F16C vs F/A 18
-
Yep, I second that. Didn’t get the chance to watch it, so…please?
-
I do agree with Mav, this is the best comparison video I ever seen.
So, may I make some comments / suggestion ?- Chose a/c configurations that are closer to the one usually chose for performance measures and charts, something like 50% internal fuel and at least 2 wing tip AAM
- in BMS an a/c without wingtip missiles drag less than with, and IRL it’s not true, a clean F-16 or F-18 have the same Drag Index than one with 2 wing tip AIM-9
- 50% internal fuel, because with 100%, a long range a/c is to much penalize, and also because you rarely enter a DGFT with 100%
- Usual measure of roll rate is ‘Time required to roll 90 bank’ (TQ90 in french), not peack roll rate or average on 2 full roll
- ITR (Instantaneous Turn Rate) is measured few second after stick is set full backward (as soon as G load has reached is maximum) and not along a long turn, ITR is measured for different starting CAS, and MaxITR is the one reached from the CAS that give the best result. Another way to measure ITR is the time required to make a true 90 or 180 deg turn: start FPM on horizon head on 0 (N), stop clock when FPM reach 90 (W) or 180(S). Repeat the test for different starting speed, keep the one that gave the shortest time, divide it by 90 or 180….
-
I do agree with Mav, this is the best comparison video I ever seen.
So, may I make some comments / suggestion ?- 50% internal fuel, because with 100%, a long range a/c is to much penalize, and also because you rarely enter a DGFT with 100%
That would require a total scrap of all the work I’ve done. I also disagree philosophically about entering a dogfight with a low fuel state. In my opinion, you’re in big trouble if you’re just starting a turn and burn with only 1/2 your internal gas. Hell, I usually set an RTB/bingo for around 3000 lbs when I’m in the Viper, so I’m definitely not looking to get into any phone booths at 3600 lbs. I’m usually thinking “it’s almost time to wrap this up”. Also, anyone who spars online in the dogfight module usually begins the fight with full internal fuel. I’ve never sparred with someone in a situation where we both agreed to alt+d down to 1/2 capacity. For those reasons that’s why I deliberately chose to run all tests with as close to 7200 as I could get. (Or 10,800 in the Bug). So yeah, performance is going to be a little lower than what you’d see in most typical performance charts, but I did this study for me, and I’d personally rather understand the performance characteristics at full internal fuel than 1/2.
- ITR (Instantaneous Turn Rate) is measured few second after stick is set full backward (as soon as G load has reached is maximum) and not along a long turn, ITR is measured for different starting CAS, and MaxITR is the one reached from the CAS that give the best result. Another way to measure ITR is the time required to make a true 90 or 180 deg turn: start FPM on horizon head on 0 (N), stop clock when FPM reach 90 (W) or 180(S). Repeat the test for different starting speed, keep the one that gave the shortest time, divide it by 90 or 180….
I thought about that too. At first I was going to try to find where the optimal 90-degree slice of the pie exists, but the process of that was making my head hurt. Also, I asked myself “what’s the difference?” For example, if I’m starting the pull at 550 and pulling down to 200, then the turn rate recorded at 350 is not going to be any different than the turn rate I’d record at 350 if I started the pull at 450. I figured I might as well just get as fast as I can, initiate a max pull, and chart the turn rate at every 50 knot interval until energy is depleted. Then I can look at the charted curve and use a little bit of logic to figure out where I’d probably want to begin my pull at each general altitude.
- Chose a/c configurations that are closer to the one usually chose for performance measures and charts, something like 50% internal fuel and at least 2 wing tip AAM
Good point. In retrospect, I do regret not adding some weapons to the loadout. That would’ve been logical. But I reached a point of no return before it occurred to me. And I think it’s also interesting to know how these things perform in a totally pure state. I think we can apply some logic to guestimate how these machines will perform with a little more weight strapped to them. Knowing how they perform in a pure state gives us a good starting point, I hope.
Anyway, I’m finished with the edits. I’m currently in rendering with about 24 hrs to go. Then I’ll upload shortly after.
-
This post is deleted! -
For the purpose of comparison, wouldn’t the addition of the same load out give you the same results as not having the addition of the same load out? Meaning, besides the additional weight, aren’t all things the same. (i’m throwing “drag is different on aircraft 1 for weapon a vs aircraft 2 for weapon a”. Which might not be a valid thought…)
Is the “use the paddle luke” a typical expectation in combat? ( I would have never thought it affected, only thought it overrode AP, not flcs)
Why not “MPO Override” too? or turn off flcs, etc etc. -
….
Is the “use the paddle luke” a typical expectation in combat? ( I would have never thought it affected, only thought it overrode AP, not flcs)
Why not “MPO Override” too? or turn off flcs, etc etc.The paddle over-ride in the F/A-18 doesn’t disable or override the FLCS per se, it allows a higher G-limiter within the flight control system. It’s completely different, and serves a different purpose, than MPO. If I recall correctly NATOPS says for Emergency Use Only, so I’m not sure it’s use is a ‘typical expectation’.
-
For the purpose of comparison, wouldn’t the addition of the same load out give you the same results as not having the addition of the same load out? Meaning, besides the additional weight, aren’t all things the same. (i’m throwing “drag is different on aircraft 1 for weapon a vs aircraft 2 for weapon a”. Which might not be a valid thought…)
Is the “use the paddle luke” a typical expectation in combat? ( I would have never thought it affected, only thought it overrode AP, not flcs)
Why not “MPO Override” too? or turn off flcs, etc etc.no, MPO and paddle overide are two things completely different.
MPO is used ONLY when flat stall, and by the way is only active above 30deg AOA which is not possible without a flat stall anyway, so MPO is not operative and will bring nothing during a combat
Though paddle switch for f18 is not standard flying but can be used in combat.
-
….
Anyway, I’m finished with the edits. I’m currently in rendering with about 24 hrs to go. Then I’ll upload shortly after.
Any news on the updated video?
-
Any news on the updated video?
Only bad news. I’m suddenly having problems with shadowplay. In-game everything seems fine, but when I watch the raw clips I’ve captured they are stuttery and not fluid. I was hoping the rendering process would smooth them out, but it didn’t. I’ve been using shadowplay reliably for over a year and now all of a sudden I’m experiencing an issue I’ve never seen before, and I’ve changed literally nothing in the time since the original upload without the paddle switch additions and the time of the re-edited version I made. I delayed the upload hoping I could find a way to fix it, but I’m not sure how long it will take me to find a solution, so I’m thinking I’ll upload it tonight as is with the stuttery re-recorded F-18 clips. It’s not that noticeable except for the F-18 instantaneous turn I perform at sea level, but the perfectionist in me is very frustrated right now. It will be uploaded by the morning.
-
and by the way is only active above 30deg AOA which is not possible without a flat stall anyway
Mav, I had in mind that it actually worked all the time in bms in normal flight, I was able in past tests to get the bird completely out of control with an mpo-ovrd command and a stick push forward that would deflect the elevators fully down… This behavior was not possible only with the stick forward, was only produced when engaging mpo (which correct stated by you is not to be used in “normal” flight conditions). I will check again though in current version.
-
Mav, I had in mind that it actually worked all the time in bms in normal flight, I was able in past tests to get the bird completely out of control with an mpo-ovrd command and a stick push forward that would deflect the elevators fully down… This behavior was not possible only with the stick forward, was only produced when engaging mpo (which correct stated by you is not to be used in “normal” flight conditions). I will check again though in current version.
as per real
MPO is inactive in positive G if AOA <30
but
MPO inhibits the neg G limiter protection whatever the AOA,
so indeed you can trigger MPO when pushing the stick , though i doubt any decent real pilot will dare to overide neg G Limiter (for obvious safety reasons).
We had a discussion in BMS if this behavior in negG should be restricted (because could be exploit by gamers), but i prefered to stick to the real
-
The video is private. Is there any way to make it public?
-
Mav, I had in mind that it actually worked all the time in bms in normal flight, I was able in past tests to get the bird completely out of control with an mpo-ovrd command and a stick push forward that would deflect the elevators fully down… This behavior was not possible only with the stick forward, was only produced when engaging mpo (which correct stated by you is not to be used in “normal” flight conditions). I will check again though in current version.
I have read evidence that AOA above 65deg including yaw rates of 15-30deg was possible during initial Hornet production plane tests (Hornet 6 at that) in the book by Mike Spick " Modern Fighting Aircraft F/A-18 ".
The data quoted was right from the test programme. It was also said that after a very rare departure incident the entire AOA to stall regime was tested and the Hornet was found to be literally stall free up to very high AOA numbers.
-
Darn, meant this quote by Mav-jp rather:
“and by the way is only active above 30deg AOA which is not possible without a flat stall anyway”.
Sorry for confusion.
-
Video is uploaded:
-
Is this a new version or the original from post #1?
-
-
Fun comparison well done……thought the FA-18 was firing a F-16 shaped cruise missile on the climb tests.
-
To ensure my understanding, the 18s paddle switch enables a higher g limit, vs the 16s, which simply overrides ap?
but i prefered to stick to the real
Btw this way of thinking is much appreciated.
Sent from my HTC331ZLVWPP using Tapatalk
-
To ensure my understanding, the 18s paddle switch enables a higher g limit, ….
I would not say ‘vs F16’. It’s nothing to do with the F16.
@F/A18C:
… An autopilot/nosewheel steering disengage switch (paddle switch) is mounted below the stick grip …
… The g limiter may be overridden by momentarily pressing the paddle switch with the control stick
near full aft. Command limit g is then increased by 33%. A G-LIM OVRD caution is displayed and the
MASTER CAUTION light and tone come on. A code is stored in the nose wheelwell DDI when the g
limiter is overridden. Override is disengaged when the control stick is returned to near neutral. ….But, yes, the paddle switch in the F18 has different functionality than the paddle switch in the F16, which I think is what you mean.