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

[ÖL 604]

12 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

It didn't need a reply, it was obvious.

You don't know what you need, it's obvious

Edited March 3 by zzoega

[__Renzo__ 2,600]

21 minutes ago, MiG_23M said:

They have fixed the vast majority of other issues. There are a few that have gone unfixed over the years but I think you can expect changes. the F-16's high speed compression issue was fixed on the dev server and the MiG-29 got an overhaul. They are fixing things, they thought the FM was good to go when it came to live. They fix it as they get the info required.

 

It didn't need a reply, it was obvious.

And other stuff like the M60A1 mantlet were wrong/bugged for 5 years. So yes I prefer to stay in the realm of realistic expectations instead of fairy tales and blind trust. 

 

However I have no doubt that it will get fixed eventually. 

[RideR2 5,039]

6 minutes ago, __Renzo__ said:

And other stuff like the M60A1 mantlet were wrong/bugged for 5 years. So yes I prefer to stay in the realm of realistic expectations instead of fairy tales and blind trust. 

 

However I have no doubt that it will get fixed eventually. 

Well, the F-16 is one of the most well documented planes and creating a proper FM shouldn't be an issue and all that info is not even classified:

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800005879/downloads/19800005879.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19930022544/downloads/19930022544.pdf

There's literally more info about it than for example about the P-47 from WW2.

 

I bet there are more documents like that.

Just check

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=F-16

 

It's just Gaijin being Gaijin.

Edited March 3 by RideR2

[MiG_23M 1,606]

2 minutes ago, __Renzo__ said:

And other stuff like the M60A1 mantlet were wrong/bugged for 5 years. So yes I prefer to stay in the realm of realistic expectations instead of fairy tales and blind trust. 

 

However I have no doubt that it will get fixed eventually. 

I think if you delved further into why it may have gone unfixed for 5 years you could reasonably understand the issues. Gaijin is working very hard to pump out content for the game. Fixing bugs and studying documents to understand and fix those issues takes a lot of time away from them. As an example, the AIM-9L had incorrect field of view and track rate. Due to their priority of fixing bugs and adding new content to the game.. it was sidelined for nearly a year.

[ACOMETS 964]

On 03/03/2023 at 14:06, MiG_23M said:

I think if you delved further into why it may have gone unfixed for 5 years you could reasonably understand the issues. Gaijin is working very hard to pump out content for the game. Fixing bugs and studying documents to understand and fix those issues takes a lot of time away from them. As an example, the AIM-9L had incorrect field of view and track rate. Due to their priority of fixing bugs and adding new content to the game.. it was sidelined for nearly a year.

it is wanted or unwanted bias , @_David_Bowie_ do you know the dev team? is it true that majority are old soviet state nationalities? 

they mostly are not aware of western designs and they mostly know Soviet stuff, so they mostly try to fix the bugs they know and then they search for bugreports for materials , that is why things like 90mm APHE lacks 90grams of filler or ADATS is limited to 59 degrees of elevation . we don't have such bugs for soviet stuff ,everything is fine there.

as for the F-16, they are probably saying that they don't have a guy who knows how to properly model it and they have less guys dedicated to it

[GiGAfuzz073 2]

On 22/12/2022 at 23:33, Draco_Argentum said:

 

If you wanna be historical that Phantom pilot should be unconscious at 12.75G. Gaijin made the choice to allow pilots to withstand crazy G levels. That means FBW planes should be allowed to pull similarly crazy G levels. Or the reverse, make pilots the limiting factor. The hybrid we currently have where FBW is a disadvantage is dumb and should be changed.

Why are you talking about g forces and realism you dont even play realistic battles.

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

Just a few question, might be stupid, but why the american F16s lack a gun funnel? I'm happy that they finally made the HUD lead indicators a thing, but not having the funnel, really makes it harder to set up a kill. Was this a later block modification? Also why did they give the F-16ADF the AN/APG-66(V1) instead of the V2? Wasn't this plane fielded with that? Also why no targeting pod on the F16s?(F4E should have it a long time ago but still missing it, but for the F16 missing it as well is weird.) I'm fine without a LGB(i'm really not) but finding targets way inside the kill zone(GBUs camera view) is just stupid. Also you can't see GBU and AGM65 lock on the HUD(like on the A10), so you have to use the bomb mode on the HUD(by bringing any dumb bomb, because GBUs are not giving you the CCRP marker) to have some kind of orientation where you should go after locking( which is another bug/problem that the view loses the "lock" or direction you positioned it even with sight stab, as you don't have a TGP).

[tripod2008 566]

14 hours ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

why did they give the F-16ADF the AN/APG-66(V1) instead of the V2? Wasn't this plane fielded with that?

The -66(V)2 is a much later refit, the plans for the -ADF were drawn up much earlier(requirements drawn up in 1984) and remanufacture of Block -15 airframes began in 1989 running though 1992, comparatively the -MLU upgrade which deployed the "-66(V)2" radar sets only began manufacture in 1995 (development started 1991) and is effectively still ongoing.

 

14 hours ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

Also why no targeting pod on the F16s

Apart from YF-16A #2, which tested the ATLIS II pod, chronologically the first the production block to see this implemented was the Block -40/42 (1989) aircraft with the LANTIRN pod(s), though there were some earlier client state's airframes refitted with the MLU upgrade package later on, it was generally surplus to requirement as CAS missions was handled by the A-7 / AV-8 / A-10 / F-16 and the ground based forces would have their own designator and so mark targets to be struck, so all that was needed was to carry the bombs to the target area.

 

The Strike / Interdiction mission profile(s) is where Self-Designation would be needed and as such was was handled by the F-4E / -G, Late F-111, and F-15E, A-6, AV-8B(NA), F/A-18, Late F-14, not the F-16.

 

 

 

Edited March 8 by tripod2008

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

24 minutes ago, tripod2008 said:

Apart from YF-16A #2, which tested the ATLIS II pod, chronologically the first the production block to see this implemented was the Block -40/42 (1989) aircraft with the LANTIRN pod(s), though there were some earlier client state's airframes refitted with the MLU upgrade package later on, it was generally surplus to requirement as CAS missions was handled by the A-7 / AV-8 / A-10 / F-16 and the ground based forces would have their own designator and so mark targets to be struck, so all that was needed was to carry the bombs to the target area.

 

The Strike / Interdiction mission profile(s) is where Self-Designation would be needed and as such was was handled by the F-4E / -G, Late F-111, and F-15E, A-6, AV-8B(NA), F/A-18, Late F-14, not the F-16.

 

 

 

As we know, lasing/marking by land units is not supported in the game, and I doubt it would ever be a thing, so self-designation is a must, and given the non-existing/prototype planes we have(F16AJ, YAK141) I don't see why US shouldn't get a targeting pod, if it was tested.

[tripod2008 566]

17 minutes ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

I don't see why US shouldn't get a targeting pod, if it was tested.

its not me you have to convince.  The likely reason why LGBs had been missing for the six updates between Direct Hit when they were first added and Apex Predators , was so the A-6E could be sold to fill a deliberately manufactured gap, and its obvious now that it pushed the F-4S's addition back an update to allow Gaijin double dip on Tier Six US premiums for little to no effort.

 

There are existing options for LGB addition to the US tree without needing to reach for trials equipment, one is the F-4E which sits at 11.0, with either the Pave Spike or Pave Tack (has a thermal channel capability and better zoom vs the Pave Spike, though is fitted to the Wing station and causes a lot more drag) designators and assorted Paveway I & II series bombs, The A-10A Late with the LITENING II, a copy paste AV-8B(NA) which exists in all but name as both the Aircraft (Harrier GR.7) and the TGP (LITENING II, found on the German Tornado IDS) exist in game, and the Reskins; to make up later TGP carrying variants comprising the A-6E SWIP,  A-10C, F-14B/-D among a few others.

 

 

As Gaijin seem quite hesitant it seems likely that the F-111 or a tech tree A-6E will be the most likely TGP equipt aircraft to see addition if things go the way I am expecting them to. the likely reason they are avoiding a Multirole F-16 block is that there would be no other reason to use anything else at that point so they are getting other additions out of the way, additionally they are probably going to go the way they have previously and split the A2A and A2G capabilities arbitrarily (See F-16A-15ADF & F-16A-10 split) across two airframes to keep things balanced

Edited March 8 by tripod2008

[RideR2 5,039]

14 hours ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

Also why did they give the F-16ADF the AN/APG-66(V1) instead of the V2?

It doesn't matter anyway, we have AN/APG-66,  AN/APG-66J,  AN/APG-66 V1 and V3 and all of them use the same code.

They even just copy/pasted the APG-66 code to the Kurnas 2000 radar.

[AUSChalkWarrior 261]

has the flight model been fixed with the most recent update?

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

11 hours ago, AUSChalkWarrior said:

has the flight model been fixed with the most recent update?

Short answer: no

 

Long: they changed some envelopes but its still not how it should be, warthunders FBW is still borked

[MiG_23M 1,606]

1 hour ago, NanoCyb0rg said:

Short answer: no

 

Long: they changed some envelopes but its still not how it should be, warthunders FBW is still borked

12 hours ago, AUSChalkWarrior said:

has the flight model been fixed with the most recent update?

Yes it can no longer sustain 14+G in a turn when abusing the elevator trim pitch controls. It can pull significantly better at higher altitudes, but does not "sustain" enough energy at altitude still. There is more work to be done, but it is a lot better than before.

[Sagetactics101 2]

If you guys didn't know, it seems Gaijin will be using block numbers now. According to the datamine that is. https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/11m7hsn/datamine_224024_22508_part_4/

 

 

 

 

Edited March 9 by Sagetactics101

[MiG_23M 1,606]

6 minutes ago, Sagetactics101 said:

If you guys didn't know, it seems Gaijin will be using block numbers now. According to the datamine that is. https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/11m7hsn/datamine_224024_22508_part_4/

 

 

 

 

Block names were already in place for the file names, but it just says so in the stat card now as well. This is not surprising, but also a pleasant and small change.

[NanoCyb0rg 41]

9 hours ago, MiG_23M said:

Yes it can no longer sustain 14+G in a turn when abusing the elevator trim pitch controls. It can pull significantly better at higher altitudes, but does not "sustain" enough energy at altitude still. There is more work to be done, but it is a lot better than before.

Yes, the trim xxxx was such a stupid mechanic.

 

Also it still can't pull hard enough now even at low alts above 500knots, or 0.9 mach. You just can't pull into the red/green AoA bracket, thus you can't decclerate fast enough, yet below 350knots it feels like you lose a lot of energy. So you can't really rate fight because you lose too much energy because of the drag(i think). Also the its funny that a plane with FBW has more instability at low speeds than a MiG-21, that doesn't even have any SAS augmentation in game.

 

[Grimtax 87]

Anyone know what the actual roll stability limit of AN/APG-66 is IRL? Currently in-game it is only 70°, compared to 90° of the MiG-29 (should be 120°).

I tried to find it in the TO CI1F-16AM-34-1-1 (Block 10/15 FACH MLU manual), but I couldn't.

Though I found this video, where you can see both the radar in RWS and the HUD in real time (27:10). You can see that the radar scans targets while even in 90° bank. However, I can't determine if it is actually continuing to scan the same space (like when in game you roll past the limit, it will continue to scan, but the zone will be tilted).

 

You can also see that the radar screen moves the targets in azimuth according to the aircrafts movement (kind of how dots move when in TWS), but here it is in RWS.

I reported the scan speed being too high, now I'm trying to compile a report on the roll stability limit being too low and the moving dots on radar.

Any help will be appreciated.

 

Edited March 10 by Grimtax

[Grimtax 87]

Found some mildly interesting info on the AN/APG-66:

 

Some discrepancies with in-game performance:

1. Scan rate is much lower than what we have in-game (120°/s in game compared to 62°/s IRL).
2. Here it is listed that the beam width is 3.2° in azimuth and 4.8° in elevation. What we have in game is 3.5° symmetric, if I'm interpreting "angleHalfSens": 3.5 correctly.

 

 

Source:

Spoiler

 

[falconlegacy266 2]

On 24/02/2023 at 15:05, MiG_23M said:

Fun fact: The F-16 is receiving a FM update in the next major.

Thanks for the update on this.

[ÖL 604]

I guess we will get the f16C before the f16a tail gets corrected

[tripod2008 566]

Found a few nice documents relating to the F-16

 

A pretty cool rundown of possible HMMCS setups for the F-16:

https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA062758/mode/2up

Supersonic drag curves for the F-16C & -XL, in various configs:

https://archive.org/details/NASA_NTRS_Archive_19930022544/mode/2up

Edited April 5 by tripod2008

[_Yoschi_ 688]

F-16A it's a beast. Can sustain 10g turn above 1000 IAS. Energy loss in turn it's beyond. Gajin need prolong G lock and G lock recovery or change trim mechanic. MiG 29 don't have any chances in Flight performance. This thing can catch it's own tail in turn.  

 

Edit:

Its doing sustain turn 22.5 Deg per sec at 1000m witch 20 min fuel and two AIM9... Can do 24 deg/s witch -30 m/s descend. Actually turn better than Spotfire lol... 

Edited April 7 by _Yoschi_

[CmdrVince 341]

15 hours ago, _Yoschi_ said:

F-16A it's a beast. Can sustain 10g turn above 1000 IAS.

Now I don't know terribly much about the G-limits/G-limiter on Modern Airplanes, so this is a little bit of a stupid question, but. Its genuine.

Isn't that impossible? Doesn't the F-16A have the 9G limit so that their isn't too much stress on the airframe?

[Valqyrie 1,802]

1 hour ago, CmdrVince said:

Now I don't know terribly much about the G-limits/G-limiter on Modern Airplanes, so this is a little bit of a stupid question, but. Its genuine.

Isn't that impossible? Doesn't the F-16A have the 9G limit so that their isn't too much stress on the airframe?

F-16 is limited at 9g by FBW but it is possible to pull a bit more than that, at the very least momentarily.