I just logged onto Frugals and saw that someone pointed out my 2k horizontal accel error, so I thought I'd come and fix it here too. Now I'm going to sucumb to temptation and reply to KV:


??? Transition to lag? If it wasn't in lag beforehand, it's going to be shooting the Falcon.
The situation is exactly the same for either jet, if they aren't able to fire, and follow the bandit into a vertical climb, of course they'll be in lag, but the MiG will do it with superior climb.
No-one when flying the Fulcrum against a Falcon, and following the Falcon up into a vertical climb, will intentionally match the Falcons gs instead of it's radius. It would be stupid. They'll match radius, and outclimb the Falcon.


We already know the Fulcrum has superior rate and radius, you've said so yourself more than once.
From my acmis, very clearly:
The Falcon at 440, 4g turns up 6dps
The Fulcrum at 390, 3g turns up 5dps
The Fulcrum at 390, 4g turns up 7dpi



I beg your pardon? AB for roll rate is silly?
If you can get a difference in favour of the Falcon by cutting the throttle, it's because the Fulcrum is decelerating faster, but you knew that already.
Are you seriously trying to claim a 3 second difference from stick response? A Fulcrum would be unflyable if that were true. It isn't true, the lower speed from higher deceleration is slowing the roll rate.



A lot better than yours.



You cannot be serious. The MiG has better acceleration (and therefore also climb), the Falcon won't be doing any "walking". I would dearly love to see an acmi of the Falcon using it's top speed in BFM.



No, it isn't the same at all. Think about it.
Let me point out that I'm not trying to claim the Fulcrum has a superior gun, just that the Falcon's gun isn't enough to make up for it's inferior BFM performance, which is what Tank and CM claimed.
Take a Falcon gun at a point in time and space, and a bandit at another point in space at the same time, fire the gun.
Now go back in time but this time replace the gun with a Fulcrum's gun, fire it.
The hit percentages will be the same, providing, of course (as I've said all along) that the bandit isn't flying between rounds.



Yes I am, I did it for all four tests, Falcon and Fulcrum.



You've already pointed out in this thread that the MiG has better acceleration above 600. Do you think the Falcon accelerates better from 500 to 600? I doubt it.



The Falcon has superior acceleration below 2000 feet, the rest belongs to the Fulcrum. For the Falcon to run away at 15k, and, similarly, for the Fulcrum to run away at sea level they'd need a combination of better speed AND acceleration. Neither is likely to ever be able to "walk away" because the acceleration of the bandit would get them before they were able to do so.



1. I notice you haven't either.
2. There's no disagreement on top speed.
3. What do you want to test? The only disagreement is your understanding of the term "hit percentage".


This time, I really am done with this thread. I'm not going to be responsible for helping turn this thread into the quagmire that the Frugals thread became.
Next time I'll be posting data pulled directly from the dat files. I'll enjoy watching you try to argue with that.

I already told you here it that your calculations were incorrect. Hatchet just happened to find the same thing. I'm not sure why you're hesitant to post, other than for obvious reasons. If you want to discuss this then great, discuss it...no one needs a reminder that you don't want to post

Vertical Maneuvering Discussion

Let's continue your education here a bit. Anytime in a neutral BFM engagement between these two platforms, should the Viper load above the horizon, the MiG cannot enter the vertical without unloading first. I really don't know how many times I have to say it, or explain it for you to understand, and I'm trying really hard.

Your own report and discussion at Frugalsworld states that a Fulcrum pilot can just "reef back on the stick" and doesn't have to exercise any discipline prior to hitting the vertical elbow, either in plane or out of plane. We've already established this is incorrect, yet you still maintain that line of thinking and haven't edited it yet. You clearly have admitted here on several occasions now that the Fulcrum pilot cannot just yank on the stick at similar energy states and expect to be able to maneuver with the Viper above the horizon.

I find it interesting that you speak for everyone. You're saying you can read bandit G and radius how? How is it possible to receive enemy aircraft Load Factor and Radius after acquiring a radar lock. I wasn't aware that this was possible in F4:AF.

Ohhhh! So you mean you have to guage it by your eyes in sim?!? That would mean pilot skill comes into play in determining LOS rate, energy prior to vertical maneuvering (hopefully with a radar lock), and totally negates your argument.

So it remains balanced of course. For the MiG to have any semblance of being able to compete with the Viper while maneuvering above the horizon, it MUST be within 50 knots of the Viper at a bare minimum to even try to hold its own. We're talking about 50 knots here <chuckles>, even with my experience it is difficult to make that call on an aircraft without a radar lock, and with your experience I'm absolutely certain your accuracy at judging bandit energy state without a lock is significantly less savory...but I digress...



This has nothing to do with what I've posted, it appears to be another attempt to redirect the focus from what is obvious to the readers. Can you see the numbers you've posted above? Do you realize how close they are? Even if your stick control were proficient it wouldn't make much of a difference. My stick control is indeed more proficient, hence the more accurate performance numbers.

It will take you some time I'm sure, don't fret, but eventually you'll see what it means in regards to "balanced"...


Rollrate Discussion

Of course it is. Why would you want to increase the variables on a static test? It's obvious the airspeeds stay very close to the same at the beginning, and at the end of the maneuvers.


<chuckles>
Well looky here, apparently you're not viewing acmis or even reading, but just fly by posting. If you'll take the time like I did to review your footage, and give me the same courtesy you'll notice what an error you made here lol.

Why on earth would you believe that starting a rollrate test within each aircraft's maneuvering zone would cause each aircraft to decelerate LOL! Dude, just check the acmis first before you post and we won't be wasting each other's, or other readers' time. Both aircraft start and end very close to 440 kias with the throttle to idle in this test.



It's a .3 seconds at a minimum (that's near half a second response time difference when rolling, which is a pretty big difference in regards to changing AOB, or POM [angle of bank, plane of motion]. Perform the tests like I stated and both ways you'll see that stick response gives the Viper a superior rollrate.

Acceleration Discussion

I'm sure the readers will believe that considering your flight hours and experience (that's totally not even taking your posts into account)


We've already established that the Falcon has superior acceleration and a greater top speed at altitude. The MiG only enjoys a slight plus at SL getting to 800 kias, and near equivalent acceleration at 15,000 to 600 kias...although the F-16 has greater top speed at 15,000 which is also faster than the MiGs top speed at SL, by a considerable margin...therefore making it much more difficult for a MiG to separate or escape from the engagement.

Yet another example of little experience in DACT BFM both vs the AI and vs human opponents flying the Fulcrum. I'll get you the acmi :), although I'd rather you get the experience yourself.


No you didn't. There's already been about 5 sets of eyes that have identified your skewed testing procedures to make up for lack of argument.


.......

Dude, please read first. The Viper DOES accelerate faster to 600 kias at SL than the MiG. You even quoted what I said below and have access to the tapes, or to do some yourself (instead of a 200 knot range to test lol ).

And keep in mind, it's not your place to doubt, but to verify before posting.




Now you're starting to get it (except the F-16 is faster to 800 kias at altitude, the MiG barely get 800 kias at 15,000).

It's simple, the Viper can walk away from the MiG at 15,000 feet and re-enter an engagement at his leisure. The MiG doesn't enjoy this luxury and can be caught.

Cannon Probable Hit Per Burst Discussion

All I can say is LOL. Backpeddling now won't do you any good. The F-16 BFM armament is an advantage both in rate of fire, and probable hit per burst due to amount of projectiles in the air effectively making it impossible to fly between rounds on a killing solution. The same cannot be said for the MiG (not even counting its bigger surface to shoot at, and non-calibrated aiming symbology.)



It seems you're still stumbling against a killing solution via the HUD symbology is only "probable" Considering that, I think we can all agree that we'd much rather have the higher rate of fire and wall of lead bearing down on the target.

Top Speed Advantage: F-16C-52



I don't see anything of the sort from happening...oh and don't forget

Also, let me know if you need any help with the dat files, I've got the information here. You seem to be forgetting that others and myself were the main virtual test pilots for all the F-16 flight model blocks in Falcon 4 for over 7 years. I know what data LP used to interpolate to F4:AF because Sappy and I tested it for them after it was done.

Cheers to your future enjoyment! i'm enjoying the fact that the further this discussion proceeds the more you're learning in regards to this being a balanced BFM scenario and that only pilot skill can make a difference.

Acmi's are uploaded to the same place, you know where to find them.

Man, I really am a sucker, answering AGAIN. I've got to get out more, I must have too much time on my hands this weekend. I wouldn't have written this reply, except for this line: "We've already established that the Falcon has superior acceleration and a greater top speed at altitude."
I can handle the twisting, and "creative" interpretation, but not this claim which is opposite to everything I've said.

The Falcon does NOT have superior acceleration above 2000 feet (although it does have higher top speed at 16k), the Fulcrum does.

For anyone not sure, please see the horizontal acceleration tests at 2000 feet and 16000 feet, or the vertical climb tests, in the link at the bottom of this post.
KV, take a physics class: the Fulcrum would not have it's superior vertical climb without better acceleration at most altitudes.

Now, for the last time (I mean it, honest), I'm not going to keep feeding him after this post, I swear. No matter what he says.



I read(past tense) Frugals, not this. No calculations there, a counting error.



Oh, poor MiG. So what? The MiG can follow the Falcon to the elbow and outclimb it. That's right, read it, absorb it, accept it: the Fulcrum can outclimb the Falcon, even with a 50 knot deficit.



If you find a 50 knot difference hard to judge, are you saying the Falcon's top speed advantage at 15k of 40 knots isn't going to mean much then?


I was wrong about the 3 second roll rate stuff, I misread it. I didn't see the "." in front of the 3. A "0" would have been good.
Your test may perhaps be correct, generally, but I'd question it's accuracy. The dat files will eventually give an accurate picture.



Yes, I did.
I'm sorry that I can't say more on that, there isn't anything else to say.



Are you saying at SL the MiG accelerates faster than the Falcon above 600? Good to know: so the Fulcrum has superior acceleration above 2000 feet, and below that at 600+ kias, right?.
My test from 300 to 500 was far more useful than your 500+ test.



I'll just let you guess what I think of this. Take your own advice.



Backpeddle? I started this stuff in Frugals with a post that made absolutely no mention of guns at all, because that wasn't what I was posting about.
[Still assuming the bandit is not flying between rounds - ie not a low percentage shot]: you apparently don't understand the concept of probability. Under these conditions the number of rounds is NOT related to hit probability. One round would be the same as a million (strictly for probability).



I know. Everyone who has any experience with you knows you're blind to that.



You? Help me with the dat files? LOL. You're kidding, right?
I think I might just manage to do a little better without you.

Frugals thread on this topic

Why the reluctance? I only see good things resulting from the discussion.


It does have greater acceleration to 800 kias at 15,000, 825kias or so actually when separating. The MiG is lucky to get 796 kias. Less than a 2 min extention would allow for a re-entry at leisure...It all depends on the escape velocity the F-16 has. However, if the MiG tries to separate at altitude, he has to dive for the deck cause the F-16 can catch him. So the F-16 catches the bandit anyway but sustaining a high six and then diving on the MiG closing off the window. The MiG can also get enough separation for a re-entry, but it's not nearly as easy.


Yes it does. It accelerates faster from 600 to 800 kias above 2000 feet. I've had others check it as well, and it's in my acmis. It's exactly as I've told you the whole time, if you would have watched the tapes. The F-16 has greater acceleration at SL to 600 kias, but then the MiG outdistances it to 800 kias. At 15,000 feet the MiG is alittle quicker to 600 kias, but the F-16 accelerates faster to 800 kias. You see this range? These are heavy separating speeds allowing for quick re-enties if the geometry doesn't look good. A fighter unloads and accelerates till he's approx 2nm before turning back in.

Please, fly some head to head engagements in the F-16 against someone in the MiG and test it yourself. You'll see what I'm talking about and confirms the acmi footage.



I think we've got you to understand what I've been saying the whole time...finally.

SL- F-16 faster to 600 kias, MiG faster to 800 kias and higher top speed at SL

15K MiG faster to 600 kias (by much smaller margin), but F-16 faster to 800 kias and beyond. This means, if the Viper EVER needs or finds an escape window, he max climb to 15,000 feet (if not already there) and simply separate from the MiG and burn off, then return at his leisure for a new merge. It's apparent of course that any escape window is exactly that, a high angle off extention from a turn fight.


Such drama...



I guess counting isn't a form of calculation anymore




Here's another example of "balanced" for ya..hehe. Put the F-16 in the saddle at 390, and the MiG at 440 and have the MiG 4G climb above the horizon, and then allow the F-16 to 3g unload to the elbow and see what happens...lol. You're not thinking from both perspectives. This envelope is so close, that 50 knots energy difference between aircraft is not enough if either bandit is lag in the saddle prior to going above the horizon.

It's possible for the F-16 to lag entry and kill the MiG over the top, or visa versa. However, if the MiG decides to unload over the top or max climb, the F-16 can of course lag entry and follow the MiG up just as easily. This is maneuvering uphill as well, not just the flat vertical climb tests we've done. 50 knots +/- cannot make a commanding advantage either way.



I'm talking about a neutral geometry where neither bandit has a lock, the ability to judge his airspeed without a radar lock. Especially useful at knowing what speed before loading above the horizon after your bandit does.

See, this is that pilot skill stuff again having to separate the difference.



Here, let me help you:

F-16C Block 52

# ROLL DATA
#
#
# ALPHA BREAKPOINTS
7 # Num ALPHA
-10 0 10 20 25 30 90
#
# DYNAMIC PRESSURE BREAKPOINTS
#
7 # Num QBAR
0 100 200 300 400 500
2000
#
# RCMDMX - PEAK ROLL RATE
#
1 # Table Multiplier
#
# ALPHA -10
0 171.82 243.41 257.73 257.73 257.73 229.09
#
# ALPHA 0
0 214.77 286.36 300.68 315 315 286.36
#
# ALPHA 10
0 171.82 243.41 257.73 257.73 257.73 229.09
#
# ALPHA 20
0 71.59 143.18 157.5 157.5 157.5 128.86
#
# ALPHA 25
0 60.0 93.07 107.39 107.39 107.39 107.39
#
# ALPHA 30
0 30.0 42.95 57.27 57.27 57.27 28.64
#
# ALPHA 90

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
# End Of Roll Data

MiG-29S

# RCMDMX - PEAK ROLL RATE
#
1 # Table Multiplier
#
# ALPHA -10
0 142.86 200 214.29 242.86 242.86 228.57
#
# ALPHA 0
0 200 257.14 271.43 300 300 285.71
#
# ALPHA 10
0 142.86 200 214.29 242.86 242.86 228.57
#
# ALPHA 20
0 71.43 128.57 142.86 157.14 157.14 142.86
#
# ALPHA 30
0 7.14 64.29 78.57 107.14 107.14 92.86
#
# ALPHA 60
0 0 7.14 21.43 50 50 35.71
#
# ALPHA 90

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
#
# End Of Roll Data

That should help



Only at SL (for the 5th+time) does the MiG accelerate faster from 600 to 800 kias. At 15,000 the Viper owns this envelope (explained above). As for useful, <chuckles>, with your lack of experience in this scenario I wouldn't suggest what you think is more useful, as we've evidently discovered above in regards to ability to separate or not lol.





Why are you making assumptions about bandits flying through rounds? Flying through rounds isn't an option when the F-16 blasts its shotgun out in front of its flight path. Please just accept that hud symbology is "probable" for a first burst hit and that's it. You cannot ensure your first burst will hit but only by guestimation. Accuracy comes from experience, but that's not the point. The point is that in one single burst the F-16 has more projectiles in the air at point of intercept and has a higher probability of a hit as a result because more lead is flying at the target (just like soviet tactics of ripple firing two missiles).

The MiG has a slower rate of fire ALLOWING the possibility of flying between rounds, and not nearly as much projectiles in the air during a burst. Not only that, we're sticking purely to F4:AF here, and the F-16 is a smaller target making it even less probable of a hit. Combine that with the skewed aiming system in the MiG's HUD symbology and it's no contest...hell if you put the death dot on target when flying the MiG you won't even score a hit because of this. The Viper wins hands down in BFM armament.



See above in regards to the roll data. Go ahead and tell me what the value of the table multipliers means in relation to the alpha breakpoints?

Good luck in continuing your research on what you consider as "superior" in all respects (which by of course now the reader can accurately determine is not the case, but more of a balanced scenario).

Here is the proof: graphs drawn directly from flight model files.
The following is a copy of this post: Frugals post

First some caveats, mostly cut and pasted from my previous Frugals thread on this subject:
This whole post is about AF, it may or may not apply to OF and RV, it doesn't apply to real life.
I’m not claiming the Mig-29 is a superior platform to the F-16 in general, it’s not; the F-16 is superior.
I’m talking only about BFM.
I’m also not claiming that the AI Mig-29 can’t be beaten in a gunzo dogfight, it can, I usually beat it myself with a small amount of effort (and it certainly never kills me).
A badly flown Mig-29 can be made to look quite pathetic by an excellent pilot in an F-16, but we shouldn’t be complimenting the Falcon for these victories,
we should be complimenting the pilot flying the Falcon.
The Mig-29 is not a magic bullet that will allow a significantly inferior pilot to beat a superior pilot.
The most important factor in human F16 vs human Mig-29 dogfights is likely to be the pilot’s relative skill levels.

The reason I am interested in Fulcrum vs Falcon is that I notice the difference in performance when flying one then the other.
I was told that the Fulcrum did NOT have superior performance, but it is quite obvious to anyone flying it that it does, so I decided to prove it.

If you would like to see for yourself, fly an F16 block 52 against an Ace AI Mig29s, then fly a Mig29s against an Ace AI Mig29s.
Beginner or expert, you will notice the difference, and find the second dogfight easier.

If you don't know how to read an energy-maneuverabilty chart, read these articles:
http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_011a.html
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/energy-man1.htm
http://www.combatsim.com/htm/nov98/energy-man2.htm

Here are the charts:
(clean jet, max AB)
EM

Ktas vs dps.
Radius lines are 1000 to 4000 in 500ft steps.
G lines are 2 to 10 in 2g stps.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.

ACCELERATION (HORIZONTAL)

Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Horizontal flight.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.


ACCELERATION (VERTICAL)

Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Vertical flight.
Grey line is 0 feet/sec^2.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.


DECCELERATION

Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Hardest possible horizontal turn, throttle at idle.
This is without airbrakes extended.
The F16 is superior except at very high speeds.


PEAK ROLL RATE

Ktas vs dps.
Red and blue horizontal lines are the (mis-labeled?) "rollMomentum" values, multiplied by 100 for easier comparison.
This is incomplete. (Will later hopefully show "Time to Roll 180deg")
Only one graph shown because incomplete and the other altitudes are virtually identical.
The F16 is superior.




The only areas that the F16 has superiority in are decceleration
(which is only to be expected after you've seen the sustained turn rate curves: it bleeds speed too easily)
and roll rate,
by FAR the least two important graphs of the five.

At many altitudes the F16 does become superior at high speeds, but only at speeds that are unlikely to be reached in a dogfight, and only by diving.

ENVELOPE COMPARISON

The red area shows at which speeds and altitudes the Mig29 is superior, the blue shows where the Falcon is superior.
The purple area is where it is not immediately clear which is superior.

Most dogfights are unlikely to leave the red envelope, let alone enter the blue.

The above was for 100% fuel. At 700lb fuel for both jets the differences in performance become less,
but both still retain their performance advantages at the same speeds and altitudes; the Envelope Comparison chart shown here remains correct.


So...the AF Fulcrum BFM perfomance is superior. 'Nuff said.


F4chart is available here: F4chart

Exactly, as has been stated many times both in reference to RL reports, and in F4AF; because the advantages both aircraft hold allow for a balanced engagement in BFM head to head.


Also, as has already been stated, a test against the AI in a DACT scenario is invalid because the AI flies each aircraft the same way. It does not take advantage of difference performance envelopes but only flies by the same set of parameters which is very limited. The AI does not know how to max perform the F-16. Due to the limited data modeled into the Fulcrum, drag is much more prevalent in the F-16 and the AI doesn't know how to handle this properly being that it primarily fights by radius control.

So given incomplete drag data for the MiG, it gives the AI a cushion for sloppiness that is not present in a true BFM head to head engagement, where both vpilots are capable of max performing the airframes.

I also question your acceleration data because it is not consistent with performance in the sim, nor from the FM data. Your charts are very crude, so it's hard to determine explicit differences between the two aircraft (which is necessary is such a balanced comparison). Although it's really not necessary because my report above already shows the accurate data.


Inaccurate but I'll indulge just discussing the latter two points. Could you elaborate on the above marked in bold? What makes them the least important when it comes to a DACT BFM engagement between two pilots that can max performe each airframe? Clearly to make such a statement you should undoubtedly have enough experience and or footage that would backup such a claim.



Again, the chart above is very crude and doesn't do much to show differences or quantify any of the data that's made available. In regards to where and how what envelopes will look to be exploited in DACT BFM, you'll have to elaborate or at least try to quantify application of aircraft performance head to head...which is exactly what BFM is, head to head manuevering.

After 7 months of absence I'm pleased to see you're still working on this topic. With a bit more work, accuracy, and detail to your EM diagrams and some of the other charts it should make for a decent reference on paper for anyone that wants to look at the minute differences of these airframes in BFM when going up head to head, although it's already been defined in my initial report, more graphical representations makes things a bit easier to digest; as long as the data is accurate of course .

If you take a second look you will see I am suggesting flying against an AI Mig both times, thus there will be no difference due to the AI. Any difference noticed will be purely due to the aircraft you are flying.




The chart is accurate, and it cannot be inconsistent with data from the FM because it IS the data from the FM. Feel free to point out any differences between the graphs and the FM files, LOL!
Crude? Are you suggesting perhaps that more markings on the x axis, and maybe some horizontal guide lines would be good? I'm open to constructive suggestions for improvement.
If you download the program, you can run it and click on a point in the graph to see it's coordinates.




Except for completing the roll rate and adding the airbrake to the decceleration(and maybe a few suggestions to make the program easier to use), I am now no longer working on this topic. There is nothing left to do, it cannot be taken any further than the data from the FM files.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here? Of course there will be no difference flying against the AI because they don't max perform any aircraft, but fly within specific parameters. There is no "DACT" type of engagement vs the AI because they cannot take advantage of their desired performance envelopes, particularly when they are piloting the F-16. Again, the MiG performs better in the AI's hands (or a rookie virtual stick) because it doesn't bleed energy during the AIs protocol for fighting by radius control. Skillful manipulation of the stick is REQUIRED piloting the F-16 because of it's attention to detail in modeling....something the AI is not capable of doing.


You'll need to explain how your prog extrapolates the data and interpolates it to the charts. I'm just trying to rule out an error in the prog, because some of the data on the charts are NOT consistent with performance output by the airframes in the SIM.


Yes, more breakpoints on the charts with better labeling would be excellent. Your 'overall envelope' chart is erroneous and doens't show an adequate comparison between the aircraft. All it does is show airspeeds and altitudes without any reference to performance comparisons; which is rudimentary.



A readme or explanation of what your prog actually does would be good to allow for improvements or scrutiny that would be able to reduce margin of human error. Why didn't you complete the rollrate data and speedbrake data?

I believe we're still at the same point as we were 7 months ago here; only I disagree with your acceleration findings because they do not match performance in the SIM, so there has to be an error somewhere. In some places they do, but in others they do not, so it draws into question where there may be errors elsewhere too.

We're all still seeing a balanced DACT scenario with the closeness of several performance characteristics, and small advantages in different envelopes by both aircraft. You also forgot to elaborate on what I marked above in bold in regards to:


Also, as listed in my above report, there are several other areas where the F-16 is superior that directly relates to its capabilities in Basic Fighter Manuevers (dogfighting head to head)..although this is a DACT BFM (dissemilar) comparison.

I think most other people understand what I'm saying. You will get it eventually.
I'm not talking about the AI flying the F16, you can stop mentioning that whenever you like.


Er, no I won't need to; there is only one way to create the graphs from the data. Look it up, or borrow an aerodynamics book from your library. It will tell you exactly how I've done it.


Breakpoints are nothing to do with me. Talk to the FM guys.
My overall envelope chart is not incorrect, and if you look at the 25 charts above it you will find your "adequate comparison between the aircraft"



Download the program, and read the readme file.



The acceleration figures are not mine, they are pulled directly from the FM. They are not erroneous. You can try to "disagree" with them if you like, I really don't care. It won't do you any good.
If you would like to provide different acceleration figures calculated directly from the FM data files, either in graph form or otherwise, please do, it would be most interesting

Well the fact of what I'm saying above stands true. Any comparison utilizing the AI as a base is invalid because they DO NOT max perform the aircraft. The MiG is suited for rookish or sloppy flying (as is demonstrated by the AI). Of course the F-16 requires more skill to be flown to its max potential because of its more detailed modeling; I figured I'd mention it again just for good measure, you'll get it eventually



If you can't that's ok, I understand. I've worked with every aeronautical engineer and test program since falcon started development post 108i2 executable (from iBeta), and have seen the errors they made in their programs as well. You're not an aeronautical engineer. You're not an experienced BFMer in falcon. You're not above human error that takes place with others far more experienced than you in regards to interpolating data from the FM .dat files and how performance output is guaged in the SIM. There IS and have been differences to outside calculations to in SIM performance, but I understand you don't know that as is readily noticed from your combative responses. If it wasn't for your combative attitude, I would have been more than happy to help you and give you additional programs to help in your research instead of the crude, incomplete program and DATA analysis you're using now. (have you forgotten the EXE related FM code??? :D)


This just goes to show your program is far from complete.

Actually it IS incorrect. Com'on, 12 degree per second jumps on the X axis for the EM diagrams? Accel numbers that appear to start out of nowhere at random? etc...How about actually using some GRAPH PAPER to show the numerical values in between the only numbers you've provided so someone wouldn't have to try and guess?


I did, it just doesn't really say much; or quantify what the program does. You're expecting others to believe what your program actually does without any proof.


The figures ARE yours and obviously an error within your program AND your methodology. Those figures are not even CLOSE to performance in the SIM. Everyone already has seen that, and it draws question to the validity of the rest of the analysis that you've presented. I'm really sorry to be the one to tell you, but it's just the way it is.

Considering you're not an authority on BFM or flight model data my disagreeing and counter argument is enough in itself. Who you think others are going to believe, an inexperienced individual with a personal vendetta, or one that has been involved with development from the beginning with far more competent individuals and teams?

I'm sorry, but I only work with aero engineers and qualified individuals when it comes to FMing in falcon 4. You should have beta tested your own program .

You trying your damndest to stick to performance numbers on paper without any time in the jet only amplifies what I've said earlier in this thread about your lack of experience and understanding at what BFM has to do with the application to ACM. It's weak, and quite obvious that you cannot stand behind your own argument with practical application. A cop-out if you will because your only recourse is to argue on paper. If that's the best you can do, no one is going to take you seriously

It's obvious to everyone now, especially that you screwed up and have failed TWICE to answer the call to elaborate on your own words in regards to:


We all know that you're trying to talk the talk without being able to understand how to walk the walk. Like how all this is applied to the actual DACT engagement, and how weight of advantages is determined head to head. You can SAY one particular advantage is more important than another, but you can't back it up...nothing changed here.

You should have known better and stuck to "handling characteristics" and not venture into how they're actually weighed and applied in BFM and ACM. Nonetheless, even with your erroneous acceleration data this comparison is still "BALANCED" and the outcome of DACT BFM is FORCED to be decided by piloting skill, which yourself admitted right of the bat...therefore solidifying the fact that neither aircraft has overwhelming superiority over the other in a head to head engagement. That's what my report means by "BALANCED".

<chuckles>
It took you over 6 MONTHS to come back after getting thrashed the last time in this discussion, that time in between would have been better spent flying and enjoying yourself rather than holding a personal grudge and doing what you've been doing.

Cheers, and keep up the effort