Could you explain further how wing loading and TWR changes required AoA for the same amount of lift between two designs with dissimilar wings and canards vs tail? Especially without knowing the instability qualities of one of the designs?
One of the features of the F-16, being a design with a margin of static instability is the fact that the elevators are able to help produce lift (reducing wing size).
I can’t mention the stealth but you can mention dogfight performance as a metric for comparing if they are Germany’s best fighter jets or not?
So to end this here:
The hardware can carry missiles on the centre and inner wing pylon, the electronics support it too, the pylons are wired to support it.
So technically it can carry them.
IRL they do not because clearing those pylons for carriage, firing and jettisoning costs money.
Due to it being technically possible it should be like this in game.
There is no evidence to suggest AHDERU is missile capable, so that’s your first issue.
there is.
its got 14" space lugs and the same electrical interface as ALDERUs
no mention of weapon capability per the manual.
only the ALDERU, and the OWP are mentioned as having missile capability, this is backed up by us never seeing missiles on those pylons
because that preceise information is classified.
again, this is not a hardware limitation(be it the mechanical interface or wiring), its a cost thing.
AHDERU can carry everything ALDERU can carry in addition to things that need the 30" lug spacing/weight up to 2000lbs
also are you looking at FM-J-150-A-0002?
Wing loading is the total mass of an aircraft divided by the surface area of its wing. Aircrafts with lower wing loading produce more lift per unit of weight than aircrafts with higher wing loading at any speed. As lift increase with AoA, at equivalent speeds, a lower eing loading requires less AoA for equivalent lift. Thats basic aerodynamics
As for TWR, it does not effect required AoA, but offsets induced drag from turns. Low wing loading typically suffers from increased induced drag as well.
Aircrafts with low wing loading typically have better sustained turn performance over aircrafts with higher wing loading. In the case of the F-16 vs Eurofighter, this is corroborated by the fact that the EF2000 is stated to outperform the F-16 in sustained turn rate.
Static instability is far from being unique to the F-16 and is common across most modern fighters, with all eurocanards being unstable designs as well. Not only that, but the actual concept of canards provide lift as a default, instead of the downforce of conventional elevators, aiding the wing. Its one of the reason why eurocanards have better L/D ratios than convwntional tailed designs, and also one of the reasons why they supercruise so well.
I did not bring up dogfighting performance. I simply said the Eurofighters flight performance exceeds that of the F-35, which, need I remind you, was a valid answer to the question:
You asked for information regarding the Eurofighters comparative advantage over the F-16, which I provided in the form of a discussion by Eurofighter pilots regarding the comparative advantages of the plane against other common aircrafts, one of which was the F-16.
I also will reiterate that the reason I said you bringing atealth into the argument of flight performance was a strawman was that STEALTH HAS NO EFFECT ON FLIGHT PERFORMANCE. It is a tactical advantage of the aircraft, and although valid in debating which aircraft would have what advantage in a given scenario, has no bearing on an argument regarding raw flight performance.
I’ll ALSO point out, once again since you seem to struggle with reading comprehension, that I had never stated the Eurofighter was a better aircraft than the F-35, and had already indicated that the F-35’s stealth and avionics likely gave it a sizeable edge in BVR performance against the EF2000. I had simply stated that the Eurofighter has it beat in flight performance, which you seem to have taken offence to for some reason.🙄
yep
do please explain how no EFT has been seen with missiles on the inner and centre pylons, not even flight tested.
necessity and $$$$$
thats for a development aircraft btw…
identical to the trainer from what i can see, so point is meaningless
Aircrafts with low wing loading typically have better sustained turn performance over aircrafts with higher wing loading. In the case of the F-16 vs Eurofighter, this is corroborated by the fact that the EF2000 is stated to outperform the F-16 in sustained turn rate.
I’m not going to debate whether the Eurofighter outperforms something originally designed in the early 70s, rather I’d point to the fact that the aircraft with lowest wing loadings in war thunder tend to have some of the worst sustained turn rates. Some examples:
Sustained turn rate testing chart.
War Thunder wiki for stated wing loadings.
Asterisk indicates calculated wing loading using wiki for loading and war thunder wiki for max fuel weight.
30 minutes (or max) fuel loads for sustained turn rate
Turn rate at 300 knots, (peak turn rate)
Mirage IIIC
Wing loading: 258 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 13.59 deg/s (peak)
Mirage 2000C-S5
Wing loading: 268 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 15.45 deg/s (peak)
F-14A
Wing loading: 493 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 19.5 deg/s (23.5 deg/s)
F-16ADF
Wing loading: 400 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 17.29 deg/s (19.14 deg/s)
MiG-29
Wing loading: 375 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 17.66 deg/s (19.42 deg/s)
MiG-23MLD
Wing loading: 374 - 422 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 17.29 deg/s (19.38 deg/s)
Tornado F.3
Wing loading: 742 kg/m²
Sustained rate: 12.47 deg/s (18.16 deg/s)
Can you explain why the aircraft with lower wing loadings tend to have lower sustained turn rates then? Is this an error?
The F-16’s instability allows the elevons (elevators, whatever you wanna call them idc) to create lift as well. Instead of holding AoA to keep nose level they have negative trim to keep from having nose-pitching moments at very low airspeeds. At maneuvering speeds they are providing additional lift. (It doesn’t need as big of wings due to this as well).
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/844671240605138954/1120892156815609876/3-s2.png
its not. its got extra buttons in the cockpit for testing and stuff like that. its a development aircraft after all.
yes, the F-14 is wayyyy to high
i meant the manual
not even those are the same. DA7 has ALDERUs on the inner pylons, Italian Trainer has AHDERUs
What height is this at?
This is supposedly from an Indian MRCA
I found it in another forum so i dont know the real source.
