how much it differs from the other manuals?
More than 2000 messages have been sent since I last read this xdd
How is the performance of the smt now, has improve enough to make it competent? Or is still a brick compared with all the others 12.0 -12.3 jets?
1 Like
Its heavy, but it can do a nice one circle in a pinch. FM should get some love, but the F-16 gets way more out of the x1.5 that Gaijin has in RB than the -29
All in all, just stay fast and missile away
2 Likes
The F-16 isn’t getting more from x1.5 G limitations, the issue isn’t the sustained turn rates. It’s the instant turn capability that it has currently which is excessive due to the unrealistic AoA it can handle. It’s not so evident in mouse aim as it is in full real but it is performing maneuvers it was never remotely aerodynamically capable of doing (high roll / yaw at high G loading and AoA >20 degrees).
The MiG-29 as far as that is concerned is fine. The AoA is correct and the sustained turn rates match the known charts.
Wow, if the -29 is correct that is wild. I always considered it better
The -16 is over performing due to the lack of G limitations, iirc the -16 could do 26deg instant. Not sure what it is in game, but in RB is quite snappy
1 Like
In a vacuum the F-16 can do 26 degrees instant without much instability for 1G conditions. For 7G+ it was limited to 20 degrees AoA to avoid adverse yaw that would result in sudden and rapid departure conditions. AoA > 20 degrees for the F-16 should be coupled with severe instability if they don’t want to implement the FLCS.
It honestly should be similar to the MiG-23MLA / MLD in terms of high alpha capacity (no more than ~30 degrees). Instead in full real it’s doing all kinds of yaw and roll maneuvers at 40+ degrees AoA with no signs of wing rock, adverse yaw, etc… maybe stalling if you hold it long enough but that’s it.
Its a little better. But the SMT is currently the same for the most part. Large caliber flares and highspeed handling are its strong suit currently.
The radar is only better because it has different modes and ranges. it’s not stronger (field strength) than the N019 or more precise currently imo and others.
@BBCRF is working on the FM and is aware of the Zhuks lack of precision and field strength
1 Like
Do you have the MLD flight manual? Can you please share. What is the alpha the MLD can pull in all subsonic, transonic and supersonic regimes?
It will still never rate as long as an F-16. I doubt the MLD can ever pull the same alpha in high Mach flight without losing control. It has a notoriously poor lift in wings and practically zero in fuselage as well. The Mig23 platform is a very dangerous aircraft that killed many pilots. American too. It’s a blotch on record of Mikoyan. Some do not even call it a fighter, but an interceptor.
A design that was totally swept under the rug which all Arab states utterly despised as well. Mikoyan really focused on the Mig29 because of the horrid performance of the Flogger and what it did the Mikoyan’s reputation on the world stage. I can see why you chose the name.
The MLD program was nothing more than cheap alternative numbers boost due to the lack of competent fighter in the Soviet Union while production the Mig29 kicked in.
Once the Mig29 deliveries began and was widely available they immediately ceased all MLD production and shifted all Mikoyan plants over to the superior in every way Fulcrum.
Thats not accurate
According to the Blk 50 manual A8-31 the F-16 at sea level can do 24.1deg per sec at 8G, at mach .52
at 25,000ft you can still hit 15.6deg per sec at 8G
1 Like
I’m talking about available AoA, which isn’t a jab necessarily. The F-16 was not optimized for high alpha, it was optimized for sustained energy. It’s better than the MiG-23 series at that for that very reason. It’s actually slower in acceleration and speed though, and the early F-16s have no BVR ordnance capability.
Oh, and yes I have the MiG-23MLA manual with the MLD addition that’s been floating around now.
It can, but that is below 20 degrees AoA, more likely around 10 degrees AoA. Anything above 0.5 mach requires little AoA for the F-16. Most sustained turn fighting is pushing single digit AoA numbers unless at very low speeds.
WRONG.
It was intentionally made aerodynamically unstable for immediately response to pitch and limited in alpha it as far it can possibly go before losing control.
It has massive LERX, leading edge droop flaps. Literally all the exact same technologies that are found in the Mig29 Fulcrum of course in a varying degree.
Leading-edge root extension (LERX) is a small fillet, typically roughly triangular in shape, running forward from the leading edge of the wing root to a point along the fuselage. These are often called simply leading-edge extensions (LEX), although they are not the only kind. To avoid ambiguity, this article uses the term LERX.
On a modern fighter aircraft, LERX induce controlled airflow over the wing at high angles of attack, so delaying the stall and consequent loss of lift. In cruising flight, the effect of the LERX is minimal. However, at high angles of attack, as often encountered in a dogfight or during takeoff and landing, the LERX generates a high-speed vortex that attaches to the top of the wing. The vortex action maintains the attachment of the airflow to the upper-wing surface well past the normal stall point at which the airflow separates from the wing surface, thus sustaining lift at very high angles.
The leading-edge droop flap is a device on the leading edge of aircraft wings designed to improve airflow at high angles of attack. The droop flap is similar to the leading-edge slat and the Krueger flap, but with the difference that the entire leading-edge section rotates downwards, whereas the slat and Krueger flap are panels which move away from the wing leading edge when it is deployed.
F-16 and “similar fighters” have leading edge flaps (LEF) (or droop flaps ), rather than slats. The difference is that they don’t form a gap between themselves and the main surface when deflected. This makes them usable at high speeds, whereas slats are typically used for low-speed takeoff/landing.
you are making stuff up again.
Stick to tractors.
What is the AOA the F-16 is currently pulling, what is the margin of performance breach?
1 Like
This is fun @MiG_23M everyone is asking you the tough questions today. You straight ignored some of them already.
It’s very uncharacteristic of you, Professor Datamine.
Are you seeking answers from your Datamining crystal ball now?
They made it aerodynamically unstable and so much so that the elevators were not able to prevent the occurrences of deep stalls (only slightly mitigated with the block 15). The leading edge root extensions did not solve the issue of having a single rudder. Adverse yaw and wing rock issues prevalent around 25 degrees AoA often tend to lead into spins and pitchout departures.
The reason it was limited to 25 degrees unlike the MiG-23 was due to these tendencies. Compared to the MiG-23, the F-16 was much more prone to departure and as such required hard limits that prevented stalls and adverse conditions. It is due to these hard limits that it would have been similar to or inferior to the MiG-23 in regards to AoA obtainable. That doesn’t mean it has worse performance, just less of an ability to point its’ nose around at low and medium speeds.
In real life it was limited to just 20 degrees AoA at 7G to prevent issues, although public data suggests it could handle 30 degrees in 1G conditions provided there was no asymmetrical stores under the wings and no roll or yaw was applied. In-game it can regularly pitch over 45 degrees AoA and suffers no adverse roll or yaw at all. If it stalls, it is a simple 1/4 to 1/8th turn recovery and no deep stall or departures really ever happen. You can actually perform a full cartwheel spin in the F-16 with no worries about recovery at altitudes as low as 5-600m.
They put a limit to prevent deep stalls aka super stalls. A phenomenon that plagues every single fixed winged aircraft.
Even if the point of stall was higher, they would have kept the FBW limitation anyway as the alpha is sufficient and any more would hinder the energy maneuverability performance.
Fascinating answer Dr.
You still going to stick with this statement?
Professor, Datamine… you did not refer to my lovely research of technologies associated with high alpha flight found in both the F-16 and Mig29??
I even put pictures because I know how much you hate reading those darn walls of text.
I love how he threw in “medium speeds” What is medium speeds mean to you, Professor Datamine, and can you show your class the lack of nose authority in the F-16 at “medium speeds”?
Stick to tractors, bro.
The equivalent of describing a toad to someone when they’re discussing frogs. Yes. They have these features… that doesn’t back up your nonsensical statement.
High subsonic is what I would consider “medium speeds”. Feel free to ask me to elaborate if you don’t understand.
what is high subsonic? You mean transonic? lol.
yeah… The F-16 was designed to be really good in these regimes… Ok thanks.
Stick to tractors though.
I have yet to see proof of this, but its an interesting accusation. Given how strictly Gaijin normally follows FM accuracy.
1 Like
He is googling rn. one moment
Or asking the datamine crystaball what to say next. I dont know which.
Why was my statement the nonsensical one, you’re the guy who said the F-16 is not optimized for high alpha flight. But literally has all the technologies specificaly associated with it. Just like the Mig29.
Is the Mig29 not optimized too?
No, they both are, but under different combat doctrines silly goose.
I think you need to return your datamine tools because you really do not have an idea how any of these aircraft are supposed to perform. The history, design and combat doctrine that produced them.
Stick to your tractors.
The AoA scheduling of the FLCS is what I’m referring to, limited to ~7G beyond 20 degrees AoA usually. It dampens the pitch authority to prevent AoA overshoots. I can move to the F-16 thread and describe it better over there to prevent this from going too far off topic if you’d like.
If you exceed 50 degrees AoA IRL with the F-16 you’re putting it at extreme risk of a deep stall. It will pitch-depart and adverse yaw / roll will cause it to spin and pitch violently. These deep stalls are so hard to recover that they require a pitch rocking technique.
In-game it can easily just pitch up almost 70 degrees and the only occurrence is normal stall with no adverse conditions.
That video is actually outdated as of October’s F-16 FM update so I went and did some recording just now as well… seems some of the changes to the AoA shift now cause it to pretty much just self-recover from the cartwheels immediately if AoA exceeds 90 degrees (which it can do again during the cartwheels…)
So, full yaw and good roll control even when AoA exceeds 90 degrees and sufficient control to pretty much instantly recover from the lateral forces despite only having a single rudder.