It can pull 20-21G in such maneuvers if you have around the same fuel weight as the F-16A got in min fuel. I broke my wings with 24G
Look at this energy retention! It’s better than even the F-2A
You still basing this value off of your WTRTI HUD, if so thats you issue.
Uhuh
I’m seeing a trend here.
Good job ignoring the context for this one.
Yes, your own video proves such, the moment you go subsonic you shed speed like every other aircraft.
Oh I’m so sorry, your full 360 has you going from 1002 IAS to 400 IAS KM/H so I was a bit high, around 331 knots of speed loss, still close to my 350 knot estimate.
As can a number of aircraft. I would ask why your pilot does not loose pull potential while in the lost control state as well, I find such rather intersting.
I see you are not a proprotor of full real controls, I regre to inform you that I can burst a 13G turn at 600 knots, with the only limiting factor being my pilot and if I increase my turn then burning out my airspeed.
Not even close unless if you are making a mistake flying.
Once more, WTRTI is not accurate for high AOA values.
My WTRTI is accurate within 0.1deg/s according to localhost in a 25º AOA turn (this would be a very aggressive turn already). This error is meaningless in this context.
Are you arguing I’m wrong because the F-18 might have 0.1deg/s more turn rate and magically reach the 45deg/s figure? Do you understand how dumb this sounds?
Do I really have to explain how your example of the su-33 and F-15 is idiotic? Both have poor agility when compared to the F-16XL or any other good dogfighter, the su-33 can stall itself with cobras, but turn rate is poor across the board, unlike the lighter flankers.
You either didn’t watch the video or are just trolling. The only jet that can do something similar to the F-16XL video is the F-2A
Here you go again with more nonsense.
In the video, when it reached 1000 IAS kph, after continuing that aggressive turn and doing a full 360 again, it reached 634 IAS kph. That is just roughly 200 knots of speed loss. That is amazing energy retention for such a fast turn rate.
A 13G turn at 600knots / 1111.2kph is just 23.6 deg/s lol. Once again you prove you don’t know what you are talking about.
The F-106 can go even higher than that, but 26-27 is around its limit. For context, the F-16XL does 45+
Show me the F-106 doing a sustained turn rate higher than 16deg/s at min fuel at any speed of your choice. I’ll wait.
Also, don’t you dare bring Statshak graphs after you complained that my WTRTI values are inaccurate. Statshark can be up to 40x more inaccurate, reaching errors of 2 to 4deg/s at SEP=0 line alone.
I’m not even going to humor the rest given you don’t even know that WTRTI’s AOA is based off of the wrong plane of reference.
Stat shark is accurate for such unlike WTRTI as the latter is garbage in data to begin with as it’s formula to calculate AOA is flawed to start with. Such is already very well documented and known and why WTRTI has been denied as a source for bug reporting for years now.
Then just calculate the turn rate yourself from the speed and G load from localhost itself and check how accurate StatShark is again. As I said, WTRTI is within 0.1deg/s error.
This is a whole different issue. They don’t accept data-mined values either, so you can’t argue with their decisions.
I did a very similar test myself like that video, but with 2 turns to do an average to be more precise; the error with the su-27SM was around 0.2deg/s
Its not but please just ignore the video I posted.
Your own video showcases a variance of greater than a full degree of AOA, lmao. Also love that you are still using a modified test drive as well without G loc which is also not indicative of actual flight performance.
Once again, WTRTI is not a valid source on high AOA vehicles and remains as such.
Have you ever heard of averages? Doesn’t really matter when I am averaging the 2 turns considering I am maintaining similar speed and altitude in the turn.
You do you. But can’t argue with correct math taken directly from locahost values which is more accurate than these video tests anyway, you would need decent video editing software and good timeframe references to do a decent test like that.
Statshark overall just gives higher error/offset values than WTRTI when verifying with localhost, so it’s a clear argument.
Have you ever heard of outliers skewing a mean?
Cool, your values still have very noticeable spikes of flawed data.
WTRTI’s baseline formula is flawed, the math is not correct to begin with lmao.
One however has a functioning formula and the other does not.
Which outliers bro. The speed remained mostly the same, and the altitude too after the 2 turns. Same with altitude, I compensated in the 2nd turn. If I turned a lil too much I eased off after etc, very small inputs.
What matters is the time it took to do the 2 turns while maintaining roughly similar conditions. The 2 turns were mostly smooth, not perfect, which is why I do a turn time average from multiple turns, at 720 degrees instead of just 360.
I could do more turns, like 10+, but the results would not be much different
I am not talking about WTRTI dude, I am talking about taking your own turn rate from calculating it from localhost speed and G load values.
And those results are VERY close to what WTRTI gives me in every circumstance I tested, at least on my system. While statshark has huge errors, mostly at high AoA/slow speed turn rates.
Some values are completely outlandish in statshark.
You brought up the F-106 before, as an example, just go look at the F-106 turn graphs and try to replicate a 19deg/s sustained turn rate in the actual game like it indicates it can.
Locahost gives around 16deg/s maximum sustained turn rate at its optimal speed, and around 14 something at the speeds statshark says it can do 19 somehow lol
Yeah, because somehow WTRTI gives more correct values than StatShark with its non functional formula.
You’re beating a dead horse
1 Like
Neither are perfectly accurate, however WTRTI is definitely a lot more accurate as its actually using localhost data recorded from the actual game, versus statshark just doing an approximation that’s really not too accurate. Main issue with statshark’s FM’s are that they dont actually account for the fact that flight performance is hysteretic, so some AoA response characteristics don’t come across properly.
Also, in the current version, WTRTI’s inaccuracies only really come from vertical scenarios, in a flat scenario its math is accurate barring some rounding.
8 Likes
I honestly don’t understand how low-speed performance really matters on upping the BR on this thing or not.
The F-4E ICE is better than it by a long shot because it has an amazing suite.
The closest I can compare it to, is the Ja-37DI. The only difference being better low speed flight performance on the XL’s end.
But you’re splitting hairs on that. By the time you get low speed. You’re gonna have some dude shove a missile in you.
People forget how useful HCS is.
I think this jet would be better placed at 13.3 with 6 AIM-120 like the ADF/MLU.
Regardless of the BR placement, the FM is still nonsensical
even with 4 amraams it would be fine at 13.3 after the missile buffs since the f16xl has a good fm to go in and out of the notch for longer ranges
Ignore the disgusting instantaneous turn ig
Yeah, although I suspect the missiles to be nerfed across the board eventually because most of them except the derby and probably the AAM-4 are overperforming
i dont think that will happen anytume soon
since the fox-3s (besides the derby) were “reworked”
and the gaijin twitter account announced that the derby will also recive a rework
Worst plane I played in 13.0. Mid radar, Mid flight preformance, Mid lodaut. Overall MID.
cope it is the strongest aircraft at 13.0 and literally bullying everything at its BR
5 Likes
Literally the best 13.0 jet by wide margins except for MAYBE the flankers coming close but people can’t notch so they always think everything sucks
1 Like