Instead of allowing players to fly within the limitations of the F-16s flight envelope, Gaijin has allowed them to reach AoA double that of the limits set in real life. The aircraft is recoverable even in spin / departure conditions >90 degrees AoA and high spin / yaw rate. The aircraft never really loses control. If there was ever a time to say it flew like a “UFO”, it would be now. Aircraft with a single rudder would not be able to provide yaw input at AoA >60 - 90 degrees.
Some aircraft with fly-by-wire are permitted to exceed AoA or G restrictions, this allows recovery in emergency from bad situations such as collision course with ground. These aircraft suffer less from weak directional stability at high angles of attack. The F-16 on the other hand, suffers greatly. They were forced to put in place an AoA limit of 25 degrees to keep the aircraft from going into deep, unrecoverable stalls and to prevent departure. In-game it can more than double that AoA with no sign of instability, and in spin conditions still recover even during momentary AoA > 90 degrees.
An example of how the F-16A (Block 10) is handling right now, seems it can handle even 90+ degrees AoA and remain in FULL control. Further, recovery is as simple as applying opposite control deflection for less than 1/4 of a turn.
Yes, it was kinda dumb how f-16 series can currently pull right now, an feeling like UFO. As Mirage main when i did testing with a F-16 friend, it was pretty obvious, and let’s not talk about the Block 10 FM because the gap… with no downside
For some people it was normal which is not. But i understand why. They spent a whole major update with a G limiter, and f-16 was feeling like a brick. So now they enjoy while they can.
Honestly It’s not surprise for me. Most (if not all) 3.5/4gen aircraft FM always need at least 1 to 2 majors updates after the release, just to be fixed then tweaked, and finaly come minor update (month or year later) here and there to be adjusted, just to find the sweet spot.
It was the same for Mirage 2k, F-14, MiG-23, is the same for currently the MiG-29 smt, and will be probably the same for the upcoming aircrafts (Grippen)
By the way the FLCS is still not fully implemented?
Honestly, the F-16 wasn’t even that brickish. Yeah, it kind of felt like an F-104 at transonic and supersonic speeds, but once you got down below 950 km/h it would turn really good. And even then it was on par with the MiG-29 (the Block 10 was better than it). So for dogfighting, it was still the top dog (or one of them). But it is true that the MiG’s FM still felt better for general-purpose ARB, where it handled better at high speeds (things like positioning and getting your missiles off quickly).
I’ve heard that the innermost part of the triple adapter was restricted for the mavericks because their motors would cause tail damage, and for the paveways because they nearly interfered with the external fuel tanks.
But, if Gaijin is going to allow the AGMS and snake eyes, I see no reason not to do the same for the paveways and irons
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:
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
