F-16ADF/MLU flight model is wrong for no reason

Greetings everyone, I own both the F-16A block 10 and the F-16ADF and while testing i’ve figured that the FM differences are huge (with the former pulling 11-12Gs and the latter capping at 9Gs in the same maneuver). considering that the E-M diagrams are the same, and that IRL the F-16ADF had a 30% increase in elevator surface compared to the A in contrast to an abysmall weight increase of less than 300kg… why then is the Block 10 way superior to the ADF/MLU in game while it shouldn’t be the case IRL?


GD Forth Worth for Foreign Military Sales
Fighter Weapons Symposium: Fighter Basics


To be perfectly honest, all F-16A variants likely need to be capped at only being able to pull +9G in manoeuvres.

It’s worth noting that the F-16A isn’t like the Phantom, or really any of the other high-speed jets in-game. Its flight controls are fully digital, with all control inputs being processed by a four-channel fly-by-wire flight control system. That system also physcially limits the amount of Gs the aircraft can pull; sure, it might be able to momentarily exceed those limits, but the FLCS quickly counteracts that to bring the aicraft back to the programmed limits.

And those programmed limits are -3/+9g.

The only way to override those limits is by using the appropriately named Manual Pitch Override switch, but even then that only overrides the negative-G limit to aid in stall recovery.


They actually overperform, both of them. They will be nerfed in the future when / if Gaijin implements the proper FLCS.


well, F-16s are not the only one to have the G-limiter in game, yet the F-16ADF and MLU are the only one retaining a part of it. wouldn’t be a problem in a realistic game where all the planes would have their real life performance, but warthunder is not the case. planes’ G limit is increased SIGNIFICANTLY if you consider that Mig-21 couldn’t pass 7G in early variants and 8G in later, or the F-5 was capped at 7.3G as the F-104 and F-4 phantom. this statement makes no sense in the game environment


this thing makes no sense either, since none of the other planes in game suffer from instability or reliability issues they had irl. i don’t know why people care about historical accuracy for some vehicles and complete fantasy for others… to name a few, Mig-21 in real life condition would perform horribly bad and stall out in flatspin due to the nature of the wing and no fly-by-wire due to the era it was introduced, similar can be said about F-104, F-4 phantom, lots of props and prototypes that are in game and perform incredibly well. i’m honestly surprised they accepted to open a report like that


to name another issue for example, mig-29 were not capable to go supersonic if carrying the Additional fuel tank, plus the HMS in the mig-29 wasn’t capable to slave radar but only IR missiles, furthermore the R-27ER performance in game is completely wrong and over performing, same for the radar for said plane, lots of aircrafts have wrong RWR, etcetera etcetera…


Its been said time and time again by the masses that the F-16 flight model is BS from release. The only people that say otherwise are 2 people who use realistic sim controls with a flight stick in custom sim games.

Its complete hypocrisy to make things unrealistic for some Jets, like the Mig-21’s afterburner for example. If it has its true RL characteristics it would be really unfun to play. But the F-16 on the other hand can be an exception to this rule that has been in the game since every jet as been developed? Thats crazy and insane. The F-16 flight model plays by rules no other flight model in the game has to play by. That in it self is dumb design.

You want to put limiters on things, do it for everything. One thing is for SURE. You wont see any Russian/Soviet Jets coming into the game with any of these crazy limitations.



A - Give F-16 the same comparative unrealistic overperforming FM in respect of G overload and wing resistance as most other planes have in-game

B - Nerf everything to realistic G limits and airframe limits (wing breakage), so everything has a similar treatment.


I’ll side with your opinion on the matter.
It’s like this actually.
And in general , in all things either go full realistic or go gamey …
However , many of the G limits mentioned are safety limits and it’s proven that in reality the airframe could go beyond , on demand , however with unpredictable structural damage that may or may not happen.

For example in a mock dogfight between F-14B and F-15C , both planes reached 10+ Gs as Snort said, yet they suffered structural damage and had to go back to maintenance. And i won’t ever disagree with an actual expert , even if somebody counts it as anecdotal evidence , for the simple reason that a professional on the matter knows better than you and me .
And to make things clear , it’s just an example … do not stay much on the types of planes etc. , but it’s evidence that the limits can break , but apply for a real reason.
How the game plays it, it’s another matter.

Bringing the option C :
You can damage the plane if you overdo it … progressively. Not just snap a wing in an instant, though.
That in 16s case means , if the limiter is applied you can’t damage the plane. With planes that do not have such things, you can go beyond… on your own account though.
This way , you level the play field.
Imagine going 10Gs in Tomcat, starting to damage things… while a 16 pulls 9G without damaging components . Give it 1-2 turns and the damage starts catching in to you… The plane starts doing its “damaged things” and the 16 still flies fine. How much you can hold?
And with this way you will see in game things that were …possible in RL , yet you’ll pray in RNG for results… mimicking RL luck (because when you overdo it you don’t really know the result).


B - Nerf everything to realistic G limits and airframe limits (wing breakage), so everything has a similar treatment.

The wing breakage limits are already correct. Aircraft are designed with a factor of safety (typically 1.5, sometimes 2.0). That means that the aircraft is designed such that it should not experience structural failure until at least 1.5x (or 2.0x) the maximum g load listed in the manual. Gaijin are therefore modelling it correctly in game. Making the wings break as soon as you exceed the number in the manual would be far less realistic than what we have now.

Regarding turning ability: Most aircraft can pull more g than the limit listed in the manual. For example the Tornado F.3 had a 7.5g limitation placed in the flight manual, but the performance graphs show it could pull in excess of 9g if the pilot just pulled back on the stick and ignored the rules.


The F-16 quite literally is unrestricted in every way possible regarding its’ FM lol


I think you’re confusing something somewhere along the way.

You’re comparing a maximum acceleration safety limit with a hard-coded flight control limit.

Taking the F-4 as an example, for safety reasons the pilots were not supposed to exceed a certain G limit, with that G limit based on a combination of different factors. For example, a subsonic F-4C/D has G limits of -3/+8.5g at a gross weight of around 37500 lbs. However, the aircraft is still capable of pulling more Gs than those limits if the pilot simply pulls back further on the stick, with the noted caveat that exceeding those limits means the aircraft needs to be inspected afterwards to ensure there is no airframe damage.

For the F-16, the -3/+9g limit isn’t the safety limit for the airframe itself - that limit will be maybe 10% higher - but rather the limit of what the FLCS will allow the pilot to pull. The computers, taking all of the sensor information from the aircraft, physically prevent the pilot from pulling over the limit, because all of the control inputs by the pilot need to go through said computers to reach the controls. It doesn’t matter how far back the pilot pulls the stick - the computer is, ultimately, in control, with the pilot simply telling it where to fly.

1 Like

Ah yes… Mig21 doing 15G+ for example. Very realistic


No one agrees with you on this. You can stop.

If 100 people think the Flight model sucks and one person is saying it doesnt. The flight model sucks. Facts are facts, and the fact is the F-16 Flight model in Warthunder is complete and utter garbage.




Also whats really cool is that Gaijin will find some obscure way to nerf a US jet like for example putting a limiter on a jet that no other jet has, but will conveniently leave out things like the F-16’s sloped seat so the pilot can handle more G’s. Where is that in Warthunder? Oh wait…

Im willing to bet if a Russian jet had this feature Russian pilots in game would be able to pull 16gs without blacking.


If you’ve got evidence that the MiG-21’s wings are stronger than they should be then you can make a report about it. But in general Gaijins implementation of wings breaking at 1.5x the value listed in the manual is correct.


Yeah the issue lies specifically with the F-16s that have the larger elevators, the Block-10 actually has an amazing FM, but for some reason the ADF and MLU consistently pull about 2G less, now from my understanding this is an issue with the instructor, the bigger elevators should give more instant turn and AoA but the Instructor interferes in those circumstances and ends up limiting the turn instead.

I believe Gaijin have said the F-16 doesn’t have a G limiter and there are bug reports filed on the flight model for the effected aircraft, I have to imagine Gaijin are working on it but like all things Gaijin we have no idea if or when these fixes will be made :(

So why do the f-16 rip at 15G and the mig29 rip at 17G? If both planes are rated for 9G, clearly there’s a double standard.

Also, 1.5x the value would result in 13.5G, not 15 and surely not 17

Where are you getting the 15g and 17g figures from?

In game of course, just tested 5 min ago. Grab min fuel (limited)