Turn Performance
-
Where can I find more information on how to read the chart on page 2-3 of the Falcon 4.0 manual? Or can anyone here explain it more than what’s in the manual?
jc1
-
It’s an energy management diagram. It shows you degrees per second in turn rate depending on your mach, and load factor (G). It also shows the size of your radius, and where you’re at on the P curve.
-
Don’t look that one, check HFFM manual inside the doc folder.
-
First if you’re interested in such graphs you need to visit https://publicintelligence.net/hellenic-air-force-f-16cd-flight-manuals/ and get the -1-1 supplemental. Appendix A, mostly Part 8 but the other parts are interesting too.
There are a few ways of reading this particular type of chart depending on what you’re looking for but mostly you take a (turn rate, Mach) input combo and examine the outputs to learn about the performance in this condition. For example turn 12 deg per second, M0.7 you can expect:
~4.9G load factor
~3,500’ turn radius
~150 fps specific powerA lot of times you’re looking for maximums, minimums, sustained, peak, etc. “What’s my best sustained turn rate in these conditions?” Then you have to read the chart somewhat backward. Good challenges to practice using these charts is to manage to get M2.0+ or finding the minimum time to climb from 200 KIAS 10,000’ to 30,000’. Take a random load+GW setup and see what the sustained turn rate and radius is for MIL and MAX AB at a few altitudes and compare against ACMI. If you can do these things you’ll understand performance charts quite well.
It is fun to have two human pilots 200 KIAS at 15,000’ and have a race to 30,000’. The pilot who dives at the start will win
-
First if you’re interested in such graphs you need to visit https://publicintelligence.net/hellenic-air-force-f-16cd-flight-manuals/ and get the -1-1 supplemental. Appendix A, mostly Part 8 but the other parts are interesting too.
There are a few ways of reading this particular type of chart depending on what you’re looking for but mostly you take a (turn rate, Mach) input combo and examine the outputs to learn about the performance in this condition. For example turn 12 deg per second, M0.7 you can expect:
~4.9G load factor
~3,500’ turn radius
~150 fps specific powerA lot of times you’re looking for maximums, minimums, sustained, peak, etc. “What’s my best sustained turn rate in these conditions?” Then you have to read the chart somewhat backward. Good challenges to practice using these charts is to manage to get M2.0+ or finding the minimum time to climb from 200 KIAS 10,000’ to 30,000’. Take a random load+GW setup and see what the sustained turn rate and radius is for MIL and MAX AB at a few altitudes and compare against ACMI. If you can do these things you’ll understand performance charts quite well.
It is fun to have two human pilots 200 KIAS at 15,000’ and have a race to 30,000’. The pilot who dives at the start will win
Never use ACMIs to monitore AC performance because ACMI use interpolation and very simplified computation that can not give you correct parameters
-
Never use ACMIs to monitore AC performance because ACMI use interpolation and very simplified computation that can not give you correct parameters
Talking of which, i hope sooo much that you can little bit improve the ingame one - and if possible add AoA and current GW PLEASE. (if possible)
S!
-
Don’t look that one, check HFFM manual inside the doc folder.
I thought the included HFFM manual was outdated (talk about NASA data instead of Lockheed’s FLCS). Is the turn performance still valid in 4.32?
-
I thought the included HFFM manual was outdated (talk about NASA data instead of Lockheed’s FLCS). Is the turn performance still valid in 4.32?
2d performances (turn rates , Ps…) are still valid of course
-
It’s an energy management diagram. It shows you degrees per second in turn rate depending on your mach, and load factor (G). It also shows the size of your radius, and where you’re at on the P curve.
The first responder, KidVicious got my fuzzy head cleared up when he made it clear that the Falcon 4.0 manual was referring to “G”, not “C” as I kept asking myself–-what in the world does “C” stand for.
…check HFFM manual…
I found HFFM full of interesting history and other stuff about Falcon, including the turning charts at the end for armed Falcons.
First if you’re interested in such graphs you need to visit https://publicintelligence.net/hellenic-air-force-f-16cd-flight-manuals/ and get the -1-1 supplemental. Appendix A, mostly Part 8 but the other parts are interesting too…
Yep. Interesting. The description on pages A8-4 and A8-5 really helped me a lot to understand how to read the turning charts, especially after KidVicious made clear that it was “G” not “C”. Some other days I will read all the other stuff.
2d performances (turn rates , Ps…) are still valid of course
I saw that you had a hand in writing the HFFM that Amraam recommended to me. Thanks for helping make Falcon BMS what it is.
Glad to have all your responses.
jc1 -
Never use ACMIs to monitore AC performance because ACMI use interpolation and very simplified computation that can not give you correct parameters
There isn’t another tool that allows for more accurate telemetry feedback. I’d recommend continuing to use it, as the ACMI does give enough telemetry to make comparisons to the EM diagrams in the HFFM; it just doesn’t give enough data at its current state of development. This, coupled with recorded cockpit video does pretty well to measure a/c performance, although better data from the in game ACMI would be great as well.
-
An ACMI player that gives height AGL would be nice too.
-
There isn’t another tool that allows for more accurate telemetry feedback. I’d recommend continuing to use it, as the ACMI does give enough telemetry to make comparisons to the EM diagrams in the HFFM; it just doesn’t give enough data at its current state of development. This, coupled with recorded cockpit video does pretty well to measure a/c performance, although better data from the in game ACMI would be great as well.
Sorry to say that you can not compate em charts with acmis…only the in game live action (by monitoring gs and mach) can allow you to check the EM charts
Basically , dynamic effects left aside, the HFFM EM charts are perfectly matched in game
Forget acmi once for all , error of 》100% can be seen in acmis
-
In my case I was thinking of comparing radius of turn. I don’t even know if VHS/ACMI even shows turn radius in F4.
I know you are trying to nip in the bud anyone saying “Hey man I tried X situation and your chart is wrong” (because of bad review tools) but I was trying to get someone excited to try comparing performance charts to sim output. Yes the review tools aren’t perfect but I still want people to feel the charts mean real things and to play with it themselves. That’s all.
-
Sorry to say that you can not compate em charts with acmis…only the in game live action (by monitoring gs and mach) can allow you to check the EM charts
Basically , dynamic effects left aside, the HFFM EM charts are perfectly matched in game
Forget acmi once for all , error of 》100% can be seen in acmis
I think perhaps if one would try to utilize it purely for comparisons to the EM diagrams it doesn’t do as well because of what I was saying earlier, inadequate telemetry. Although I still find it a useful tool because of the telemetry that it does provide matches my in game performance of the aircraft within a reasonable degree, but not satisfactory to an engineer’s standards that’s for certain. It just doesn’t provide enough resources I suppose.
Nonetheless, a better or improved one would be useful for such things.
-
Well acmi indicates oftenly fake peaks like 10gs or more….
I think the first thing is to offer the possibility to reduce time steps… and maybe to record directly Gs is acmi files
At the moment only speeds are sampled then a simplified calculation is used to get Gs during acmi playing…
-
Well acmi indicates oftenly fake peaks like 10gs or more….
I think the first thing is to offer the possibility to reduce time steps… and maybe to record directly Gs is acmi files
At the moment only speeds are sampled then a simplified calculation is used to get Gs during acmi playing…
- The “correct” source-data (shown in cockpit instruments: Speed in CAS AND! Mach, AoA, Gs, Altitute, Heading, VS) is ALREDAY INSIDE the game and thus extract-able via memory-export (see cockpit-builders and related apps ie.).
- If it would be possible to extract or use the data from there instead as relyable source and integrate it into the recording (with good interpolation or timing)… then it would be phantastic.
- Additional crucial telemetry, like Turnradius and Turnrate etc., which is NOT available in the cockpit or in sim can be derived (calculated) from that aswell.
Probably a “bit” of coding work, but do you think this approach is do-able?
-
@A.S:
- The “correct” source-data (shown in cockpit instruments: Speed in CAS AND! Mach, AoA, Gs, Altitute, Heading, VS) is ALREDAY INSIDE the game and thus extract-able via memory-export (see cockpit-builders and related apps ie.).
- If it would be possible to extract or use the data from there instead as relyable source and integrate it into the recording (with good interpolation or timing)… then it would be phantastic.
- Additional crucial telemetry, like Turnradius and Turnrate etc., which is NOT available in the cockpit or in sim can be derived (calculated) from that aswell.
Probably a “bit” of coding work, but do you think this approach is do-able?
this is exactly what i suggested when i wrote “maybe to record directly Gs is acmi files”
of course it implies some coding but no big deal , this is just a value from airframe pointer
and of course it will make the old ACMI not readable anymore …
-
-
this is exactly what i suggested when i wrote “maybe to record directly Gs is acmi files”
of course it implies some coding but no big deal , this is just a value from airframe pointer
and of course it will make the old ACMI not readable anymore …
However, IF you really accomplish that i will send you a great bottle of vine - as promised and as a personal little “thank you”
Seriously, because THIS is very important for me personally and most likely for many others aswell. -
@A.S:
However, IF you really accomplish that i will send you a great bottle of vine - as promised and as a personal little “thank you”
Seriously, because THIS is very important for me personally and most likely for many others aswell.LOL you realize that his is a 10minutes job on the code right ?
I personnaly enjoy Burgundies, Pommard in particular
