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”?
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.
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.
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.
I don’t have documentation on the Kfir, nor does it heavily dictate the efficiency of an entire BR range.
Also, no, it really doesn’t. Kfir appears to have normal levels of control and stability when doing such things currently last I flew it. The FM on that thing has changed a bazillion times, though.
@Aurelian_ROW The reason Gaijin has stated for the F-16 performing as it does is because they claim the mouse aim instructor is bricked if they fully model unstable airframe designs. Instead of making it stable and giving it the FLCS restrictions and matching performance charts that way they’ve left it to run amock without these kinds of stalls and exceeding reasonable AoA.
The MiG-29 was lacking in AoA, I fixed that. Thankfully the devs were more than happy to adjust it after I pointed out discrepancies… fixing the F-16 will take more time since their instructor needs a workaround for the issue.
The Kfir has no FBW, static canards, no stabilizers beside the Vertical. it’s can pull insane alpha maintain precise control and fly of into the sunset to do it again.
Many fighters are outrageously stable and can pull UFO alpha in simulator. You’re testing, screeches & hyper fixation on a single fighter are laughable and have nothing to do with the topic at hand remember?
Well, you have no rebuttal to my argument so you want to go back to the topic now? We can discuss it in the F-16 thread as I said.
The MiG-29’s AoA is performing as it should. If there are others that are not following the standard please share your thoughts and we can find the correct documentation to fix them. If you don’t want me to do it I’m sure someone else like @Giovanex05@DracoMindC, others would love to help out.
Since its fixed in his mind. He will stop at nothing to discourage any of you from revealing it actually isn’t.
This is purely a personal, psychological issue at hand.
That has been my point. We cannot discuss what the Mig29 is missing in peace without this dude bringing up his reports or talking about himself.
The mig29 is missing alpha straight up get over it. Whether its the instructor or some wack excuse analog limitations in the flight control system, it does not matter. The Jet is missing alpha that a pilot can utilize in combat period.
So your concern is how it doesnt perform a deep stall past the 50deg point. Because what you are demonstrating has no use in an actual match.
Granted the instability should be better modeled, I have seen the high alt asymmetric load tests, however for in match performance an AOA limiter to 20/25 deg wouldnt have an outsized impact in most regards. Can you provide proof of the AOA limits?
Otherwise the FCLS irregularities are not accurate but also not game breaking.
It’s performing according to known documentation. I pointed this out and it was adjusted.
Sharing sources and data from reputable sources instead of posting walls of text explaining how LERX function as some sort of (awful) response to a valid point as if it’s evidence to the contrary is… just good discussion etiquette.
The issue is in a dogfight, at low speed. The MiG-29 loses the advantage it has against the F-16s and since they are the two more prevalent fighters in top tier it’s rather annoying. I also report small discrepancies all the time because it’s just too easy to do.
In air RB the F-16 is flying around at medium to low speeds with 23-24 degrees AoA, pulling 11G’s. This would not be possible without un-commanded yaw or roll. These conditions, especially with asymmetric stores (an issue all aircraft have rn)… are not possible in real life. The aircraft would depart.
If they wanted to fix it by adjusting the instructor they could limit it to around 20 degrees AoA in mouse aim and increase spin tendencies at AoA exceeding 30 degrees or so (to be lenient) for full real. This would be sufficient to prevent people from abusing the excessive alpha until they can properly model the relaxed stability without bricking mouse aim. The problem is that they just don’t care, leaving us to gripe until they fix the instructor issue.
For reference, the MiG-29 pulls ~21 degrees AoA in mouse aim and is limited to approximately 26-28 degrees sustained alpha (but can pitch to 50-60 degrees safely, at the cost of all its’ airspeed). Post-stall recovery should be significantly easier for the MiG-29 than the F-16… currently this isn’t the case.
Dude you don’t even know what supermaneuvrability is and last night copy pasted (took a picture) of the definition I have been trying to tell you since day one.
Lol he thinks the F-35 is supermaneuverable. So there five aircraft without thrust vectoring that are now supermaneuverable?
The Fulcrum, Flanker and the F-35A and F-35C of and the F-18.
Please show us any source discussing these fighters in the same article and giving them the classification of supermaneuverable.
I do not want your interpretation. I want a source.
The one you said was anything but the definition since day one?
Maneuvering post-stall is one definition of supermaneuvrability. The US tends not to use that one, rather only for aircraft with TVC. We’ve gone over the same point of discussion so many times already and you simply come back to claim you were right (you weren’t).
You need someone else to quote them as supermaneuverable when there is video of them doing stuff that exactly matches the definition given by the man who coined the term?
Then you highlighted and accidentally copied the same definition last night (Actually took a picture). Because you are so desperately trying to not appear that you are completely clueless on the subject. Which it’s so hyper apparent at this point to everyone.
I said you had poor reading comprehension, and it holds true.
Just like everything else I have stated. I do not need sources. You always prove me right eventually, though indirectly and unintentionally.