I disregarded those diagrams because I thought they were not representing what I was looking for, but I’m not familiar with any of it so maybe I’m wrong.
Here’s what I perceived:
The first diagram should be from F-16CJ, the engine is the F-100 from the early F-16A’s, not the F-110 right?
On conditions, there’s MIL, does that mean military power and not WET or max afterburner?
That would explain the sustained turn rate being just around 15deg/s where you have Ps = 0. That’s why I perceived the “quickest turn” point as the max turn rate and not sustained.
On the second graph, the F-16A is carrying considerably more fuel (has more gross weight while the empty weight is less) and has 2 pylons (pylons shouldn’t make much of a difference but still). And the STR points to around 18deg/s. Maybe that graph was from mil power too?
So all in all we can’t compare because they don’t seem to have similar conditions. Hence my original question of which one can achieve higher STR, considering similar loads and going full afterburner.
I also said Ps=0 was STR and that the diagrams could not be directly compared and didn’t seem to come from full afterburner tests. The first time I looked at them I didn’t even look into those Ps lines because the initial conditions didn’t make sense for a direct comparison to begin with.
So, it seems like we have no available info to know which should have better STR on max afterburner and similar loadout/fuel.
So what is the issue, it follows the trend? How do they compare at very low airspeeds where the larger intake and new engine may have a higher T/W for the F-16C?
At low speeds is worse by the same margin if not more. One would expect that at most the F-16c would have 1 deg/s less which is already a considerable difference. For instance, the mig29 and the j7e and both F-14 variants have roughly the same STR of the F-16c in game
MiG-29 in my testing had proper STR but was suffering issues when exceeding ~24 degrees AoA wherein it would fall out of the sky practically this patch. Unfortunate, but it is what it is.
Regarding the F-16C though, an increased T/W may not overcome additional drag from the body modifications.
yeah i got that, but the default is also a blank page, so my first thing is i have to fiddle with the mfds, i think it should only display one at a time, and when you select on one mfd, the other should change automatically to the tgp page, or map view
I don’t think anyone actually has any submitable info on the JHMCS (DASH III) or HMIT (Thales Scorpion)[used on ANG Block 30’s] integration / capabilities on any of the platforms that use it.
Edit: Give me a minute I’m writing one up using the HMD study as a source, will link here one I’m done. IT’S LIVE
Exerpts
The F-16 HMD study stating that Radar Slew capability is inherent to the Basic F-16’s and as such any prospective HMD can slew it.
In game F-16C-50 carry AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening II but currently upgraded to AN/AAQ-28(V)4 Litening AT
I believe and expect gaijin consider 3rd gen targeting pod AN/AAQ-28(V)4 Litening AT instead AN/AAQ-28(V) Litening II on F-16C Block 50 next month or december this year
