts+.

2. 8Gs is the solution! Don't worry about turn rates or radii, think ONLY about pulling 8Gs to get on/away from him. Pull 8Gs from 440kts down to whatever speed the FLCS stops giving you 8Gs (probably around 330kts). Lose speed at a rate that disappears the MiG behind you at 330kts.

The geometry of this maneuver is as follows (and how to exploit the MiG-15's tiny turn radius in general is as follows):

4. The MiG-15 can't pull 8Gs. When you pull 8Gs you are gaining an advantage. As you lose speed you are decreasing your turn radius, further negating his advantage.

8Gs + shrinking turn radius = MiG-15 loss. You should come out of this maneuver at corner speed or above, and with the MiG falling well behind you in the turn. He will be close and slow and this is the time to exploit the F-16's massive acceleration to gain an advantage.

THEREFORE, it is all about the Gs. Whoever can pull more Gs wins. How many Gs can an F-16 pull at 250kts? I dunno, but the MiG-15 can pull more. That's fundamentally what the turn radius advantage / disadvantage boils down to. If you are pulling 8Gs with this understanding then you are negating his turn radius advantage.

 

 

7 hours ago, Xavven said:

The Sabre has flight model problems as well, IMO. During one of the DCS free module time periods when COVID first hit, I got obsessed with the racing map that comes with the F-18 called "River Run". I copied it and edited it so I could fly the course in a bunch of different aircraft. To my surprise, I could easily get record times in the Sabre, even besting the F-15 Eagle. In the Viper it was much more difficult and I'd have to fly the course with no errors to get even close to the same times. In particular, the Sabre wouldn't lose speed in sharp turns and was 100% responsive with no sluggishness. I mean, it really felt closer to Ace Combat than DCS.

 

How sharp is this turn in the Sabre that isn't losing speed? I can lose speed turning in a Sabre! 

If there are several tight turns on this course then the Korea Era fighters will do great. They:

1. Weigh almost nothing

2. Have a relatively small % of weight dedicated to fuel

3. don't have any radar or afterburner weight

4. Have no design considerations for supersonic flight (so they're more efficient at subsonic speeds)

Pretty much as maneuverable as the F-16 is ABOVE corner speeds, the Korea Era fighters do that well BELOW corner speeds. Both by design!

 

7 hours ago, Xavven said:

I agree with you here. I was beating around the bush with my initial commentary, so I'll be more blunt now. By flying up high and turning around, razo+r is really just resetting the fight / merge shaping. If we're going to allow head on shots, then why not just shoot him at the first merge? There's an oft-spoken rule in guns only 1 vs. 1 fights that you don't do that because the point of the exercise is to fly BFM, and a head-on shot at the merge is... not practicing BFM.

 

On the other hand, by flying up high and shooting the MiG-15 in the face while diving, while the MiG is climbing and probably at or near stall speeds, you have nose control and he has less nose control, so you have a gunnery advantage.

 

Still, I come down on the side of that defeating the purpose of practicing a dog fight. If all we cared about was shooting the MiG-15 down in a no-holds-barred, realistic fight, then I'll take AMRAAMS and shoot him from 25 miles away, and an AIM-9X in case he gets the jump on me. But again, that's not actually the point of dogfighting, nor the point of this thread. OP is wondering why the MiG-15 AI is so difficult in guns-only. In my experience, the Su-27 Ace AI is an absolute calkwalk in comparison to the MiG-15 Ace AI, and the Su-27 is an actual peer aircraft to the F-16 (well sort of). That just doesn't pass the gut check to me.

 

Yeah I've noticed the modern fighters are much easier as well. As long as you keep the energy even it feels like you can do any stupid thing and end up all right. I wonder if this is because they're assuming an IR missile dogfight?

 

As for the vertical memes,

both Razor's video and mine at 4:30 depict

 

Fighter Combat TACTICS AND MANEUVERING by Robert L. Shaw p.88 Figure 2-19 "Vertical versus Horizontal Maneuvering"

 

Hilariously, at 5:45 in my video, RIGHT AFTER I mocked the audience for getting memed on by fighter pilots, I did the same vertical maneuver and merged in the vertical head to head and IMMEDIATLY got on his tail! I couldn't believe it, if I had been going 50 kts faster it would have been a kill.

 

That's the exception to the rule I guess

Edited March 24, 2021 by Theodore42

[razo+r]

15 hours ago, Xavven said:

 

...

 

 

I agree with you here. I was beating around the bush with my initial commentary, so I'll be more blunt now. By flying up high and turning around, razo+r is really just resetting the fight / merge shaping. If we're going to allow head on shots, then why not just shoot him at the first merge? There's an oft-spoken rule in guns only 1 vs. 1 fights that you don't do that because the point of the exercise is to fly BFM, and a head-on shot at the merge is... not practicing BFM.

 

On the other hand, by flying up high and shooting the MiG-15 in the face while diving, while the MiG is climbing and probably at or near stall speeds, you have nose control and he has less nose control, so you have a gunnery advantage.

 

...

 

What else do you want to do then? Set up the fight in the favor of your enemy? Why would you want to do that and not fight according to your strenghts? Isn't this part of BFM, set the engagement up in such a way, that you gain advantages over your opponent using whatever you have?

 

And one could also argue that my shot was not a head-on. He did not have his nose on me. With his maneuver, he was pulling his nose on me, but hadn't managed to do so. But if you want, you can pull around earlier while he is recovering from a stall and voila, you come from "behind".

 

If you want to practise BFM though, don't do it against the AI. They neither use proper BFM themselfs, nor do they obey this "oft-spoken" rule. If they can, they will shoot you before merging. The absent if human-like restrictions for the AI does not help either.

 

 

 

 

[Xavven]

6 minutes ago, razo+r said:

 

What else do you want to do then?

 

 

 

I want ED to re-examine the flight model for the MiG-15 because something is extremely fishy about it. Don't we want DCS to be the most realistic simulation out there? I think it's great that you are able to get a guns kill on the MiG-15... I mean, so am I, and I'm probably a below-average guns-only dogfighter. If all I cared about was winning under the specified conditions, I'd be extremely satisfied with your demonstration. In fact, there are 3 ways to kill the MiG-15 Ace AI guns only that I have pulled off so far:

1. Shoot him head on, either at the first merge, or after resetting the fight using the tactic you demonstrated
2. When defensive, tighten turn using 9G to get out of his gun sight, then reverse the turn (Growling Sidewinder has been demonstrating this a lot lately on his YouTube channel). 50% of the time this confuses the AI and it commits a BFM error, sometimes flying away in a straight line and giving me a shot.
3. Fly away and avoid the fight until the MiG-15 runs low on fuel, then turn around and shoot him while he is going home to land.

All of these = a win. None of these are a satisfying experience, and none of these address the real issue -- in my opinion after analyzing the replay, the MiG-15 appears to have an inaccurately modeled flight model and/or TWR. Again, thanks for showing a MiG-15 gun kill but it's irrelevant IMO.

[razo+r]

Not irrelevant. OP asked for tricks and tipps.

 

It also shows the lack of "I" in the AI of DCS as well as what many people have said in this topic.

[Xavven]

8 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

 

The F-16 might have a better turn rate than the MiG in most situations.... maybe.

1. BUT, as you say, it is a "TWO-circle"... with two radii... and the MiG-15's radius is MUCH smaller. It's even smaller than its contemporary, the Sabre.

 

 

 

Radius plays a small part in a two-circle fight, but a 2-circle is very predominantly about turn rate. I made a little diagram that shows that when the turn circle of your opponent (on the right) is much, much, much larger, you don't have to get around your circle quite as much before you have a shot, but it's only a few degrees even in this vastly exaggerated diagram.

 

 

That said, I don't think you and I have been performing the same tests against the MiG-15. I started at 1,000 ft (to minimize the effects of simply trading altitude for airspeed), head on, and gave a few nautical miles of separation so that each fighter can come up to speed. I then initiated and held a level turn and changed the amount of G pulled in order to maintain different speeds in different tests. In some tests I attempted to hold about 450 knots. In other tests I would hold 420 knots, or 350 knots, or 330 knots since you had suggested that earlier. In further tests I would begin the fight at 500 knots and spend that airspeed on more G until at the desired lower airspeed (450, 420, 350, or 330) or I would trade my 1000 ft of altitude to get a little more turning rate at the cost of total energy. In most cases the MiG-15 would gain as much as 90° of advantage by the second merge (meaning in one turn). That cannot be explained away by a tighter turning radius. We're talking the MiG is getting something like 5 degrees per second more turn rate than the F-16 and isn't losing energy while doing it. If the numbers were closer, then I would say there's an argument to be had. The issue I have here is that the MiG-15 is outperforming by SO MUCH that I think any reasonable analysis would conclude there's something wrong.

 

Now you would never fight an opponent by just holding a level turn. This was just to hold some variables constant while I adjusted my turn to see how the AI would perform so I could gather data. I may not be the best dogfighter, but when I went free-form and tried every technique I know to get to the MiG-15's control zone, it would usually result in a stalemate until I ran out of fuel.

 

Could you answer me this, though? Why is the Su-27 so vastly easier to kill than the MiG-15 in a guns only dogfight, and do you believe that DCS has accurately modeled both aircraft as closely as possible to their IRL performance?

 

 

8 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

 

How sharp is this turn in the Sabre that isn't losing speed? I can lose speed turning in a Sabre! 

If there are several tight turns on this course then the Korea Era fighters will do great. They:

1. Weigh almost nothing

2. Have a relatively small % of weight dedicated to fuel

3. don't have any radar or afterburner weight

4. Have no design considerations for supersonic flight (so they're more efficient at subsonic speeds)

Pretty much as maneuverable as the F-16 is ABOVE corner speeds, the Korea Era fighters do that well BELOW corner speeds. Both by design!

 

 

Sorry, that was a result of slight hyperbole. I do remember losing a bit of airspeed when turning, but my point was that it was not nearly as much as you would expect in a realistic flight sim. Do you have the River Run map? Have you tried the course using both the F-18 and the Sabre? I think it would be an enlightening experience.

 

[Xavven]

18 minutes ago, razo+r said:

Not irrelevant. OP asked for tricks and tipps.

 

It also shows the lack of "I" in the AI of DCS as well as what many people have said in this topic.

 

Sorry, I wasn't intending to invalidate your entire video. Yes, it helps OP get a guns kill on the MiG-15 and it's relevant to that question. What I really meant to say is that it doesn't explain the MiG-15's turn performance. I've said this like 3 times now.

[razo+r]

25 minutes ago, Xavven said:

 

Sorry, I wasn't intending to invalidate your entire video. Yes, it helps OP get a guns kill on the MiG-15 and it's relevant to that question. What I really meant to say is that it doesn't explain the MiG-15's turn performance. I've said this like 3 times now.

 

And as people and I said many times before, the AI uses a different flight model.

 

The human one might fit the charts, the AI one doesn't.

 

If you want ED to improve the AI flight model, you can always compare it to the charts and file a bug report.

[Theodore42]

17 hours ago, razo+r said:

And one could also argue that my shot was not a head-on. He did not have his nose on me. With his maneuver, he was pulling his nose on me, but hadn't managed to do so. But if you want, you can pull around earlier while he is recovering from a stall and voila, you come from "behind".

 

I do this in my video at 5:45 but at the merge I got on his tail and he went into a climb at 250kts and defeated my F-16. If only I had been going a little faster at the merge.....

 

13 hours ago, razo+r said:

And as people and I said many times before, the AI uses a different flight model.

 

The human one might fit the charts, the AI one doesn't.

 

Late last year ED fixed the AI logic to not be broken af.

I jumped in the Sabre when I saw this thread to fly against the MiG-15 and check that it wasn't still broken. It flew against me in a manor that reflected what pilots reported so any imperfections in the AI's FM are moot to a modern jet fighter. The first video I posted to this thread was to show that the MiG-15 is relatively even to its contemporary, the Sabre.

 

15 hours ago, Xavven said:

 

2. When defensive, tighten turn using 9G to get out of his gun sight, then reverse the turn (Growling Sidewinder has been demonstrating this a lot lately on his YouTube channel). 50% of the time this confuses the AI and it commits a BFM error, sometimes flying away in a straight line and giving me a shot

 

What is this looking like exactly...?

Don't reverse on the MiG-15 during lead pursuit as that is an extending maneuver and you don't need to run away from a MiG-15.

ED added the Ace AI losing sight of players so that's probably what's happening when you reverse on a MiG during lead pursuit. Likely a bug if he doesn't reengage, so if you see it again save a track and report it!

 

What was the MiG's AOT (Angle Off Tail) to you after this maneuver? If you're pulling 9Gs while he's in a pursuit lead this should break it and put his AOT about 90 degrees due to the large amount of lead the MiG has to fly. Then go into a climb. If you blew all your speed the MiG will try to get into a rolling scissors with you, otherwise he will have to turn away and then YOU will be 90 AOT to HIM! Of course then he will just turn toward you and neutralize the position, which is better than him being behind you or you running away, which is where we started.

 

15 hours ago, Xavven said:

 

Now you would never fight an opponent by just holding a level turn. This was just to hold some variables constant while I adjusted my turn to see how the AI would perform so I could gather data. I may not be the best dogfighter, but when I went free-form and tried every technique I know to get to the MiG-15's control zone, it would usually result in a stalemate until I ran out of fuel.

 

What is the AI doing during this turn, is it holding a constant speed the whole time?

I bet at the merge it has a lot less energy than you do, cuz he blew it all to neutralize your position. If you climb at the merge here, the MiG will just dive and get his energy back up to corner speed, and then you gained nothing.

 

In a dogfight be more concerned with how many Gs you're pulling, can pull, and for how long. If you can get your AOT to 0 but will be going slow, DO IT, and then accelerate (in an F-16).

Understanding what is good/bad for you and good/bad for your opponent is how you win. (and is what my previous post was about)

 

15 hours ago, Xavven said:

Could you answer me this, though? Why is the Su-27 so vastly easier to kill than the MiG-15 in a guns only dogfight, and do you believe that DCS has accurately modeled both aircraft as closely as possible to their IRL performance?

 

 

Ya good question. The AI doesn't utilize the pitch override (Cobra Maneuver) AT ALL, whereas every human player on the planet utilizes it AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE.

Also, I feel like the modern jets are playing assuming the player has IR missiles. If you get into a dogfight with IR missiles the AI feels WAY smarter!

 

16 hours ago, razo+r said:

If you want to practise BFM though, don't do it against the AI. They neither use proper BFM themselfs, nor do they obey this "oft-spoken" rule. If they can, they will shoot you before merging. The absent if human-like restrictions for the AI does not help either.

 

They fly proper BFM now. I busted out Shaw and had a real learning experience against the MiG-15.

For the modern fighters not so much, I just skim through the BFM chapter, review the figures of the maneuvers, and maybe look over some text concerning a situation I came across.

Since I first flew against those MiG-15s I have been READING Shaw, deep, parts of it over and over again. The MiG busted out a freaking barrel roll attack on my . WTF, I've never seen a HUMAN player execute it so well (if at all).

Oh, and in the rolling scissors? While I'm maneuvering at 270kts thinking I'm bleeding off his energy or something, I notice in the replay what he is doing:

 

turn-> (unload) accelerate, accelerate, accelerate ->turn-> (unload) accelerate accelerate accelerate....

 

Which makes perfect sense because the MiG-15 has a relatively lower AOA at lower speeds. And the F-16 doesn't accelerate AT ALL while AOA is so high. He was probably sitting in his MiG flying with his knees and eating Commie-Os. It might be an obvious maneuver if I fly the Sabre against an F-16, but when I noticed the MiG doing that to me, I was surprised to say the least.

btw, that isn't a variation of scissors discussed in Shaw. How did it even get programed into the AI? How did it know to do it to me in an F-16 and not in a Sabre? Oh well who cares. I've learned it now so HA HA

 

Lastly:

 

You should be able to get behind and kill a MiG-15 in an F-16 without the MiG ever standing a chance. The MiG pilot would welcome a head to head shot because that's a 50%-50% chance to win vs an aircraft 60 years newer. My previous post describes how to do that but to boil it down:

 

Going vertical against a MiG-15 isn't helpful because it is a high altitude interceptor, DESIGNED to climb as fast as possible, and at a relatively low speed

Use 8Gs and acceleration to win

Don't let the MiG maneuver against you when he can pull more Gs than you can (probably under around 270-300kts)

Blow through your corner speed (from 440 to 330kts) pulling Gs to get an advantage.

Flying to a sustained turn rate isn't helpful, but flying to a sustained G is.

 

[Xavven]

1 hour ago, Theodore42 said:

What is this looking like exactly...?

Don't reverse on the MiG-15 during lead pursuit as that is an extending maneuver and you don't need to run away from a MiG-15.

ED added the Ace AI losing sight of players so that's probably what's happening when you reverse on a MiG during lead pursuit. Likely a bug if he doesn't reengage, so if you see it again save a track and report it!

 

 

It looks like 18:49 mark here. While defensive, the hostile brings his nose up to take a shot, you pull more G to tighten the turn, which shoots you out of his HUD and creates an overshoot past your 6. You reverse the turn initiating scissors. However, unlike the video below, sometimes the MiG-15 goes stupid and just flies straight for like 5 to 8 seconds and while I do shoot him down, it really ought not to have lost sight of me.

 

 

1 hour ago, Theodore42 said:

What is the AI doing during this turn, is it holding a constant speed the whole time?

I bet at the merge it has a lot less energy than you do, cuz he blew it all to neutralize your position. If you climb at the merge here, the MiG will just dive and get his energy back up to corner speed, and then you gained nothing.

 

In a dogfight be more concerned with how many Gs you're pulling, can pull, and for how long. If you can get your AOT to 0 but will be going slow, DO IT, and then accelerate (in an F-16).

Understanding what is good/bad for you and good/bad for your opponent is how you win. (and is what my previous post was about)

 

The AI usually climbs at the first merge to exchange speed for altitude and tighten turn radius.

 

Thanks for the advice. I've been employing a multitude of tactics including the ones you mentioned. It's not impossible to beat the MiG-15 Ace AI, and as I've said I've gotten several kills on it with various tactics, many of them exploiting the F-16's higher top speed to reset the fight whenever I need to, but after spending several hours against it and finding it to be the hardest to get to the control zone of any of the planes in DCS, like I said my problem isn't finding a way to kill it, it's that it doesn't appear to be behaving like I would suspect it or any fighter of that era to behave. Thanks for the advice though.

 

 

1 hour ago, Theodore42 said:

Going vertical against a MiG-15 isn't helpful because it is a high altitude interceptor, DESIGNED to climb as fast as possible, and at a relatively low speed

Use 8Gs and acceleration to win

Don't let the MiG maneuver against you when he can pull more Gs than you can (probably under around 270-300kts)

Blow through your corner speed (from 440 to 330kts) pulling Gs to get an advantage.

Flying to a sustained turn rate isn't helpful, but flying to a sustained G is.

 

This appears to be a contradiction. I think you are saying the MiG-15 is designed to climb as fast as possible, so you shouldn't go vertical. That implies the MiG-15 has a TWR advantage over the F-16. I think you are also trying to say the F-16 gains speed much more quickly, so you should go to 440 knots, then trade speed down to 330 because your superior TWR would let you regain more quickly, resulting in an advantage. I don't think both of those statements can be true at the same time.

 

An aircraft with superior TWR will generally win a vertical energy fight. This is precisely why the F-15 Eagle prefers vertical against most opponents.

[CSL_Ondras]

I am slightly late to this discussion, but I love these little challenges . Here is my take on to this:

 

 

 

And just for comparison with M2000 (which I have for 2 weeks now and I have become addicted to it ), which allows one to be bit more cheeky:

 

 

 

In both cases, for training purposes, I handicaped my self with 2 heaters to add a bit more drag and weight. Exploiting speed, vertical and roll rate is the key - no need to add more after all the previous posts.

 

O.

 

P.S.: Please excuse lower quality of the videos, I still have small monitor, hence only SD on YouTube.

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by CVS_Ondras

[metzger]

Mig-15 should be no match for any 3rd or 4th gen fighter in 2-circle or vertical, it's some kind of a bad joke to match it with the Viper, even the F-5. For 1 circle slow speed might gain a few degrees after the first turn but it should loose so much speed that will never have the energy to continue the fight or to maintain the closure rate to get into a gun shot.

 

On top of that, irl mig-15 pilots were also not able to pull more than 4-4.5g due to two reasons - you need to be a weight lifting champion to be able to pull the stick so hard and 2nd, they do not have a g-suite so they will simply black out. There were very rare reports on so called "honchos" who could keep up with the sabres in a 5G turn but just briefly as they could not maintain it. Mig-15 pulling 6G is totally unrealistic, 7-8 is equal to startrek sci-fi.

 

AI in DCS does not respect physic laws at all this is pretty clear to everybody already. They always manuever the same way in any difficulty, if you are in the control zone they go into a infinite loop, the higher the difficulty the more cheaty "flight model" they have, in ace difficulty you can never catch them in vertical unless in DACT with extremely better aircraft (like Mig-15 vs F-16).  Go Mig-15 vs Mig-15 in ACE and achieve control zone -> gun range -> tracking shot, good luck. Or F-5 vs F-5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Theodore42]

 

 

On 3/25/2021 at 8:19 AM, Xavven said:

Quote

Going vertical against a MiG-15 isn't helpful because it is a high altitude interceptor, DESIGNED to climb as fast as possible, and at a relatively low speed

Use 8Gs and acceleration to win

Don't let the MiG maneuver against you when he can pull more Gs than you can (probably under around 270-300kts)

Blow through your corner speed (from 440 to 330kts) pulling Gs to get an advantage.

Flying to a sustained turn rate isn't helpful, but flying to a sustained G is.

 

This appears to be a contradiction. I think you are saying the MiG-15 is designed to climb as fast as possible, so you shouldn't go vertical. That implies the MiG-15 has a TWR advantage over the F-16. I think you are also trying to say the F-16 gains speed much more quickly, so you should go to 440 knots, then trade speed down to 330 because your superior TWR would let you regain more quickly, resulting in an advantage. I don't think both of those statements can be true at the same time.

 

An aircraft with superior TWR will generally win a vertical energy fight. This is precisely why the F-15 Eagle prefers vertical against most opponents.

 

As for the TWR for the MiG and Viper, you know what, the MiG might even have the advantage when both aircraft have 15 minutes of fuel left.

 

You are doing many academic tests and deductions. This is both admirable and valuable. Much more valuable than most people give credit for. But when you go to apply this knowledge, the wrong things happen (things you didn't deduce) and there is a tendency to chalk this up to the AI being broken or a UFO. Compounded by the fact that the AI WAS broken in this way FOR A DECADE but it has been resolved as of last year. Not perfect, but there are no UFOs in DCS anymore.

 

In reality every maneuver is in context of the other fighter's energy state (as everyone knows) and the other fighter's capabilities at that energy state relative to your own. This is the point of flying an F-16 vs a MiG-15 as a "final boss." Use what you know, lose. UNDERSTAND what you know, win.

 

I misspoke when I said going vertical against a MiG isn't helpful. The simplistic vertical maneuver meme that is associated with the F-16 is what I was referring to.

Obviously MOST of the maneuvering in an F-16 should be done vertically.

In my video the first maneuver we enter into is the vertical, I get above him, I get on his tail. Vicotry!!!

Yet what happens next? We are at equal energy states and the MiG goes vertical. Not a problem! I just WON a vertical fight with him so I'm not afraid to go vertical. But what happens next is that I follow him into the vertical, the MiG uses his small turn radius at the apex to come back down fast and easy. I'm in an F-16, vertical, under corner speed, I can't bring my nose through the apex fast enough, so I'm getting slower and slower.... when I finally bring the nose down I can't accelerate because my AoA is so high. I didn't unload because I was trying to stay with him, probably a mistake. You can literally watch me lose the vertical starting at 1:05. I can FEEL my F-16 turn to slush, my speed is under 250kts, and I'm watching a MiG-15 own me because we started even on energy but he can out accelerate me easily when we're going so slowly.

 

1. The MiG accelerates FASTER than the Viper up to his corner speed

2. The Viper accelerates faster through corner speed and MUCH faster above corner speed!

 

So in my video when I lose the vertical fight I was going less than corner speed and the MiG was going less as well. This means the MiG out accelerates the F-16 in this situation. Not a UFO. Just the reality of the matchup.

 

Anyone interested in the differences can watch my video right at the beginning. The very first move is vertical and I win it and get on his tail. The very next move the MiG goes vertical, I follow him, and I lose on that maneuver. Watch my speed and guess about how even the MiG's energy is to me. Then evaluate the situation with those previous 2 rules.

 

 

 

You're starting to understand !

[Snappy]

7 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

...

 

You are doing many academic tests and deductions. This is both admirable and valuable. Much more valuable than most people give credit for. But when you go to apply this knowledge, the wrong things happen (things you didn't deduce) and there is a tendency to chalk this up to the AI being broken or a UFO. Compounded by the fact that the AI WAS broken in this way FOR A DECADE but it has been resolved as of last year. Not perfect, but there are no UFOs in DCS anymore.

 

In...

 

I don't know where you are gettin this from?  There was nothing really fixed with the AI's flight model.  What ED did last year (or was it 2019 already?) was announce (as they do they so many other things) a new  flight model which would be coming for AI in the future .  However this still hasn't been implemented and yes there are still way-overpowered aircraft in DCS whether you like it or not. Not to speak of the A.I. behaviour itself, which is one of the sims biggest flaws.

 

Metzger brought up some pretty good additional points in that regard in his above post.

They made some minor bugfixing regarding the general AI behaviour in 2019, but for the most part, its still as problematic as ever. But acknowledging that this is a challenging task, getting AI to a semi-realistic level.Other sim managed to pull it off though .

They did announce "substantial improvements" again for the latter half of 2021, but given that this is DCS, I'm taking that target frame with a huge grain of salt.

 

 

 

As for your video and the issue at around 1:05 , the bigger problem is, you waited way too long (with your nose on the horizon, while you actually already had enough speed for going vertical  ) before you followed him up again and thereby gave him a lot of turning room above you, which came back to bite you , as expected. But hindsight being 20/20 so nevermind..

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edited March 27, 2021 by Snappy

[Xavven]

6 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

As for the TWR for the MiG and Viper, you know what, the MiG might even have the advantage when both aircraft have 15 minutes of fuel left.

 

In DCS it might be the case.

 

IRL, not a chance. Here's some performance data, admittedly from Wikipedia, but it cites is sources as OKB Mikoyan,^[110] MiG: Fifty Years of Secret Aircraft Design^[111] and USAF sheet,^[64] International Directory of Military Aircraft,^[71] Flight Manual for F-16C/D Block 50/52+^[326]:

 

MiG-15

• Empty weight: 3,681 kg (8,115 lb)
• Gross weight: 5,044 kg (11,120 lb)
• Powerplant: 1 × Klimov VK-1 centrifugal-flow turbojet, 26.5 kN (5,950 lbf) thrust
• Rate of climb: 51.2 m/s (10,080 ft/min)
• Thrust/Weight: 0.54

F-16 (wet thrust)

• Empty weight: 18,900 lb (8,573 kg)
• Gross weight: 26,500 lb (12,020 kg)
• Fuel capacity: 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) internals^[64]
• Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-229 afterburning turbofan (for Block 52 version), 17,800 lbf (79 kN) thrust dry, 29,560 lbf (131.5 kN) with afterburner
• Rate of climb: 72,000^[326] ft/min (370 m/s) (sustains 72,000 feet/min in 4.2 g ascending turn)^{[326][N 2]}
• Thrust/Weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)^[329]

---

 

F-16 has over 7x the rate of climb and 2x the TWR. I don't know the figures for the MiG-15bis, as it was an improved version, but certainly not twice the aircraft the former was.

 

If you want to calculate TWR for empty weight (to simulate close to 1% fuel conditions), that can be done as well.  MiG-15: 5950 lbf/ 8115 lb = 0.73. F-16: 29,560 lbf / 18,900 lb = 1.56.

 

We've gotta stop this "lighter fighter = faster and more maneuverable" nonsense. If that were true, the Tomcat should be among the worst fighters in the world.

[Theodore42]

11 hours ago, Snappy said:

 

I don't know where you are gettin this from?  There was nothing really fixed with the AI's flight model.  What ED did last year (or was it 2019 already?) was announce (as they do they so many other things) a new  flight model which would be coming for AI in the future .  However this still hasn't been implemented and yes there are still way-overpowered aircraft in DCS whether you like it or not. Not to speak of the A.I. behaviour itself, which is one of the sims biggest flaws.

 

Wrong, play vs them in a Sabre and see how OP the feel. Keep in mind in that match up the MiG-15 is the energy fighter.

If you're flying against a MiG-15 AI in an F-16 and feel like you're losing, then you're doing it wrong.

 

5 hours ago, Xavven said:

We've gotta stop this "lighter fighter = faster and more maneuverable" nonsense. If that were true, the Tomcat should be among the worst fighters in the world.

 

Wrong also, but I appreciate the theory. Read:

 

Fighter Combat TACTICS AND MANEUVERING by Robert L. Shaw

(c)1985 by the United States Naval Institute Annapolis, Maryland

 

Chapter 4: One-versus-One Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft p.139

 

"...the term low wing loaded is assumed to denote superior instantaneous turn performance and slower minimum speed."

This is the Tomcat or the MiG-15 in a fight with the F-16. Verses the Sabre, the MiG-15 is the energy fighter, or T/W fighter (it's all relative)

 

Quote

"...sustained-G capability is the result of a fighter's thrust-to-weight ratio (T/W) in combination with its aerodynamic efficiency, which may be expressed as its lift-to-drag ratio (L/D) at the particular maneuvering conditions. But G alone does not make turn performance, as turn rate and radius are also dependent on airspeed. Lower airspeed at a given G level improves both turn rate and turn radius. All else being equal, low-wingloaded aircraft tend to achieve their best sustained G at a lower speed, and therefore they often have a sustained-turn advantage. It is possible, however, for a high-wing-loaded fighter to have better sustained turn rate at a higher airspeed by sustaining much greater G, which, in the case of aerodynamically similar aircraft, could be achieved with greater T/W. Sustained turn radius, however, is such a strong function of airspeed that the lowwing-loaded fighter nearly always has the advantage here, regardless of T/W." (Shaw 140)

 

Basically everything I've been trying to articulate is in that quote. The confusing bit is that the MiG-15's advantages are everything the F-16s are, just at a much slower speed. Try outclimbing a MiG-15 at 250kts, energy being equal. See what happens. If you can even get your nose up, the F-16's massive AoA is going to create massive induced drag and that T/W ratio ain't useful for anything because you're flying into a massive wall of air. The MiG-15 has almost no induced drag from AoA at 250kts and is in it's natural environment as a high altitude interceptor.

This is why everyone thinks the MiG-15 is a UFO and the AI is broken. because you're driving a race car around a go-cart track and you're surprised the go-cart is winning.

 

11 hours ago, Snappy said:

As for your video and the issue at around 1:05 , the bigger problem is, you waited way too long (with your nose on the horizon, while you actually already had enough speed for going vertical  ) before you followed him up again and thereby gave him a lot of turning room above you, which came back to bite you , as expected. But hindsight being 20/20 so nevermind..

Totally wrong, I wasn't going fast enough because at my apex I was going ridiculously slow, had trouble bringing it around causing me to go slower (speed AND turn rate wise), and had excessive AoA (induced drag) that the MiG wasn't experiencing all in the dive after, so I lost a dive in an F-16 vs a MiG-15 for real (not UFO territory).

If I had pulled into the dive much sooner after going vertical it would have been better, but the MiG would have just reversed his dive into a climb and won a slow speed climb (under 250 kts.)

The correct thing to do would have been gain more speed, not follow his vertical maneuver, position myself to get on his tail when he is low on energy after going vertical. And to WIN from that it has to be done as quickly as possible, because the MiG will just get up to his happy corner speed, which is relatively slow compared to the F-16, and rip a massive "instantaneous turn" (UFO style) out of my canopy.

 

There are 25 pages of dissimilar aircraft BFM commentary in Shaw, and pretty much all my posts can be summed up in that one quote of his.

 

But I'll do this all day because I'm getting something out of it 

[Xavven]

Theodore... I've read Shaw too, and so have a bunch of people on these forums. Firstly, wing loading is not aircraft weight. It is the mass of the aircraft divided by its wing area (and also lifting body area if you ask Shaw). My statement was to dispel the myth that a lighter fighter is automatically more maneuverable, a myth you repeated:

 

On 3/6/2021 at 12:07 PM, Theodore42 said:

The biggest and probably only advantage the MiG 15 has over the F-16 is weight. Yes, the F-16 has the best thrust to weight ratio in the universe. Yes it is the lightest of all the modern jet fighters. Yet it still weighs 20,000 lbs empty! The MiG-15 is 8,000 lbs empty.

Briefly imagine making a tiny airframe out of aluminum foil. When you toss it, it does a loop. Then, if you were to make another airframe that weighed twice as much as the first, even if you put in improvements that you learned while making the first, the heavier airframe is going to be less maneuverable when you toss it into a loop; it just is.

 

Secondly, Shaw goes on to explain that in a dissimilar aircraft fight, the higher TWR craft should ideally pull the fight nose-to-tail (i.e. 2-circle) and use vertical maneuvering to maximize the advantage in turn rate and climb rate, respectively. A lower wing-loaded fighter with worse TWR should try to keep the fight horizontal and 1-circle, aka flat scissors.

 

I think I've proven the F-16 has a higher TWR.

 

Yet when you employ the Shaw-blessed tactics in a DCS F-16 vs MiG-15 guns only fight, you find the MiG-15 keeping up in the vertical loops where it should not, and keeping up in turn rate or outrating the F-16 in a 2-circle. Your own video demonstrates both of these phenomenon.

 

When you followed the MiG up after your first turn was completed, it had godmode energy. Your oblique turn was a complete loop, meaning you went up and then down (you went from 17,000 to 27,000, then back down to just under 20,000 before going back up again). You regain energy when you descend. But by the looks of his contrails, the MiG went up, leveled off (sort of like an Immelman), did not drop altitude to regain speed and yet went up again and still won the energy fight against you.

 

Later, you have a neutral pass at around 8:35 and you get into a 2-circle rate fight and it gained angles on you by the next pass, meaning it outrated you.

 

Shaw, you and I all agree the F-16 should be winning an energy fight against an accurately modeled MiG-15. Hop on over to page 141 of Shaw:

 

"On the other hand, the pilot of a high-T/W fighter should concentrate on energy tactics when he is engaging a low-wing-loaded opponent."

 

I just don't think we will agree on this one, but that's ok. It's been a good discussion.

[Snappy]

14 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

 

Wrong, play vs them in a Sabre and see how OP the feel. Keep in mind in that match up the MiG-15 is the energy fighter.

If you're flying against a MiG-15 AI in an F-16 and feel like you're losing, then you're doing it wrong.

 

 

Wrong also, but I appreciate the theory. Read:

 

Fighter Combat TACTICS AND MANEUVERING by Robert L. Shaw

(c)1985 by the United States Naval Institute Annapolis, Maryland

 

Chapter 4: One-versus-One Maneuvering, Dissimilar Aircraft p.139

 

"...the term low wing loaded is assumed to denote superior instantaneous turn performance and slower minimum speed."

This is the Tomcat or the MiG-15 in a fight with the F-16. Verses the Sabre, the MiG-15 is the energy fighter, or T/W fighter (it's all relative)

 

 

Basically everything I've been trying to articulate is in that quote. The confusing bit is that the MiG-15's advantages are everything the F-16s are, just at a much slower speed. Try outclimbing a MiG-15 at 250kts, energy being equal. See what happens. If you can even get your nose up, the F-16's massive AoA is going to create massive induced drag and that T/W ratio ain't useful for anything because you're flying into a massive wall of air. The MiG-15 has almost no induced drag from AoA at 250kts and is in it's natural environment as a high altitude interceptor.

This is why everyone thinks the MiG-15 is a UFO and the AI is broken. because you're driving a race car around a go-cart track and you're surprised the go-cart is winning.

 

Totally wrong, I wasn't going fast enough because at my apex I was going ridiculously slow, had trouble bringing it around causing me to go slower (speed AND turn rate wise), and had excessive AoA (induced drag) that the MiG wasn't experiencing all in the dive after, so I lost a dive in an F-16 vs a MiG-15 for real (not UFO territory).

If I had pulled into the dive much sooner after going vertical it would have been better, but the MiG would have just reversed his dive into a climb and won a slow speed climb (under 250 kts.)

The correct thing to do would have been gain more speed, not follow his vertical maneuver, position myself to get on his tail when he is low on energy after going vertical. And to WIN from that it has to be done as quickly as possible, because the MiG will just get up to his happy corner speed, which is relatively slow compared to the F-16, and rip a massive "instantaneous turn" (UFO style) out of my canopy.

 

There are 25 pages of dissimilar aircraft BFM commentary in Shaw, and pretty much all my posts can be summed up in that one quote of his.

 

But I'll do this all day because I'm getting something out of it 

 

No offense, but are you capable of basic reading comprehension ?

Nowhere did I say I was losing against the Mig-15 in an F-16. And flying the sabre changes nothing about the AI flight model of the Mig.

You basically missed the entire point completely as I was talking about you wrongly claiming ED had fixed the flawed AI flight models last year , which they have not.

 

 

As for the vertical move, if you were ridiculously slow at your apex then thats your overdone execution thats lacking , not the vertical follow up in itself. As I as said, with the speed you had you should’ve been fine, plus with  the impressive T/W ratio of the F-16 there shouldn’t be a problem at all.

 

As for the rest of your post and your “Interpretation “ of Shaw (which I read too btw) I won’t even bother.

Actually I’m out of here, as its already becoming clear that you’re one of those people who simply can’t be wrong, despite multiple people bringing you valid counter arguments.

 

So don’t bother replying, I’m not engaging further with you, as discussions with ‘always right’ -people like you are tiresome.

 

So keep on, whatever you need to tell yourself.

 

 

 Snappy 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Snappy

[Theodore42]

On 3/27/2021 at 10:46 PM, Xavven said:

Theodore... I've read Shaw too, and so have a bunch of people on these forums. Firstly, wing loading is not aircraft weight. It is the mass of the aircraft divided by its wing area (and also lifting body area if you ask Shaw). My statement was to dispel the myth that a lighter fighter is automatically more maneuverable...

 

You've read Shaw? You didn't even read the quote that I put right in front of you:

"Sustained turn radius, however, is such a strong function of airspeed that the lowwing-loaded fighter nearly always has the advantage here, regardless of T/W." (Shaw 140)

 

In other words, it doesn't matter how much advantage in thrust to weight ratio the F-16 has, you're not going to get a win against an angles fighter. That's why it's called an "angles fighter", as in angles off your tail. You're not going to win a vertical nose to tail with an angles fighter because he will use his instantaneous turn to skip the disadvantageous parts of the vertical loop and get to the parts he's good at (unless you're running him out of altitude). Also, for an F-16 to follow a MiG-15 into a vertical loop you would have to be so far to his cold side it wouldn't even make sense as a maneuver.

 

As for the F-16's superior T/W, the engine has to have a high dynamic air pressure on the inlet to generate thrust, and when you're going under 250 indicated, it ain't there. The MiG-15 isn't a supersonic fighter and was designed to fly at lower speeds so it doesn't have that handicap. Also the F-16 has way more induced drag at lower speeds.

At 15,000ft and 200kts, how long does it take for an F-16 to accelerate to 250, even at 0Gs (0 induced drag)? Do the same thing at 400kts and see how fast you get to 450. Don't blink. And how many Gs do you have to pull at 500kts to accelerate to 550 as slowly as you accelerated from 200 to 250? 4Gs at least? You think I'm saying the MiG-15 is more maneuverable? Go 500 and you can do what ever you want to a MiG.

So when you go slow the MiG-15 DOES have a T/W advantage. And an induced drag advantage. He also has an instantaneous turn advantage, especially at low speeds. And a very small turn radius due to weight.

 

In Chess, the pawn can only attack diagonally 1 square in front of him. The knight is a piece that can jump over other pieces and is very mobile. You're jumping your knight into the ONE SQUARE that a pawn can take you, and you're saying this is wrong because the knight is better than the pawn. Well, it is. And the F-16 is better than the MiG-15. Stop trying to fly his game.

 

This last week I've spent maybe 3 or 4 hours flying the F-16 against the MiG-15 and reading Shaw (fly a round against a MiG, read Shaw, fly, read, fly, read, ...). That is a very small investment to practice a performing art. Yet I posted another video of me vs MiG-15s. I think anyone that watches both this video and the video I made from a week ago will realize that there has been a great improvement. This time I avoid giving the MiGs advantages and they just look like slow, maneuverable bugs ("gnats" or whatever they're called):

 

 

BOOM! Roasted.

 

On 3/28/2021 at 6:15 AM, Snappy said:

Nowhere did I say I was losing against the Mig-15 in an F-16. And flying the sabre changes nothing about the AI flight model of the Mig.

You basically missed the entire point completely as I was talking about you wrongly claiming ED had fixed the flawed AI flight models last year , which they have not.

 

Ok, then I'm deluding myself into improving against a broken UFO AI. Fine with me!

But you're wrong.

 

BOOM! Roasted.