F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S: BALANCED


There’s been some recent debates about this particular scenario purely in F4:AF. Since it’s common knowledge that the MiG isn’t modeled as detailed as the Viper, we leave most real world reports out of this dialogue, although occasional references are made where SIM and RL coalesce.

This particular scenario and debate surfaces often because it’s a common “problem” to the new Falconeer that is delving into the world of BFM after that first Campaign WVR meeting with a MiG and gets “handled”.

Against the AI there have been numerous posts, ACMIs, analysis, and tactical discussions that explain how to defeat the MiG. However, it is often been questioned whether the modeling inaccuracies within the MiG are enough to make it an all around superior BFM platform by comparison to the Viper in F4:AF. This is taking the pilot skill factor out of the equation and look at the scenario just purely from a statistical paper performance aspect. The only portion where pilot skill is present is the proficiency at which the tests were conducted in the ACMIs included with this report, and the calculations of his findings from aforementioned tests.

It’s been our conclusion that the aircraft performance comparisons are of such a balanced nature within their respective envelopes, the outcome of a DACT BFM engagement could only be decided by the skill of the individual pilots. This is also weighing the advantages and disadvantages each aircraft has on paper. The weight factor was taken from historical BFM accounts where the DACT similarities are consistent with our current tests.

Since RL comparisons to this DACT scenario could be argued, we’ve also taken the liberty to record live head to head ACMI footage between pilots of relatively equal skill, and each had them fly vs the other taking turns with the MiG and Viper. This simulates, or highlights the points at which each aircraft can capitalize on one or more of their advantages. Basically, it gives a live picture of the statistical data is executed from the perspective of two pilots, both having the opportunity to fly both aircraft in DACT head to head. This portion of the report can be made available upon request. While related and is an excellent demonstration of what is seen here on paper, it still maintains the arguable “piloting skill” factor.

Included at the bottom of this work are the ACMIs and datasheet of most of the recorded tests. Any requests, questions, or concerns regarding the film and datasheet, or a desire for more info; by all means ask.

Therefore, I’ll get into the individual short reports of the specific performance areas covered.


Sustained Turn Rate: MiG-29S

From 15,000 to Sea Level both at Max Clean Gross Weight (MCGW) and under Bingo Fuel the MiG enjoys a better turn rate of an average of 2 degrees per second more (DPS). It also enjoys a tighter radius, therefore making it a slightly faster and tighter turning aircraft. The MiG’s preferred corner speeds from 15,000 to SL are just below the F-16s, and is more pronounced below 330 knots where the MiG benefits from high AoA maneuvers without the penalty of accurate drag modeling. This also matches real world reports where the MiG enjoys tighter turning, and nose pointing authority below the F-16s lower corner speeds.

However, as a result of cornering at lower speeds, the MiG gives up vertical generalship because of the speed difference of Viper and MiG cornering in their respective envelopes. We’ve also discovered as the MiG draws closer to the cornering speeds of the Viper, the MiG pilot suffers higher g-loading longer than the Viper. Considering all pilots g-loading tolerance in Falcon are equal, longer, higher g-loading causes pilot fatigue sooner. Obviously, this forces an extension, speed and G reduction, or unloading to reduce fatigue therefore reducing turn effectiveness.

So while the MiG enjoys slightly better turning, it doesn’t come without cost. This is an excellent DACT balance.

Max Instantaneous Turn Rate: MiG-29S

From 15,000 to Sea Level both at MCGW and under Bingo Fuel the MiG enjoys a faster MITR and tighter radius downhill. Its radius advantage is not as prevalent here, but the rate advantage downhill is near 3 DPS faster. This makes it a dangerous opponent when armed with all aspect IR, and HMS across a two circle merge.

Thrust to Weight Comparisons: Balanced

In vertical climb tests between the two aircraft, it has been determined that the performance is so close, that only piloting skill can make the difference. Executing 4G climb outs to 90 vertical produced very close numbers on max altitude reached.

Due to the closeness of the tests, vertical maneuvering while at similar energy states is balanced and can only be separated by piloting skill.

Roll Rate and Maneuverability: F-16C-52

Roll rate tests were confirmed to be roughly equal once the aircraft started actual movement. However, we also noticed that the Viper’s response time to stick inputs is faster than the MiG’s. This gives the Viper superior maneuverability in changing angle of bank for desired plane of motion. It should also be mentioned that the MiG also suffers from over-roll inertia by comparison to the Viper putting it at another time disadvantage for precise angle of bank choices prior to moving in a particular plane of motion.

Deceleration: F-16C-52

From 15,000 to Sea Level the Viper enjoys about equal to the MiG from it’s upper to lower corner speeds in both planes of motion. However, as the fight proceeds below the Viper’s corner speeds (such as entering a rolling scissors, downhill leafing fights, or other slower types of BFM maneuvers) the F-16 slows down considerably faster.

Like in many RL HUD tapes we see, this is consistent with engagements that go from hard cornering to geometric advantage at slower speeds for the kill. This is also consistent in F4:AF whether fighting the AI, or another human opponent.

It should also be mentioned that straight and level flight deceleration favors the MiG of course due to its less aerodynamic design and heavier weight. The reason the Viper enjoys maneuvering deceleration advantage is due to it’s AoA+drag modeling, obviously as AoA increases so does the surface area to the wind causing more drag. The MiG doesn’t have as many breakpoints modeled as the Viper, which is also why we see the MiG's superior turn rates from slower speeds when the Viper is in mid to upper corner.

Acceleration: F-16C-52

From 15,000 to Sea Level the Viper enjoys greater acceleration. There is one place at SL where the MiG accelerates faster from 700 to 800 knots but that is due to its faster top speed at SL.

It should be noted that from Sea Level to 15,000 the Viper’s acceleration advantage increases and has a higher top speed than the MiG at 15,000.

This acceleration advantage enables allows the Viper greater ease of engaging and disengaging from the ability to accelerate far enough from the MiG to ensure a new neutral merge, full escape, or making it more difficult for the MiG to escape should he disengage. This also allows for the Viper to regain energy faster in unloaded situations, effectively allowing it to counter the turn fighting MiG with an angle fight of its own.

Top Speed: F-16C-52

While at Sea Level the MiG enjoys a faster top speed by .4 MACH, or approximately 40 knots, the Viper dominates as you increase altitude all the way up to 15,000. At this altitude the Viper simply walks away from the MiG. This allows the Viper from altitude to simply, escape, horizontally or vertically extend and reenter the fight at its leisure.



Dive: Balanced

In dive tests from 30,000 and 20,000 down to an altitude of 10,000 the Viper’s small increase in performance isn’t enough to make much of a difference. This was only tested at a 50deg dive angle.

Armament: F-16C-52

This is comparing the Gsh-30-1 and M61 A1 guns in F4AF. The Viper enjoys an advantage here simply to rate of fire, and amount of projectiles in the air during a short burst by comparison to the MiG. More projectiles in the air increase hit percentage. Although the HUD symbology for both aircraft is the same, the MiG suffers from the pipper not lining up with a “kill” gun solution of pipper on target. Due to the aligning of the gun one must be forced to guestimate further and aim a bit left of the target to increase probability of a hit.

It should be noted that the 30mm damage effects from the MiG are worrisome and is indeed modeled. However, this isn’t enough to make up for its non-calibrated aiming system, and slower rate of fire.

Finally, surface area to shoot at (hit box) compared to number of projectiles fired goes definitely in the Viper’s advantage. The MiG has a larger hit box, and more rounds on target from a Viper kill shot. Unfortunately range and ballistic effects to 20mm vs 30mm, bullet dispersion at increasing ranges beyond 3000 etc are not modeled.

Conclusion:

It’s been our conclusion before this report, and remains afterwards that in F4:AF the differences in DACT BFM performance are not enough to declare one aircraft superior over the other, but that piloting ability decides the outcome.

The weight of the individual advantages and disadvantages are at margins that do not allow for commanding control over a DACT BFM engagement.

On a final note, please be advised that all of our live combat testing between humans taking turns flying each aircraft, has been consistent with our findings during pre-flight analysis. All pilots flying both sides are of relatively similar skill levels, although this is subjective, it balances during the aircraft exchange and secondary hop.

Thanks for reading,
The Aggressor Order

<click below>
ACMIs and DATA SHEET

EDIT: ACMI Database Directory

ACMI Database

LOL KV, the debate seems a bit less lively here!!!!!!!

Wildcat

Hey KidVicious, that was an interesting read! Helpful too! The Falcon community really seems to be lacking in this kind of discussion since everyone just flies the same Viper in the end (no Red planes officially modeled to compare to and fly against). Nobody seems to care about the technical stuff like real life radar performance, black-out model, missiles, etc, etc beyond all the button pushing and avionics as modeled in the Viper. Everyone just shoots the breeze about the campaign, no real meat to dig into. Nice to see this type of meat brought to the table!

How did you test out the MiG-29? Did you enable it as a playable plane? If so, were you using the F-16's cockpit and HUD or something else? Its interesting how the Fulcrum is modeled less extensively but still suffers from some of the same issues it does in real life, like over-roll inertia.

Hi RedTiger,

Thanks! Yes, we enabled it to be flown through the teplanes.lst file in the respective campaign folder. Unfortunately, you still have all the F-16's cockpit graphically when flying different aircraft, but the performance of the different systems are modeled, same with the flight model etc.

Indeed, it is interesting that many of the real world comparisons between these aircraft (historical training hops), are also observed in F4:AF. We've always maintained that this engagement scenario is balanced even in light of less detailed modelling that gives the MiG greater performance than real world reports. On the other hand, the DACT BFM scenario is pretty consistent with how the F-16 tries to defeat the MiG, and the same in reverse. It's nice to simulate real world tactics and see them to fruition in the sim :).

I couldn't possibly imagine why

This thread needed some glue.

2nd edits in green. Mainly for correcting the horizontal accel error.

KV you sneaky boy. You couldn't maintain your position against an argument so you came here? (CM linked to it from Frugals)
Don't worry, I won't spoil the party; this will be my only post in this thread.


There are some problems with your report:

Sustained Rate:
The Fulcrum has better rate -Correct
The Fulcrum pilot suffers higher g loading -Correct
The Fulcrum gives up vertical superiority -Incorrect, for two reasons: the Fulcrum doesn't have to fly down at it's own best corner speed to out turn the Falcon, it is so badly modelled that it can in fact fly at 440 kias and still enjoy better rate and radius than the Falcon, if desired.
Also the Fulcrum enjoys better vertical climb than the Falcon (see below, your vertical test is VERY badly flawed)

Instantaneous Rate:
The Fulcrum is superior -Correct

Thrust to Weight (vertical climb)
This is the most misleading part of your report, and even worse, you already know the things I am about to write here, but you left them out anyway.
TtW is approx equal -Incorrect: You used a 4g turn up to vertical, max performing the Falcon, which is fine, but then you tested the Fulcrum also at 4g, which is absurd. When the Fulcrum turns up at 4g it's turn radius is much smaller than the Falcon's EDIT:(Approx 2000+ feet smaller radius at 390 kias). The 4g turn in the Fulcrum is much tighter, and so hurts it's vertical climb. In fact the Fulcrum should turn up at a point between 3g and 4g, where it's radius will match the Falcon's, and it's climb will be greater. (Note even if the Fulcrum starts climbing from just 390 kias it will climb higher, and if starting at 440 kias it easily out climbs the Falcon)
EDIT:
Falcon: 2000 feet, heavy, horizontal, at 440 kias pull a 4g (this max performs theFalcon) turn up to vertical, measure height at departure (aircraft horizontal).
Mig-29: 2000 feet, heavy, horizontal, at 390 kias (the speed at which the Mig29 climbed higher in my original Frugals test), pull up at 4g to vertical, then do the same test again but with 3g turn.

Results
Falcon: 31770 (Flown by KV/Fangs~Out)
Mig29@4g: 30770 (radius -2000)
Mig29@3g: 34000 (radius +1500)
Therefore:
Mig29@3.6g: 32600 (radius = Falcon's radius) [Note this point is not actual data, it's just derived from the two actual data points above, using linear approximation]
If the MiG starts at 440 kias the advantage is even greater than shown here.
See acmis in the link at the bottom of this post.

Roll Rate
Falcon superior -Incorrect: tests have shown a very slight advantage to the Fulcrum, although I don't consider it enough to be significant. As for your claims about stick response and roll inertia, I have no data to disprove this, but similarly you have no data to prove it. It's just an arbitrary claim.
I have heard that FM data from the dat files may show that the Falcon actually has a superior roll rate, but you didn't extract any data from the dat files, and inflight tests (your and mine) don't show any advantage.

Deceleration
Falcon superior -Incorrect: At speeds above 330 kias (where the Falcon will be trying to stay) the Fulcrum enjoys a small deceleration advantage both horizontally and vertically. Below 330 the Falcon has a small advantage, but of course here it suffers an even larger turn rate disadvantage than before.

Acceleration
Falcon superior -Incorrect: In horizontal tests at 2000 feet they have equal acceleration, and at 16000 feet the Fulcrum accelerates from 300 kias to 500 kias faster than the Falcon. Did you think superior vertical climb was coincidental?
EDIT: In all four tests here the AB was lit before 300 kias, and both jets were accelerating before they hit 300 kias.
EDIT:
2000 feet
F16: 11.5 sec
MiG: 11.5 sec
EDIT: This was an embarrassing error: I made a glaringly obvious mistake when looking at the times for the Fulcrum at 2k in my acmi, it was NOT 11.0 seconds, but 11.5 seconds. My apologies to anyone who read the incorrect info.
So we can conclude that the MiG has superior acceleration above 2k, and it seems likely that the Falcon will have slightly superior acceleration below 2k (I haven't tested it, but that's what I'd expect). Of course this 2000 foot vertical range (0 to 2k) is not enough to support KV's absolutely ridiculous and untrue claims that the Falcon has superior vertical acceleration. The MiG has superior vertical climb for the very simple reason that it has superior acceleration above 2k.

16000 feet
F16: 20.8 sec
MiG: 20.0 sec
See acmis in the link at the bottom of this post.

Top Speed
My post in Frugals was purely about BFM, top speed is not part of BFM, it's something you use between periods of BFM, but your post is not so specific, so yes, Falcon top speed is faster, but to claim the Falcon will do anything "at it's leisure" against a Fulcrum is ridiculous. Against a Fulcrum with superior rate, radius, vertical climb and acceleration, the chances of top speed ever being significant are extremely remote, at best.

Dive
You haven't posted any details of this test, so I can't comment.

Guns
This was also not part of my BFM thread, it was brought up by Tank and CM when there were no BFM "legs" left to stand on.
You claim "More projectiles in the air increase hit percentage", which, providing the target is not flying between rounds, is completely false. They will have exactly the same hit percentage.
Of course for the same amount of time hitting the target, the MiG will put less rounds on, but like you say, it's rounds do more damage.
The Fulcrum also takes more time to expends it ammunition, something which I quote you as saying is desirable, in the Frugals thread.

Conclusion
Of course the pilot will always remain the most important factor, I've always said that, but the superiority of the Fulcrum at BFM is enough to affect a dogfight. (As one example, take your pal Centermass, a competent pilot who's no doubt shot down many human-flown Falcons, but said in a post just three weeks ago that he's never been able to beat a human Fulcrum. That's not balanced.)

You are biased against the Fulcrum KV, you seem to take it personally anytime anyone says something against the Falcon.

The (AF) MiG is superior at BFM performance (though not as an overall platform), most of the figures to prove that can be seen in KV's acmis here, the rest can be seen here:
Frugals thread with AF Fulcrum Falcon BFM figures + acmi (KV posting under the name Fangs~Out) All relevant acmis are there.
I take no particular pleasure from this being the case, it is simply a fact, nothing more, nothing less.

EDIT: My next tests on this, when I have the time, will be to pull the data directly from the AF dat files, and present it as graphs.
The points of interest will be roll rates, including response time and inertia, and acceleration which will show the MiGs superior acceleration above 2k (and thus in the vertical as a whole), leaving no opportunity for objections from KV.

Thank you!

Each time you post, you’re only furthering my position and clearly highlighting my points...



For you to post a thread title such as the one above, one would expect you to have a thorough understanding of DACT BFM.

It’s become increasingly clear that throughout this discussion that you are lacking quite a bit in your understanding of the relationship of aircraft performance capabilities and its application to BFM; and even more importantly DACT BFM.

I’m not sure why you feel it necessary to take an authoritative and condescending tone in regards to your findings, considering a large amount of it is just simple regurgitations of my comments or another more experienced virtual pilot. You’ve even stated yourself that you didn’t even know what to test, but you got your ideas, and continued to get your ideas from others or myself (remember, I was your acid test ;). )

So how can you expect for us (the readers of your report) to have confidence in your comments or findings, when it’s clear you don’t have a full understanding of what you’re doing in the first place? This isn’t an insult mind you, but just stating the obvious from reading your posts.

Now we get into some of the comments that you’ve posted.




Our position has been maintained well, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. No worries, there isn’t possibility of spoiling anything. Why post once, I welcome your attendance.



Ok, so you admit that the MiG has to open its radius when trying to enter the vertical fight with a Viper to keep from getting out-maneuvered from above? That’s not a direct comparison to the Viper, and openly admits a MiG must transition to lag pursuit if entering a vertical fight with the Viper if it’s below the Viper’s upper corner plateau.

The tests are equal. If both jets start a vertical climb from 2000 feet at 440 knots, both jets climb at 4g, and they both turn at about 6 to 8 DPS at approx 6000 to 7000 foot radius before unloading.

Max altitude reached is about a 400 feet difference at most with the MiG taking the higher altitude at about 32,000 feet. However, it should be noticed that the MiG loses total control at 31,450 at 60kias going straight up and has no roll or pitch authority (it hits 31,450’ at 60 kias exactly the same time the Viper does). This is because the MiG doesn’t have a deep stall model like the Viper. Once the Viper his 60kias it is automatic nose to tail reversal. The MiG continues to climb a few hundred more feet out of control.

This is entering the vertical at the same speeds, same radius, and same turn rate to 90 degrees. Should the MiG try to enter the vertical at speeds less than the Viper, considering the T+W ratio’s are so close, it MUST transition to lag pursuit (even by your own admission) to maintain at the least neutrality for max altitude reached. However, the Falcon at this point owns vertical generalship, and can level off and separate for a new merge, or begin turning in the horizontal climb to bleed and hang the MiG-29 from above. Transitioning to lag means you are losing angles because you’re unloading and opening the turn radius.

These numbers are so close under controlled tests that it would take piloting skill to separate advantage if both jets are maneuvering at the same speeds above the horizon. If either aircraft is energy deficient at the elbow, it loses vertical generalship. This envelope is balanced.

This is what we’re all telling you, you’re lack of knowledge in BFM/DACT BFM is painfully obvious that you don’t even realize it when you post. I’ve got two more VC acmi’s in the same folder listed in my first post, but they’re pretty consistent with what I already have.


See, this is because you haven’t tested it. You also don’t have enough stick time vs the AI MiG, and definitely not against human controlled MiGs or you would have noticed this.

Perform your tests again. This time don’t be silly and accelerate full burner but start the tests at 440 kias and drop the throttle as you start your rolls.

Mark time from the MOMENT your stick hits full deflection, and then stop it the MOMENT the aircraft comes wings level on its 10th roll. You will notice that the Viper is about .3 seconds faster.

Now if you mark time from the moment the actual roll begins, then yeah sure the rollrates are near equivalent. However, marking response time from stick movement to aircraft movement is a significant difference in the Viper’s superiority. The Viper also doesn’t suffer from over roll inertia and has more precise control of his movements, making it easier to fly. It’s only the loading control that makes it more difficult than the MiG, changing directions is OWNED by the Viper.

Now you could counter that the Viper’s quicker response time can be countered by the MiG’s quicker MITR (max instantaneous turn rate), therefore balancing this advantage, but again pilot skill is the only separating factor.



It seems that you’re not very aware of different types of scissoring engagements with the MiG-29 at various energy states. I find it interesting that you believe the Viper should never get below 330 kias with a MiG. The MiG enjoys a greater turn rate, but suffers in roll rate/response time. This complements the Viper’s below corner deceleration advantage.

What’s even funnier is this is the rookie’s FIRST observation when learning how to defeat the MiG. They realize that they can slow down faster as a scissors progresses either in the vertical or horizontal plane, and spit the MiG out in front of them. This is also consistent with many RL hud tapes where the Viper is sitting in the saddle with pipper on target and well below 300 kias.



Heh… Nice acceleration test there, a 200 knot range to test…

The truth of the matter is that at Sea Level, the F-16 accelerates faster from 300 to 600 knots, but the MiG can outrun the F-16 at Sea Level.

However, at 15,000 feet the situation is reversed. The MiG accelerates a bit faster to 600 knots, but the F-16 exceeds its top speed.

This effective allows the F-16 the ability to jump outside its bandit’s turn radius and re-enter at leisure. Or, if he wanted to call it a day and bug out, the choice is his because he’s faster. The MiG doesn’t enjoy this luxury, if the MiG pilot has to separate under EXACTLY the same conditions as an F-16, the F-16 can catch him. This has played HUGE roles in historic combat, and jet combat in particular; I fail to see why you don’t recognize its importance here.


Here is a pristine example of what we’ve been saying all along. Not only did you not test it, but you don’t even know its application to BFM. Not surprising though, even considering how far we are into this discussion.

I suppose an aircraft being able to out-distance, escape at leisure, re-enter at leisure from having a greater top speed throughout history was only important to “overall platform performance”, but didn’t have any application to BFM? That is soooo interesting that you would believe that ;).

So you’re saying that it doesn’t matter that the Viper can simply climb to 15,000 feet and walk away from a MiG-29? Or, that’s not important to be measured or weighed in DACT BFM?

Interesting



You seem to be having some kind of mental block here. I’m sure you know that the aiming symbology is not a laser for air to air gunnery in F4:AF. Pipper on target under a correct gun solution is a “probability” of a hit. If you go back and read what I’ve posted about the 1g pipper, death dot, and 9g pipper you’ll understand.

Taking that into considerations, a 3 second burst fired from both of these cannons at EXACTLY the same gun solution, the M61 A1 in the Viper wins out. It has far more projectiles in the air to PREVENT bandit from flying between rounds and increases probability of a hit by comparison to its opponent’s slower rate of fire and far less projectiles in the air.

What is it you don’t understand about same gun solution, more projectiles in the air that increases pK? Isn’t that the same as the Soviet tactic of ripple firing 2 missiles to increase pK? We do the same thing with the gun by having a higher rate of fire.


No, they won’t. You’re assuming that the gun solution is a sure hit, and what we’re telling you is the HUD symbology isn’t always a sure hit, and even more difficult in the MiG because the aiming isn’t calibrated to the HUD.

Not only that, but the Viper is a smaller target to shoot at by comparison to the MiG which has a much much larger hitbox, therefore INCREASING the probable hit percentage on target with amount of projectiles in the air per burst.

On a post you’re quoting that is over 5 years ago, the reason I was asking because I believe at the time the slower rate of fire wasn’t modeled, although the 30mm cannon damage modeling was. I wanted the rate of fire accurate because of the limited number of rounds carried by some other aircraft that had it. However, this has nothing to do with the comparisons between each cannon’s hit percentage per burst. That’s why we’ve always opted for more projectiles or higher rates of fire by comparison to eastern blocks.



It’s called inexperience, the same thing you’re suffering from. He’s since gained knowledge on how to exploit the MiG and try to fight better in his own envelope rather than the MiG’s.

I would recommend getting some more flight hours head to head against the MiG-29S in DACT BFM vs the AI, and vs other virtual pilots before you make sweeping generalizations about one particular aircraft being superior to another.

In this way, you will have the experience and knowledge in being able to effectively weigh the differences in each aircraft’s advantages and disadvantages. Only after this will your non-erroneous “findings” in your report posted at Frugals start to make sense in how it applies to DACT BFM in the air.

I’m sorry to have to point out the obvious, but as I said it’s even been stated by you that you’re lacking in experience when it comes to BFM and that most of your information has been reading other pilot’s remarks and regurgitating them, hopefully learning something in the process. Perhaps we should just chalk this up as a learning experience for you?

Thrust to Weight and Vertical Maneuvering Discussion


I guess you're not seeing balanced here. Right here above you're posting a very small difference.

Why is it difficult for you to understand that the MiG will OBVIOUSLY have a smaller radius in a 4G climb with a Viper. You put this pursuit arc next to each other on paper and the MiG would be in pure to lead pursuit of the Viper (I've also tested it in Falcon). For the MiG to continue to climb with the Viper it has to unload to 3G or less (by your OWN admission) and open it's radius moving to lag.

Dude! We're talking about the difference between 1G and a 50 knot elbow entry difference on these two platforms. The MiG has to unload if it enters the elbow at a lesser speed than the Viper. This gives angles, and separation. As the fight proceeds above, or levels off at 15,000 feet the Viper can simply walk away from the MiG.

Here's more acmi's that are pretty much consistent with what's been posted already.

4G climb from 2000'. Two of the F-16 at 440, one of the MiG at 390 and 440. The F-16 tops out above the MiG by 1800' when it tries the same turn rate uphill. The MiG would be forced to lag increasing separation, at which point the Viper can level out and walk away.

And again with both aircraft hitting the elbow at 440 knots the MiG tops above the Viper by about 600 feet.

We're splitting hairs here because the numbers are so close in this envelope only pilot skill can make a decisive difference. It IS clear however, that the MiG MUST enter the elbow at no less than 50 knots of the Viper to engage it successfully in the vertical (390 kias or less and it cannot compete unless it unloads and transitions to lag pursuit opening separation gap). The further the split from the Viper's upper corner plateau and the vertical generalship increases.
This is a far cry from your comment "Fulcrum pilot can reef back on the stick...". Not even close buddy. Keep training against a human opponent in the MiG and you'll eventually see it is balanced, and that what we have here on paper already told you that.

Vertical Climb ACMIs

BALANCED

Acceleration Discussion



I'm gonna have to question your test of the MiG. Not only that, but by marking time from the first point the MiG was at 300 to the first point it was at 500 was 11.51 seconds in your own tape at 2000 feet.

It is OBVIOUS that you're spooling up into burner prior to stabilizing at 300 knots to try and increase the MiG's acceleration on the jump. The MiG spools in about 4 seconds and you're already accelerating sub 300 knots and burner lit. You were accelerating before you hit 300.

Also, <chuckles>, why do you believe acceleration stops at 500 kias? I guess there are some hidden universal BFM rules out there that says you must not accelerate past 500 kias?

My post above concerning the acceleration between the two aircraft are correct. The Viper enjoys a jumpstart at sea level, but gets outran; and the MiG enjoys a jumpstart at 15,000 but gets outran.

Which advantage would you rather have, potential energy WHILE extending from a bandit at altitude, or being outran at sea level? I think I'd opt to go for altitude ;).

This coupled with the Viper's greater top speed at 15,000 enables it to exit and re-enter the fight at his leisure

F-16C-52

I still notice you haven't:

1) Tested response time to roll inputs

2) Top Speed

3) Cannons

I guess you've conceded these arguments.

This is looking balanced more and more thanks

Wow. A lot of thought from both sides...