F-15 won’t, but the way they are modeling these… if they are consistent… would mean the Su-27 should just be doing Cobra everywhere with no loss of control at any AoA… lol
To my knowledge the MPO switch is still there in F-16C Block 50, and Deep Stall is still a real threat, caused by a loss of pitch-down moment at around 55-60 deg AOA. Pitch-rocking technique is still used in those aircraft to recover from a deep stall. The increased area of the stabs helps with pitch-down moment a bit but that’s it.
Examples of deep stall in later block F-16s (which you can tell by the numeric airspeed and altitude display on HUD) and pitch-rocking technique:
Well, according to the devs the block 15+ is fully stable which boggles my mind that they’d come to this conclusion.
Well I question the source when he says the F-16 with larger stabs has positive stability margin at any AOA.
Need more sources if you don’t mind finding / sharing some in DMs perhaps we can work on the issue together later today.
I was thinking, before we should strive to give more evidences in order to show the flight characteristics are wrong, one definite thing that the devs must implement and is unique to the F-16 is DEEP STALL.
If we see deep stall implementation in game, then we can talk about how a larger stab can help to reduce the possibility of getting into one.
Before I’m seeing any form of deep stall in the F-16, talking about the enlarged stabilizer sounds useless to me, as the flight model hasn’t reached enough fidelity so as to show the key differences.
Don’t you agree Mr. Bowie? @_David_Bowie
There doesn’t seem to be any stalling for F-16. Just slowing down to the point of zero airspeed so that it can’t maintain nose-up attitude, even so it has full control to point it anywhere with no loss of rudder / roll control and no pitch departure qualities of any kind.
F100s also did superstall/deepstall
Actually, they named it the sabre dance
I don’t know if they do it in full-real, but mouse aim instructor won’t let you stall anything.
[NSFL, plane crash]
2 Likes
I think my issue is how much better it flys in sim than airrb
I hated how F-16 felt before since i primarily play air RB and in sim it was a complete monster
1 Like
It’s as simple as modeling the loss of pitch-down effectiveness above 25 deg AOA, and also the strong instability (strong negative static margin) around 40-50 deg AOA, which will all contribute to pitch departures.
If they dare to recreate the Cm curve as is, then a Deep Stall is bound to happen as there’s an AOA region where the full pitch-down stabs still produce pitch-up moment (positive Cm).
A larger stab would help reduce the said AOA region a bit, but would not eliminate it, as the aircraft is still possible to get into a deep stall. As for the strong negative static margin at around 40-50 deg AOA, I don’t think a larger stab has the magic to change it to positive value either.
Maybe @InterFleet should check this still.
Guys, I need your help. I’m compiling a bug report on the AN/APG-66 and AN/APG-68 having the wrong ACM max lock range (is 5 NM, should be 10 NM).
So far (from what can be shared here) I have found:
- a Westinghouse brochure on the AN/APG-66 stating 10 NM for ACM max range (primary source). There is a similar one for the AN/APG-68, but it has no info on the ACM
- a Chinese booklet mentioning AN/APG-68 having 10 NM for ACM max range (secondary source)
- a cockpit recording of an F-16C. At 15:26 and 21:50 you can briefly see the radar screen indicate ACM (top-left) with the range scale (mid-left) set to 10 NM with no arrows above and below, meaning that it is the only choice for range.
- a Tenessee research paper that gives a brief description of ACM on page 51 of the PDF. It does not have the max range there, but at least the other values match other sources.
There is definitely enough information for the AN/APG-66 to get a 10 NM (~19 km) ACM, thanks to the Westinghouse Brochure. There is a good amount of info on the AN/APG-68, but not quite enough for it to fully satisfy the bug reporting requirements.
Does anyone have any other sources on the AN/APG-68’s ACM?
2 Likes
You can do this in several fighters in full real this is nothing special and GJ knows this. Have you seen what the C.7 can do ? ungodly maneuvers.
That was a cool vid!
There’s CJ-34-1-1 (APG-68) which explicitly says the max acquisition range is automatically set to 10nm, but I guess we cannot use it as a source.
Is that the same @_David_Bowie You said is biased against the USSR ?
As for what “they” think. GJ knows what works for their game and what does not. You should trust they know what they are doing.
Ye, that is why I said “can be shared here” lol
Honestly im jealous
The F-16 flys nothing like that in air RB
1 Like
@iso_gate could take a look at what you’re saying. They claim it would brick mouse aiming but they’ve claimed that before and later just fixed it anyway.
They also said this wild piece of info…
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/955829235493273680/1160094565450129468/image.png?ex=65336941&is=6520f441&hm=b58e9dafd4b1b46f41207fcd064e648167b63697a1371091d873f1773743046d&
15,000ft EM comparison of F-16A and F-16CG with both of them equipped with pw220, from the Basic Employment Manual for RoKAF F-16C, unclassified and no distribution restrictions:
3 Likes
I wonder why F-16C have speed limit for GBU that you can’t drop above mach 1 other such as F-14B don’t have any problem drop GBU from above mach 1 it wired that something that need speed and altitude to be effective can’t drop above mach 1.