And likewise the standard is held on all aircraft in the game with the exception of the F-16 thus far and to my knowledge. Regardless, his nonsense is intentional bait and derailment.
F-16 G loads seem inline with the IRL 1.5x issue, the flight model’s issue is just ignoring its AoA limiter which if it did IRL would cause it to spin out, though this only affects sim and not air rb which instructor never pulls more than 22ish degrees AoA
1 Like
so regarding RB not much could be changed about the f16?
Until the properly model the FBW I would think.
Was more so related to how they’ve modeled the instability of the MiG-29 but none for the F-16, as such the F-16 maintains full control in situations it should not… Even in air RB. This is a double standard, as they’ve correctly modeled the Mirage 2000 and given it a proper temporary FM change while we wait for a improved instructor / FM that can handle unstable aircraft designs.
Which Ziggy claims;
The F-16 as mentioned, handles much higher AoA with no marks of instability. It’s unrealistic in comparison and not held to the same standards as other aircraft.
1 Like
Devs have acknowledged the issue and are working on a fix, I suspect it will be delayed until the next major due to the devblogs.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/OLiLWCU6c4tU
1 Like
that’s fine, we waited for months we can wait a bit more
1 Like
You can do some wild things in every other aircraft with little loss of stability. Which reminds me. I miss doing crazy impossible maneuvers in the Draken and Kfir.
I’m going to play around in them in aerobatic custom. I miss them.
The other unstable aircraft (Mirage 2000) has realistic flight model and is actually slightly underperforming pending the improved FM / instructor… The opposite is true of the F-16.
15G seems excessive to me, where did you get the values for Xo?
Anyway, according to chart 6.14 at 400kph IAS (420kph TAS), 1000m altitude and 12470kg weight (1500kg fuel), the MiG-29 can sustain 3.1G Ny overload at 24 degrees AoA.
The fact that we know the AoA is very important because, thanks to the chart below, we know what the lift coefficient is. Unless I’ve understood the whole thing wrong (you, @Grimtax or anyone that can read Russian can enlighten me) the lift surface the Cy coefficient refers to is 38m^2.
If that is the case then we can calculate lift with the basic formula Lift=1/2 * V(m/s)^2 * ρ * S * Cl , which in our case would be Lift = 1/2 * (420/3.6)^2 * 1.112 * 38 * 1.43 = 411233N .
Dividing by weight and g (9.81) we get a value of 3.36, which is already 0.26 higher than indicated Ny value in 6.14 and does not include centripetal component of engine thrust.
In game thrust (which according to Gaijin is accurate) at 400kph IAS and 1000m is 13156Kg.
Taking the normal component for it with 13156 * sin(24deg) and dividing the result by the aircraft mass, we get 0.43G, which brings total calculated Ny to 3.79G, which is a FAR higher value than the 3.1 shown in 6.14.
On top of all of this, in 6.14 the chart show that to sustain 5G at 500kph IAS the AoA required would be 24 degrees. Instead in the chart 6.4 it is shown that 24 degree AoA would be necessary to pull 5G at much lower speeds, and at 500kph we are not even close to 24 degree AoA.
This is interesting because this seems to imply that the aircraft can sustain similar AoAs at the same speed, but for some reason the aircraft in chart 6.14 is FAR less efficient at generating lift at high AoA (at lower AoAs instead there’s basically no difference, and in fact that 2 graph match perfectly at 700kph (in both cases Ny = 6.5G).
I am starting to wonder if slats and flaps are used in a different way in the 2 tests, because as far as I know that’s the only way to change the lift coefficient at the same AoA.
The calculation was carried out according to an approximate formula.This is a value that is possible without taking into account strength.X0 made the calculation through Cx0 specified at the beginning of the book
Don’t forget that the graphs are for different heights.For a height of 1000m, you need to shift the values from graph 6.4 to the left
Yeah, although that is fairly minimal: 500kph IAS →
1000m TAS = 525kph = 145.8 m/s,
2000m TAS = 550kph = 152.8 m/s.
Taking the square of both speeds we have:
21257 for 1000m
23341 for 2000m
Air density 1000m = 1.112 , Air density 2000m = 1.008.
Cy at 2000m = (21257 * 1.112)/(23341 * 1.008) * Cy at 1000m = 1.004 * Cy at 1000m
A bigger impact would definitely be the 13000kg weight that is supposedly used in 6.4 vs the 12469kg in 6.14.
Yes at higher speed the 2 chart match relatively well, it’s at lower speeds and higher AoAs that the 2 charts differ
Mass 10800kg+1500 kg fuel=12300kg+90 kg pilot+22kg oil engine+2 kg oxygen+150kg gun+15kg chaff =12579 perhaps pylons for rockets are also included in the mass here +130 kg APU-470+200kg for R-60
I posted it on the old forum…
Spoiler
With us, as always, it is somewhat different…The weight of the pilot is 120 kg…
Who’s that fat guy over there?
the pilot’s weight is always calculated for 90kg
I’ll find it later -it was in Markovsky’s book somewhere…Now I’m busy with poor Merkava-4-it’s known where…In the USA , with a height of 196 cm …about 105 kg…- but this is ideal!..
Spoiler
