@MAV_GAS The F-16 FM changes now allow it to pull nearly 70 degrees of high alpha on a wim
It also now only develops spin tendencies if you sustain 35-40 degrees AoA for a significant portion of time in a pitch-up scenario. It is perfectly capable of sitting at or around 31-34 degrees doing a full loop at low speed with no departure qualities… this is with 20 minutes in-game fuel and 2x AIM-9J on the wing tips.
I just don’t understand how the high alpha of the F-16 is superior to the MiG-29 and features far less departure qualities… much higher resistance to wing rock and un-commanded yaw despite having only a single rudder.
@Giovanex05 Does that make sense to you? Aircraft with limited ability to recover from AoA excursions due to small elevator and single rudder outperforms the MiG-29 known for it’s post-stall recovery and high alpha?
I wish HMD for F-16 worked in 3rd person view in RB. :( I really need to get into sim world…
Anyway, is this implemented only in HUD?
A calculation and display of a launch range against a maneuvering target has been implemented. The list of missiles that have had the display of launch range against a maneuvering target added includes: R-27R, R-27T, R-27ER, R-27ET, R-60, R-60M, R-73, AIM-7F, AIM-7M, AIM-9L, AIM-9M.
Pretty sure the next line states it only replaces the existing 1G maneuvering range for specific radars, and amounts to those equipt on; some random Russian planes, the F-14(AWG-9), F-16(APG-66 & -68), AV-8B+(APG-65Q) and late M2K’s
Sure but I’d like know, where do I look for that information. Is it some sort of launch authorization that’s only visible in HUD or HMD or is it possible to use that implementation in 3rd person view in air RB?
I looked into air rb, instructor also pulls more AoA now, in horizontal turns sometimes as high as 24.6 degrees AoA, not passed the AoA limiter but it still very easily surpasses 25 degrees if you input a little yaw and roll. As a result ITR is a fair bit better now (already was cracked lol but ok) energy retention under 850ish is a bit worse but I’d say it more than makes up for it
Did not make sense before the update and does not make any sense now… I also don’t know if I should make a new bug report about the rate, as while the old one is still there and valid (tested F-16A rate in the same configuration and the difference was 0.1 deg/sec in favour of the older model, which is well with in the test error), it has also been almost 2 weeks since I made it and it wasn’t even acknowledged.
Making a new report sounds like a good idea, but i think they are intentionally going to hold the current f16 till the addition of new stuff, there’s absolute no reason to not change it’s FM after all the proofs and tests made by the community.
Both static and dynamic directional stability would come to their lowest at 35 deg AOA, which means the most yaw departure susceptibility. Any sideslip developed (induced by adverse yaw, kinematic coupling, etc.) at such an AOA would just increase rapidly and went out of control. That’s why the irl FLCS incorporates a Yaw Rate Limiter which overrides pilot control above 29 deg AOA (or 35 deg AOA for DFLCS equipped with sideslip feedback) and automatically deflect both aileron and rudder to kill yaw rate.
Static directional stability is already at neutral between 25-30 deg AOA. Any sideslip developed would increase steadily. Stabilizer effectiveness would also be reduced with increasing sideslip, to a point where the stabilizer would no longer suppress the pitch-up tendency due to the decrease of pitch-down effectiveness and also inertia coupling during the rolling and yawing motion.
@iso_gate So why was available AoA increased during this major patch? We already knew it was severely overperforming in high alpha performance and stability?
