The F-16C is powered by the F110-GE-129 engine, which is a powerful engine with 11480kgf of thrust in hangar x-ray. It should be much better than the F-16A ADF powered by the F100-PW-220 engine with 9000kgf of thrust in hangar x-ray. However, the rate turn performance of the DEV server F-16C is not as good as that of the F-16A ADF. I wonder if this is historically true or currently a bug.
Yes, every airframe is instructor limited by some fixed value that maybe tries to represent wing loading, and every F-16 probably has the same value, but the differences in weight between block10’s, block15, MLU, F-16C, barak make their g overload respectively worse by that order.
They removed the “g limit” in the dev server which is nice, but the f-16c still pulls like the current live server ADF at about 11G.
So they need to update the FM’s of the new F-16 airframes so they can pull around 13G on min fuel like the block15 and have a similar or even better sustained turn rate, which they definitely don’t right now.
That’s static-thrust, meaning at 0 speed.
At speed F-16C seems to be having the channel loss of F-14 still even tho it’s F-16 [F-16D specifically since WTRTI isn’t working with F-16C right now].
So bug reports are probably necessary for at-speed thrust.
Otherwise it’s accurate for the thrust right now.
Yeah but adding “only” 200-300 kg weight to the F-16C shouldn’t mean it suddenly pulls 2G+ less at all speeds and turns worse, it should be every so slightly worse, but not very noticeable due to the stronger engine which keeps the same T/W
Here I introduce the famous air combat energy maneuver theory SEP (specific excess power, sep) = (thrust - drag) * speed / weight.
Since the appearance basically does not change, the effect of drag can be eliminated, the weight has just increased by a few hundred kilograms, but the output of the engine has increased by more than two tons, so weight can basically be ignored.
According to the calculation formula, the F-16C SEP is much larger, so the performance of sustained turn rates should be better than the current ADF. I think it should be increased to 21deg/s+ under the same conditions (20min fuel, no fuel tank and missile) above.
So can I suspect that the F-16C flight model is not complete?
To be honest, I am more concerned about the performance of F-16C sustained turn rates, we all know that in reality F-16C with F119-GE-129 is a two-circle monster, but the current performance in the game does not match our realistic understanding.
That’s not the case here. You completely ignored the basic G force and centrifugal force affecting the jet. If it weights more it would have to overcome even more weight in high G turns which is why it turns worse. It’s literally like taking two additional AIM-9Ls and centerline drop tank on your regular F-16 (air drag aside).
It surely is unfinished just like the SMT and other new jets but this doesn’t mean it’s entirely wrong.
In reality F-16As are the best dogfighters among F-16s. Espiecially Block 10 which didn’t have extra avionics needed for AIM-7 or AIM-120. The reason behind bigger elevators on Block 15 and later variants was that F-16 got nose heavy (as described by its pilots) so it needed bigger tail surfaces to compensate.
I mean like really, first F-16 Blocks were nothing more than advanced F-5 in functionality and concept. They served as light fighters for the most part and achieved actual multirole capability later.
Just tested out the Barak and Netz and they both pull +30AoA on full real controls but doing so means you will go into a drastic stall; on damping it’s ~25AoA. Netz obviously feels lighter and more nimble but when it comes to AoA they are the same
I think that G difference in RB comes from virtual instructor rather than FM itself.
This was always the case, for example the su-22 can pull high AoA but the instructor limits it to a efficient AoA which makes it feel very stiff, if you pull more than what the instructor typically allows with mouse aim, the turn rate will be the same (or worse) but you bleed energy fast.
Not only it lacks maneuverability it also lacks additional counter measures charges. I found a picture of a Greek Block 50/52 F-16C with at least 5 countermeasure dispenser with 30 charges each. In theory, the F-16C should have at least 150 countermeasure charges instead of 60 on the dev server.
Better engine won’t compensate for slightly worse aerodynamics and more weight when it comes to turning capabilities. Better engine can help with max speed or energy retention but it won’t make your plane magically turn better. If that was the case F-104S would fly like a biplane at 11.0.
Ignore aerodynamics part because that was about SMT. Rest perfectly applies to F-16C tho