f16 F-16 Fighting Falcon: History, Performance & Discussion

[ÖL 612]

would be really nice with a 9g limit, it would make the energy retention really good, low speed manouverability would still be insane since its not high G

[RideR2 5,039]

1 hour ago, Flame2512 said:

Gaijin multiply the flight manual structural limits by 1.5x. But that is not what he is referring to. The F-16's fly by wire system would restrict control surface movements, to prevent the aircraft ever pulling more than 9G. If the F-16 this modelled properly it should be physically impossible to pull more than 9G, regards of the structural limits.

Honestly if they won't model it in SB properly then I'm going to report it ASAP.

But it will be fun to see the F-16 pulling 11-14G lmao.

 

About the G limit:

Spoiler

 

Edited October 16, 2022 by RideR2

[Valqyrie 1,802]

1 hour ago, zzoega said:

would be really nice with a 9g limit, it would make the energy retention really good, low speed manouverability would still be insane since its not high G

You'd be unable to pull lead on many targets, especially at higher speeds. It's not really that good if it's strictly limited to 9G by software. In the other hand you can pull slowly yourself, thus keeping your energy high.

[ÖL 612]

7 minutes ago, Valqyrie said:

You'd be unable to pull lead on many targets, especially at higher speeds. It's not really that good if it's strictly limited to 9G by software. In the other hand you can pull slowly yourself, thus keeping your energy high.

no, 9g is still pretty good even in high speeds. i manually keep my turns in 9g with the kfir. works really good and keeps the speed very high. running circles around mig 23s that are just max turning losing all speed. id actually be happy if the kfir had fly by wire

Edited October 16, 2022 by zzoega

[Valqyrie 1,802]

6 minutes ago, zzoega said:

no, 9g is still pretty good even in high speeds. i manually keep my turns in 9g with the kfir. works really good and keeps the speed very high. running circles around mig 23s that are just max turning losing all speed. id actually be happy if the kfir had fly by wire

 

14 minutes ago, Valqyrie said:

In the other hand you can pull slowly yourself, thus keeping your energy high.

Exactly what I said. Having extra AoA capability never hurts when you need it.

[ÖL 612]

it hurts if it breaks your wings, kind of like how the kfir breaks if you do 10g+ over mach 1

 

id rather have a fbw and just not worrying about wings breaking. but thats my preference from my experience

[Gatsby_WT 134]

1 hour ago, Valqyrie said:

You'd be unable to pull lead on many targets, especially at higher speeds. It's not really that good if it's strictly limited to 9G by software. In the other hand you can pull slowly yourself, thus keeping your energy high.

I agree, we will have to see but if we get F-16 with written flight model where energy management is top notch, we might see F-16s in match going in fast and then missing by a mile because their air brake is too weak to slow them down quickly enough.

[Cpt_Bel_V 4,771]

20 minutes ago, PhantomRiderWT said:

I agree, we will have to see but if we get F-16 with written flight model where energy management is top notch, we might see F-16s in match going in fast and then missing by a mile because their air brake is too weak to slow them down quickly enough.

Then they will adapt, going up and coming back like a boomerang ^^".

[Leon026 111]

Which block was AIM-7 capable again?

[Valqyrie 1,802]

29 minutes ago, Leon026 said:

Which block was AIM-7 capable again?

Early C models (block 25) and ADFs (Block 15 iirc) were using Sparrows I believe.

[Leon026 111]

9 hours ago, Valqyrie said:

Early C models (block 25) and ADFs (Block 15 iirc) were using Sparrows I believe.

Secretly hoping that US will eventually get an F-16 with AIM-7 as a possible loadout option, and not just AIM9s.

[MacedonianSukhoi 615]

16 hours ago, RideR2 said:

Honestly if they won't model it in SB properly then I'm going to report it ASAP.

But it will be fun to see the F-16 pulling 11-14G lmao.

 

About the G limit:

Reveal hidden contents

At best you'll only have your 9G limiter modeled in the SAS mode. (Which is not the same as the FBW control input yes, considering it predates it)

On the other hand for your average air RB player I don't see what benefits Fly-By-Wire could provide for them considering their mouse controls and the instructor already performs 90% of the function Fly-By-Wire does if not better... With the sheer amount of micro corrections and stability it already provides.

Or even for SB players the "dampening mode" on the SAS almost provides most of the Fly-By-Wire functions and makes the flight of most aircraft insanely stable.

Hell the dampening mode itself in the files is actually labeled in the code as "Fly-By-Wire" by the game devs themselves.

 

Just considering how the game is not super high fidelity with it's Flight Models I just don't see the point FBW systems with how many of it's functionalities are modeled.

Most of the discussion around it just seems to revolve around shoehorning in a strict 9G limit.

[RideR2 5,039]

22 minutes ago, MacedonianSukhoi said:

At best you'll only have your 9G limiter modeled in the SAS mode. (Which is not the same as the FBW control input yes, considering it predates it)

On the other hand for your average air RB player I don't see what benefits Fly-By-Wire could provide for them considering their mouse controls and the instructor already performs 90% of the function Fly-By-Wire does if not better... With the sheer amount of micro corrections and stability it already provides.

Or even for SB players the "dampening mode" on the SAS almost provides most of the Fly-By-Wire functions and makes the flight of most aircraft insanely stable.

Hell the dampening mode itself in the files is actually labeled in the code as "Fly-By-Wire" by the game devs themselves.

 

Just considering how the game is not super high fidelity with it's Flight Models I just don't see the point FBW systems with how many of it's functionalities are modeled.

Most of the discussion around it just seems to revolve around shoehorning in a strict 9G limit.

Well yes, you are not wrong.

Tbh I couldn't care less about how it flies in RB, I play SB only and I hope they will remove the manual SAS mode from the FM (this code doesn't affect how the plane flies in RB).

Honestly they could just use the elevator locking up at high speed feature to model in RB.

Edited October 17, 2022 by RideR2

[The_Monolith 860]

13 hours ago, RideR2 said:

Well yes, you are not wrong.

Tbh I couldn't care less about how it flies in RB, I play SB only and I hope they will remove the manual SAS mode from the FM (this code doesn't affect how the plane flies in RB).

Honestly they could just use the elevator locking up at high speed feature to model in RB.

Honestly it wouldn't be a huge issue to model it in RB. It would be super easy to maintain energy. I'd rather have to option to toggle it in air RB though, considering everyone else can pull 14g when they would never do that IRL. 

[RideR2 5,039]

6 hours ago, The_Monolith said:

Honestly it wouldn't be a huge issue to model it in RB. It would be super easy to maintain energy.

The problem is that above 600 kts IAS at sea level it doesn't slow down when you pull it as much as it's possible while using WEP, it actually starts to accelerate while pulling 9G, at least it's like that in Falcon BMS (the best F-16 flight sim). People will be forced to slow down to 500 kts before any dogfight and get used to using the airbrake all the time.

Edited October 18, 2022 by RideR2

[ÖL 612]

oh no we have to turn off the afterburner? how will i learn this skill

Edited October 18, 2022 by zzoega

[_Yoschi_ 688]

45 minutes ago, zzoega said:

oh no we have to turn off the afterburner? how will i learn this skill

Ahahha good one.

So data miners find some cockpit details?? 

I can't wait for this F-16 Vs F-16 scenarios without IFF 

[Suizu_Aika 59]

Can't wait for F-16 but I know not in this update

[ÖL 612]

my guess is it will come in the december update. feels like that will be the big anniversary update.

[Suizu_Aika 59]

1 hour ago, zzoega said:

my guess is it will come in the december update. feels like that will be the big anniversary update.

Yeah and last update for this year to

[Suizu_Aika 59]

So the F-16 file is gone is it bad news?

[spacenavy90 1,399]

1 hour ago, Suizu_Aika said:

So the F-16 file is gone is it bad news?

 

No I don't believe so. Gaijin tries to keep things a secret, sometimes they have leaks (like with these texture files) and they attempt to seal those leaks by hiding them as they should've been in the first place (someone just forgot, there are lot of files with WT vehicles). But we all saw it already and we know its in the works.

I'm in the 'MiG-29 vs F-16' next update camp personally, along with a lot of other top tier focused changes.

[Shin_Kazama_ 188]

The F-16 has such a rich history to it
It looks cool (albeit a bit goofy ahh with that intake looking like a mouth), and I love it to death
Can't wait to see it in-game
Also your threads on these planes are really, really well put together and organized 

[Fireraid233 4,254]

Image below is of the J/APG-1 AESA radar the of the F-2, later in 2012~present day F-2 received many upgrades one being the change to J/APG-1--->J/APG-2 which is said to be a lot more powerful.

Edited November 15, 2022 by Fireraid233

[spacenavy90 1,399]

58 minutes ago, Fireraid233 said:

Image below is of the J/APG-1 AESA radar the of the F-2, later in 2012~present day F-2 received many upgrades one being the change to J/APG-1--->J/APG-2 which is said to be a lot more powerful.

 

Hey there Fireraid! AESA radars are gonna be like magic if/when they eventually come to the game.

That said I already had this radar listed out at the bottom of the Specs > Radars section.