Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#2642425 - 12/28/08 02:37 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Beware the lessons of a fighter pilot who would rather fly a slide rule than kick your ass!

Commander Ron 'Mugs' McKeown
United States Navy
Commander of the U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School.


tactical


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#2642447 - 12/28/08 04:02 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Quote:
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 biggrin

Again, for the last time: not interested. Not using any differences in AI performance.


Quote:
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. biggrin 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)

Can't reproduce the equations I coded? No, of course I wouldn't know how to do that...
You are obviously out of your depth here KV. Ask an aeronautical engineer: there is only one equation that will give the acceleration from the FM data. It is very simple, they will be able to rattle it off to you without even thinking. You will find it in all introductory aircraft performance text books.
It's the one I used. It is correct, sorry.

Quote:

Breakpoints are nothing to do with me. Talk to the FM guys.


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

Care to elaborate? Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? Perhaps you can share with us your definition of a breakpoint.


Quote:

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?

Good grief. Have you even seen a graph before? 12 degree jumps?!??
The y axis (my typo too) shows markings only for 12, 24 and 36, but that is just for viewing ease. I agree more are needed to make the graphs easier to read, but it is nothing to do with the data used to plot the curve.
The x axis(along the bottom) is the independant variable, and the curve is calculated for every ktas integer. That is, 100 times between each vertical dotted line.



Quote:

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.

Proof? wink
All right, just for you, cause I'm starting to feel sorry for you,(don't start thinking I'm going to hold your hand and walk you through every equation though) pick one value on one graph and I will tell you how that number was extracted from the FM file. If you can't do it yourself, that is.



Quote:

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.

Actually, the horizontal acceleration (I assume that's what you're still talking about) graph shows almost exactly the numbers you can produce by flying. There is no error.
If you believe there is, point out the incorrect figure, with the correct figure, and the correct methodology for calculating that figure.. I eargerly await your reply.

Quote:
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? hahaha

This is a KV quote to be kept! wink Any air up there on your pedastal among the clouds?

Quote:
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 biggrin.

Damn. What a blow.


Quote:
<chuckles> hahaha
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.

Don't assume I spent a lot of time on you KV wink The program is a few days of coding, which I can spare at this time of year.



Last edited by Deadmeat.; 12/29/08 06:36 AM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2642478 - 12/28/08 05:06 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
I'll be gone for a few days on holiday biggrin

Put that axe down for alittle while (6 months is a looong time hahaha ), and partake in the festivities! biggrin


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2645035 - 01/02/09 10:51 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Back from holiday!

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
Again, for the last time: not interested. Not using any differences in AI performance.


The fact of the matter doesn't require you to be interested. Any tests utilizing the AI as a standard for aircraft max performance capability comparisons is invalid.


Quote:

Can't reproduce the equations I coded? No, of course I wouldn't know how to do that...
You are obviously out of your depth here KV. Ask an aeronautical engineer: there is only one equation that will give the acceleration from the FM data. It is very simple, they will be able to rattle it off to you without even thinking. You will find it in all introductory aircraft performance text books.
It's the one I used. It is correct, sorry.


It appears you've missed quite a few equations in your rudimentary program. Drag = 0.5*rho*Cx*S(reference area)*v*V )is definately one of them. You do realize drag is also dependant on AoA right? You also didn't calculate CL vs CD (drag polars). I don't know why you didn't just use a different program instead of what you've attempted here; there are many more available that would have done a much better job, although you'd have to have far more knowledge of how the FM data extrapolates to in SIM performance; which clearly you don't.


Quote:

Care to elaborate? Do you have the slightest idea what you are talking about? Perhaps you can share with us your definition of a breakpoint.

I'm not talking about mach or altitude breakpoints dude lol, hell you couldn't even use mach in your EM diagrams anyway which is laughable. hahaha

Quote:

Good grief. Have you even seen a graph before? 12 degree jumps?!??
The y axis (my typo too) shows markings only for 12, 24 and 36, but that is just for viewing ease. I agree more are needed to make the graphs easier to read, but it is nothing to do with the data used to plot the curve.
The x axis(along the bottom) is the independant variable, and the curve is calculated for every ktas integer. That is, 100 times between each vertical dotted line.


No, I can't read a graph that looks like a 6yr old just threw it together with a few crayons and a glass of milk that's for sure. This is what an EM diagram is supposed to look like, guy:



You don't even have the Ps curves plotted on your EMs lol! Did you even create or look for the Ps curves for positive and negative???

Quote:

Proof? wink
All right, just for you, cause I'm starting to feel sorry for you,(don't start thinking I'm going to hold your hand and walk you through every equation though) pick one value on one graph and I will tell you how that number was extracted from the FM file. If you can't do it yourself, that is.

biggrin The burden of proof is not on us, it's on YOU to quantify your figures and methodology...which is inaccurate by comparison to in SIM performance. I have no inclination to have you read faulty numbers to me in regards to your program when it's obvious by simple tests in SIM that your elementary curves are not accurate, nor can they be read properly for a detailed comparative analysis.


Quote:

Actually, the horizontal acceleration (I assume that's what you're still talking about) graph shows almost exactly the numbers you can produce by flying. There is no error.
If you believe there is, point out the incorrect figure, with the correct figure, and the correct methodology for calculating that figure.. I eargerly await your reply.


It's quite simple as has already been discovered long ago. In SIM tests clearly demonstrate that the aircrafts' have approximately equal acceleration at Sea Level until 600 knots, where the MiG holds advantage.

At 15,000 feet acceleration clearly goes to the F-16 all the way to 800 knots and beyond. From 500 to 600 knots acceleration is approximately equal, but before and after this range the F-16 is dominant.

These are acceleration tests starting from 250 knots and ending at 800 knots. I have no clue WHY your graphs display KIAS in the excess of 850 kias. Why didn't you see fit to cut them off at the appropriate top speeds? Hell, acceleration for the MiG-29S STOPS at 1.53 MACH at 15,000 feet.

Nonetheless, these performances are close and differ from each other depending on the altitude stack that the aircraft are competing in acceleration, which only furthers my point in my conclusion of this being a BALANCED DACT BFM SCENARIO.

Quote:

Don't assume I spent a lot of time on you KV wink The program is a few days of coding, which I can spare at this time of year.


Yeah..sure sure biggrin Tell that to someone else who'll believe it hahaha

Let's review what you've been debunked on biggrin

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

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.

False

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

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.

False

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

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 <---- WHAT? LOL
MiG: 20.0 sec <---- HEHE!

False

You can see that even your own in SIM flight testing does not come close to your "graphs".

Additionally, I called bullsh*t on your:

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

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.

Which of course you're scared to discuss it because you know it's incorrect and that you've absolutely no experience to justify or quantify such a statement (because that undoubtedly has to be proven in the jet, where you obviously have very limited experience). Why would you want to lie to a reader like that when you know quite well you have no clue what you're talking about here?

There's no getting around it, no matter how many error-laden progs you attempt to write, no matter how you try to twist the data; this DACT scenario in a dogfight is balanced. Each aircraft enjoys advantages in one particular envelope or another. Their performances are so close in most respects that it is FORCED for pilot skill to determine the outcome. You've been trying to make readers believe that the MiG has an overwhelming superiority when mixing it up close quarters (as is indicated by your <giggles> :D, "envelope graph"), this is something that won't fly. The only reason I entertain myself in furthering this age old discussion with you is because I like to make sure that those playing this game are not swallowing this load of misinformation you seem insistent upon spreading.

Oh, before I forget, look for a program called "F4Doghouse" (written by Julian Onions), the next time you wanna play with EM diagrams; it's a much stronger prog than what you've been playing around with.

Cheers! biggrin


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2645176 - 01/02/09 04:19 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Originally Posted By: KidVicious
The fact of the matter doesn't require you to be interested. Any tests utilizing the AI as a standard for aircraft max performance capability comparisons is invalid.

And this also for the last time: not using any differences in AI for anything. Completeley irrelevant.



Quote:

It appears you've missed quite a few equations in your rudimentary program. Drag = 0.5*rho*Cx*S(reference area)*v*V )is definately one of them. You do realize drag is also dependant on AoA right? You also didn't calculate CL vs CD (drag polars). I don't know why you didn't just use a different program instead of what you've attempted here; there are many more available that would have done a much better job, although you'd have to have far more knowledge of how the FM data extrapolates to in SIM performance; which clearly you don't.

Oh! wow, this is new... oh wait, no it's not, I may have seen that equation before, just once or twice wink
Thanks for the help KV, but I already knew how to calculate drag, and yes, of course it is used extensively in my program <sigh>
Thanks also for pointing out that drag is related to alpha, but again, I didn't need to be told. You wouldn't have needed to mention it if you knew where the Cx in your equation comes from.
Here is the equation for acceleration, just for your effort above (I must be getting soft...):
g(Tcos(alpha)-(rho(wingArea)(v^2)Cd)/2)/(weight)

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how I can "calculate CL vs CD"? wink
You can plot "X vs Y", but not calculate it. Of course I didn't plot CL vs CD, it wouldn't be very interesting, and yes I do calculate Cl and Cd from the FM file whenever necessary.

I would have loved to just use graphs from another program that does what mine does, it would have saved me some time, but unfortunately I didn't have any such program available to me.




Quote:

I'm not talking about mach or altitude breakpoints dude lol, hell you couldn't even use mach in your EM diagrams anyway which is laughable. hahaha

It would have been less effort for me to just display mach. wink As it was I had to convert from ktas to mach every time I accessed data using mach breakpoints.




Quote:

No, I can't read a graph that looks like a 6yr old just threw it together with a few crayons and a glass of milk that's for sure. This is what an EM diagram is supposed to look like, guy:

You don't even have the Ps curves plotted on your EMs lol! Did you even create or look for the Ps curves for positive and negative???

Hmm, let's see what happens if we squash my crayon drawing up a bit:

....it "looks like" an EM diagram too, guy! wink
Crude method, I know, but interesting to note the differences between the HFFM and AF FMs...
I didn't create or look for any of the curves in any graph, they are created by the FM, I just display them, and as everyone can plainly see, no, I didn't display any Ps lines other than Ps=0.
I could have, yes, but the graph would become very cluttered, and not much more useful.




Quote:

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat

Proof? wink
All right, just for you, cause I'm starting to feel sorry for you,(don't start thinking I'm going to hold your hand and walk you through every equation though) pick one value on one graph and I will tell you how that number was extracted from the FM file. If you can't do it yourself, that is.

biggrin The burden of proof is not on us, it's on YOU to quantify your figures and methodology...which is inaccurate by comparison to in SIM performance. I have no inclination to have you read faulty numbers to me in regards to your program when it's obvious by simple tests in SIM that your elementary curves are not accurate, nor can they be read properly for a detailed comparative analysis.

??? I wasn't asking for any proof from you, I was offering to prove a figure for you. You could then take it to someone who you consider qualified to check it, if you wanted.




Quote:

It's quite simple as has already been discovered long ago. In SIM tests clearly demonstrate that the aircrafts' have approximately equal acceleration at Sea Level until 600 knots, where the MiG holds advantage.

At 15,000 feet acceleration clearly goes to the F-16 all the way to 800 knots and beyond. From 500 to 600 knots acceleration is approximately equal, but before and after this range the F-16 is dominant.

Wrong.
Check the flight model files for yourself, don't offer opinions not based on data.
Still waiting for you to correct any one of the figures shown by my graphs.




Quote:

These are acceleration tests starting from 250 knots and ending at 800 knots. I have no clue WHY your graphs display KIAS in the excess of 850 kias. Why didn't you see fit to cut them off at the appropriate top speeds? Hell, acceleration for the MiG-29S STOPS at 1.53 MACH at 15,000 feet.

The graphs show what the flight models are, nothing more or less. No opinions on what is appropriate allowed, sorry.




Quote:

Nonetheless, these performances are close and differ from each other depending on the altitude stack that the aircraft are competing in acceleration, which only furthers my point in my conclusion of this being a BALANCED DACT BFM SCENARIO.

Yes, the graphs show that of course performance differs with altitude, and also show that your conclusion is incorrect, the Fulcrum is superior.




Quote:

16000 feet
F16: 20.8 sec <---- WHAT? LOL
MiG: 20.0 sec <---- HEHE!
False

You can see that even your own in SIM flight testing does not come close to your "graphs".

Not getting the joke here...
Actually, if you check, with even a very rudimentry approximation, you will find that the figures match up quite nicely. Like I said before, feel free to point out an incorrect figure and it's replacement. Please be very exact when you do so.




Quote:

You've been trying to make readers believe that the MiG has an overwhelming superiority when mixing it up close quarters (as is indicated by your <giggles> :D, "envelope graph"), this is something that won't fly.

Really? I think if you check you'll find I haven't used the word overwhelming anywhere.
Superior? Absolutely. No question about it; noticably so - but not overwhelming. There is no argument that the pilots skill will be most important, the performance difference will be secondary to that - I've said so every time I've offered data on this subject. See my first FM graphs post in this thread, and the first posts of the two Frugals threads I started.




Quote:

Oh, before I forget, look for a program called "F4Doghouse" (written by Julian Onions), the next time you wanna play with EM diagrams; it's a much stronger prog than what you've been playing around with.

I'd really like to see it. Would appreciate a link in this thread to download it.



It's quite obvious you have no idea how to calculate these graphs KV. I suggest you stick to what you know.


Last edited by Deadmeat.; 01/02/09 11:55 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2645300 - 01/02/09 08:24 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

not using any differences in AI for anything.

What are you talking about here? What differences are you speaking of, you're not being very clear at all.

Quote:

Hmm, let's see what happens if we squash my crayon drawing up a bit:

....it "looks like" an EM diagram too, guy!


Not hardly. It's not even useful by comparison to an accurate EM diagram.

Quote:

Crude method, I know, but interesting to note the differences between the HFFM and AF FMs...

Actually, this EM diagram and the others that I have are for F4AF. The EM diagrams for the HFFMs includes a compliment of missiles on the wing aside from other things.

Quote:

I didn't create or look for any of the curves in any graph, they are created by the FM, I just display them, and as everyone can plainly see, no, I didn't display any Ps lines other than Ps=0.
I could have, yes, but the graph would become very cluttered, and not much more useful.


LOL! Do you know what the Ps curves tell you?





Quote:

Wrong.
Check the flight model files for yourself, don't offer opinions not based on data.
Still waiting for you to correct any one of the figures shown by my graphs.


This is where your inexperience shows again in regards to "IN SIM PERFORMANCE" comparative analysis to graphed and charted data externally. You'd think by now you'd have realized that in our being so-called virtual test pilots for those qualified individuals that created these FMs, that they ran into some of the same debates on what we found during very controlled tests of their work. The fact that you would be so naive to believe your incomplete and elementary graphs are without error by comparison to in sim performance (due to other factors you don't have experience with, primarily how the EXE handles the FM) is interesting, to say the least. biggrin

Your graphs are incorrect (especially for acceleration), even by comparison to YOUR OWN IN SIM TESTS. So you're contradicting yourself with your own prog and rudimentary graphs.

Quote:

The graphs show what the flight models are, nothing more or less. No opinions on what is appropriate allowed, sorry.


Nope, they do not, as for several reasons stated above. It doesn't matter what you consider appropriate, you're not an authority one way or another when it comes to performance of each of these aircraft IN SIM. Remember that quote above about the lessons of the (v)fighter pilot that would rather fly a slide rule? biggrin

Quote:

Yes, the graphs show that of course performance differs with altitude, and also show that your conclusion is incorrect, the Fulcrum is superior.


I flew it again this morning just for sh!ts and giggles and of course the numbers were the same as before and doesn't reflect your graph.

Both tests were at 500' AGL, and 15,000' AGL starting at 250 kias. Full AB was applied at the same start times and test was concluded at 800 kias. I marked the times at each 100 knot interval. Time started from Full AB at 250 knots.

500' AGL

F-16C-52: 3.62| 300 kias| 3.63 MiG-29S
9.00| 400 kias| 9.00
14.8| 500 kias| 14.5
20.2| 600 kias| 19.8
29.3| 700 kias| 25.5
47.5| 800 kias| 39.0

This is exactly what myself and others have reported on acceleration comparisons at Sea Level. It is approximately equal until 600 kias then the MiG walks away.

15,000' AGL

F-16-52: 6.70| 300 kias| 7.70 MiG-29S
16.9| 400 kias| 17.9
26.0| 500 kias| 26.5
37.3| 600 kias| 36.6
52.3| 700 kias| 54.4
NA| 800 kias| NA

As we've seen before, and naturally see again the F-16 enjoys greater acceleration by a small margin as altitude increases. I didn't even bother recording 800 kias at 15,000' AGL because the MiG-29S doesn't even reach that speed, and gets blown away by the F-16C-52s greater top speed at altitude.

Your graphs are incorrect on horizontal acceleration by comparison to IN SIM PERFORMANCE. I could have several different pilots fly the exact same tests and get near equivalent numbers. Heck, we could even ask for volunteers if you really wanted to humiliate yourself even further by seeing the actual performance (including your own in sim tests) that contradicts your erroneous figures displayed on those crude graphs.

Quote:

Really? I think if you check you'll find I haven't used the word overwhelming anywhere.
Superior? Absolutely. No question about it; noticably so - but not overwhelming. There is no argument that the pilots skill will be most important, the performance difference will be secondary to that - I've said so every time I've offered data on this subject. See my first FM graphs post in this thread, and the first posts of the two Frugals threads I started.


It's interesting that you try to backpeddle here, but not when you're discussing this with other individuals. Here's a good example from Frugals thread:


Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

Sorry Tank, an F16 won't deny lead turns against a Fulcrum with a 4dps max and sustained rate and smaller radius, not a chance.
Anyway, that is a very defensive way of thinking.


I guess you dont understand what a lead turn is. Lead turning is a geometric positioning tactic where a fighter attempts to begin his turn prior to a merge and turn through the other fighters 3/9 line. It requires a lateral or vertical offset prior to a merge. Otherwise known as turning room.

Fighters attempt to deny each other elbow room for a lead turn as they approach a merge monitoring closure amongst other things.

A fighter that has a greater roll rate, can change offset quicker than the opposing fighter and create turning room faster because the angle of bank of the more maneuverable fighter can be altered faster.

Its response time from stick movement to aircraft movement that is a marked difference here. Being able to change geometry faster, whilst head to head IS indeed a huge advantage. The DACT balance offset is that the MiG has a slightly faster instantaneous turn rate by approx 2dps, and a smaller radius by about 100-200 feet in 180 degree snap turns while bleeding energy (common 1 circle maneuvers post merge). Definitely not enough to counter maneuverability in altering the geometric positions prior to a merge, or any type of engagement where POM (plane of motion) can and will be changed.

The Fulcrum doesnt hold a 4dps max and sustained rate advantage over the Falcon. Its about 2.5 at max; but this varies depending on altitude and gross weight of each aircraft.

This advantage (sustained turn rate) shows itself in a 2 circle engagement (nose to tail turning), but a 2 circle engagement cannot be forced, only 1 circle engagements (nose to nose) can be forced.

Yet another example of how close the performances are, and how different advantages are actually utilized and weighed in BFM and ACM.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

I don't think you understand how small of an advantage that roll rate is. We are not talking vs AI here. It loves scissors, don't expect a human to be the same.
Scissors is a defensive move anyway, once you're resorting to that it's a clear indication that you're being bested.

Hehe, well youre hardly qualified to suggest one way or the other on how BFM application is weighed in regards to advantage or disadvantage.

As was said earlier, we have no desire to fight against the AI because everyone knows they cannot max perform a jet.

Its funny that you advocate making comparisons versus the AI when you feel it suits your argument, but then deter from those comparisons when your argument is found invalid.

You speak of how much easier it is to fight against the F-16 AI whilst using the MiG-29S, (which is an invalid argument for reasons stated above), but then you say well fighting against a human is different. How would you know the difference?

You sport the IDFL tag (the organization that Tank, and myself started in the first place) yet you dont know the first thing about flying head to head, either SACT (similar aircraft) or DACT (dissimilar aircraft) against virtual sticks? An oxymoron at best.

You should really just stick to reporting the handling characteristics of each aircraft and not trying to speak as an authority on how those characteristics would/should/or could make a difference head to head, especially when matched against an opposing fighter that has its own advantages as well.

It would have been better for you to point out the errors in the MiGs modeling for being able to out turn the F-16 in certain regimes where it shouldnt be able to according to RL reports; but this is something everyone already knew anyway.


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2645432 - 01/03/09 01:20 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Actually, this EM diagram and the others that I have are for F4AF. The EM diagrams for the HFFMs includes a compliment of missiles on the wing aside from other things.

Actually, no it isn't for AF. I know it's hard, but try to keep your statements accurate.
Yes, I know what the HFFM manual diagrams include.




Quote:

LOL! Do you know what the Ps curves tell you?

Yes thanks wink , very well.





Quote:
Your graphs are incorrect (especially for acceleration), even by comparison to YOUR OWN IN SIM TESTS. So you're contradicting yourself with your own prog and rudimentary graphs.

No they're not. (see below)
You are still wrong, and I am still waiting for a figure correction from you.




Quote:

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat

The graphs show what the flight models are, nothing more or less. No opinions on what is appropriate allowed, sorry.

Nope, they do not, as for several reasons stated above. It doesn't matter what you consider appropriate, you're not an authority one way or another when it comes to performance of each of these aircraft IN SIM.

I was not making any comment on what I consider appropriate; you were.




Quote:

500' AGL

F-16C-52: 3.62| 300 kias| 3.63 MiG-29S
9.00| 400 kias| 9.00
14.8| 500 kias| 14.5
20.2| 600 kias| 19.8
29.3| 700 kias| 25.5
47.5| 800 kias| 39.0

This is exactly what myself and others have reported on acceleration comparisons at Sea Level. It is approximately equal until 600 kias then the MiG walks away.

15,000' AGL

F-16-52: 6.70| 300 kias| 7.70 MiG-29S
16.9| 400 kias| 17.9
26.0| 500 kias| 26.5
37.3| 600 kias| 36.6
52.3| 700 kias| 54.4
NA| 800 kias| NA

After flying these, did you even bother to check the numbers against the graphs before you wrote the graphs were wrong? Your claims are ridiculous.
Here is (approximated, and for a small section only, sorry, I'm eating my breakfast. But you can do the rest) the comparison between the graphs and your flight:
F16, 300 to 500 knots
500ft
Lets call the F16's accel in that range a flat 30ft/s^2.
30ft/s is about 17.77ktas.
17.77ktas * (your 11.2sec) = 199knots. 199, and we were expecting 200 (500-300).

15k
Call the F16's accel 19ft/sec^2. Harder to do this here, the curve isn't very flat, but anyway...
19ft/sec is about 11.26ktas.
11.26 * (your 19.3sec) = 217knots. Not as accurrate as the first one, but not bad for such a rough approximation.

Lika I said, very rough, but you can easily do more accurate comparisons. Hopefully this will help you understand the acceleration charts a little better.





Quote:

It's interesting that you try to backpeddle here, but not when you're discussing this with other individuals. Here's a good example from Frugals thread:

Backpeddle? On something I've said right from the beginning?




Quote:

I guess you dont understand what a lead turn is. Lead turning is a geometric positioning tactic where a fighter attempts to begin his turn prior to a merge and turn through the other fighters 3/9 line. It requires a lateral or vertical offset prior to a merge. Otherwise known as turning room.

Thanks again (you really are going out of your way to explain things) but I know perfectly well what a lead turn is.
Apart from the initial merge the jet with inferior rate and radius performance isn't likely to be able to do anything to prevent the other lead turning.




Quote:

A fighter that has a greater roll rate, can change offset quicker than the opposing fighter and create turning room faster because the angle of bank of the more maneuverable fighter can be altered faster.

Quite right, but a only small consolation against an enemy with superior rate, radius and acceleration.




Quote:

Its response time from stick movement to aircraft movement that is a marked difference here.

Actually the "response time" for ALL aircraft (even a B52, for example) is exactly 0, only the acceleration of the roll differs.



Quote:

The Fulcrum doesnt hold a 4dps max and sustained rate advantage over the Falcon. Its about 2.5 at max; but this varies depending on altitude and gross weight of each aircraft.

!!?! You don't specify an altitude in your statemant, but see here, the Fulcrum peaks at 26, the F16 at 21.6:





Quote:

This advantage (sustained turn rate) shows itself in a 2 circle engagement (nose to tail turning), but a 2 circle engagement cannot be forced, only 1 circle engagements (nose to nose) can be forced.

Correct again.
A 2 circle fight favours superior rate, a 1 circle favours superior radius. And who has both those advantages?



Quote:

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

I don't think you understand how small of an advantage that roll rate is. We are not talking vs AI here. It loves scissors, don't expect a human to be the same.
Scissors is a defensive move anyway, once you're resorting to that it's a clear indication that you're being bested.

Hehe, well youre hardly qualified to suggest one way or the other on how BFM application is weighed in regards to advantage or disadvantage.

As was said earlier, we have no desire to fight against the AI because everyone knows they cannot max perform a jet.

Its funny that you advocate making comparisons versus the AI when you feel it suits your argument, but then deter from those comparisons when your argument is found invalid.

Funny? You are very easily amused...
I was suggesting he forget about the AI and it's performance.


Last edited by Deadmeat.; 01/03/09 01:30 AM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2645550 - 01/03/09 07:15 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA
Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

Actually, no it isn't for AF. I know it's hard, but try to keep your statements accurate.
Yes, I know what the HFFM manual diagrams include.

Sorry guy, but the gentleman that made this and the others was the same one that made the EMs for the HFFMs. biggrin You don't have to believe it, the facts don't require your belief.




Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.


Yes thanks wink , very well.


Explain it then biggrin

Quote:


Lika I said, very rough, but you can easily do more accurate comparisons. Hopefully this will help you understand the acceleration charts a little better.



There is nothing you can do to avoid the fact that in flight tests prove what I've already stated:

1. At SL both airframes have approximately equal acceleration until 600 kias and beyond, where the MiG-29S takes off.

2. At altitudes above SL (namely 15,000' as in my recent tests), the F-16C-52 has a slight acceleration advantage until 600 kias and then the Falcon takes off.


While the acceleration comparisons are fairly balanced, the greater top speed of the F-16C-52 at anywhere above Sea Level allow it to separate at leisure and re-enter a fight with a fresh neutral merge whenever he wishes. The MiG doesn't enjoy this luxury.

Your graphs do not represent in flight tests, they inaccurately show an advantage to the MiG with crude curvature plotting. You cannot perform accurate comparisons with your graphs, which is required for such close performance capabilities. They are too crude for what we are discussing here. smile


Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

Thanks again (you really are going out of your way to explain things) but I know perfectly well what a lead turn is.
Apart from the initial merge the jet with inferior rate and radius performance isn't likely to be able to do anything to prevent the other lead turning.

It's obvious that you don't. See below.

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

A fighter that has a greater roll rate, can change offset quicker than the opposing fighter and create turning room faster because the angle of bank of the more maneuverable fighter can be altered faster.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

Quite right, but a only small consolation against an enemy with superior rate, radius and acceleration.


Above you say a jet with inferior rate and radius isn't likely to PREVENT a lead turn, yet here you acknowledge that an aircraft with superior roll rate can change lateral or vertical offset QUICKER PRIOR TO THE MERGE. WTF? LOL! hahaha Lead turning importance is WEIGHED MORE HEAVILY PRIOR TO THE MERGE, than post merge. Turning room (angle off/aspect angle) can be controlled by a fighter with the quicker roll rate because he can change plane of motion faster than his bandit prior to the merge and create turning room (which turning room can be denied in Similar Aircraft Tactics). This advantage in roll rate gives that fighter the advantage to DENY TURNING ROOM FOR A LEAD TURN PRIOR TO MERGING! Not only that, but it gives him advantage in geometric positioning prior to a merge.

Small consolation? You must be a fool...wait, you know, that's not fair...you're just inexperienced at understanding how BFM advantages in a DACT Scenario are applied to ACM. It's glaringly obvious, and has been from the onset of this debate. I've been trying the whole time to tell you this, but you prefer to talk the talk without EVER having walked the walk. No one will believe you because of this inexperience.

You can spout numbers all day long, but if you don't have the understanding of how they are weighed and applied in a dogfight your argument is weak, and will remain so. smile

You think that a few degrees per second of turn rate advantage and a very slighty smaller radius are enough to make up for geometric inferiority? You've inexperience speaks volumes.

I'm not going to dogfight you on paper, pardna, regardless of the fact you'd lose anyway. Any in flight test head to head with you isn't feasible either because it'd be a waste of my time. It'd not only clearly highlight your lack of knowledge, inexperience, and non-proficiency; but show the weights and balances of each airframes BFM capabilities applied to ACM. Winning or losing isn't important; it's the analysis of those advantages each aircraft holds being applied in ACM. This is the experience I've been nearly begging you to attain so that you'll see the balanced nature of this scenario.

But alas, you'd rather remain the falcon communities biggest poser sporting a signature of the IDFL that Tank and myself created; yet never having flown one match as far as I know, and not being an advocate of head to head flying by action...but only on paper...just as you're doing here. <chuckles> What? Are you some kinda cheerleader of sorts? hahaha biggrin


Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Its response time from stick movement to aircraft movement that is a marked difference here.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

Actually the "response time" for ALL aircraft (even a B52, for example) is exactly 0, only the acceleration of the roll differs.


However you wanna look at it, faster roll acceleration etc...the F-16C-52 is more manueverable.

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

The Fulcrum doesnt hold a 4dps max and sustained rate advantage over the Falcon. Its about 2.5 at max; but this varies depending on altitude and gross weight of each aircraft.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

!!?! You don't specify an altitude in your statemant, but see here, the Fulcrum peaks at 26, the F16 at 21.6:


Likewise, you didn't specify an altitude OR gross weight in your statement to Tank. What's good for the goose is good for the gander eh buddy? biggrin

The Fulcrum peaks at 26 DPS for exactly how long? LOL. Also, I can get the Falcon to peak at 23 DPS at SL turning at MCGW (max clean gross weight, in case you've forgotten). All my in flight tests are accurate under very controlled conditions, and my chart in the original report is accurate. However, this is a moot point because the it's already been known and conceded long ago that the MiG-29S has better sustained turn rate and only slightly better turn radius than the F-16C-52.

But this alone isn't enough to make it a superior BFM platform IN A DACT SCENARIO.

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

This advantage (sustained turn rate) shows itself in a 2 circle engagement (nose to tail turning), but a 2 circle engagement cannot be forced, only 1 circle engagements (nose to nose) can be forced.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat

Correct again.
A 2 circle fight favours superior rate, a 1 circle favours superior radius. And who has both those advantages?

2 circle rate fighting DOES favor the MiG-29S, but experience will show you that fatigue becomes a balancing factor. The lack of drag modeling and ability to hold higher load factors for longer come at a cost. Have you done the calculations for exactly how long it'll take a neutral 2 circle fight at max sustained load factors for the MiG-29S to drive to a lead pursuit tracking solution without giving up vertical generalship or blacking out first? This is considering both aircraft are sustained turning perfectly beginning in neutral positions. This right here will show you how much weight you think your higher rating Fulcrum has over the Falcon. Again, this is one of those pilot skill things. smile , but let's not mention again that turn rate/radius doesn't mean jack prior to a merge. (especially with close numbers like these; it's not like we're comparing an F-22 to MiG-21 here)

Additionally, radius doesn't always favor the MiG-29 most especially during deceleration manuevering. Oh wait, you haven't figured out how to calculate the drag effects of speedbrakes yet. biggrin.

I simply can't believe I'm giving you all the answers, but it's still fun pointing it out biggrin.

Quote:

Funny? You are very easily amused...
I was suggesting he forget about the AI and it's performance.


You should take your own advice when recommending to readers that they fly against the AI in regards to testing these airframes total potential in BFM.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

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.



Blue skies and strong tailwinds biggrin


To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2645662 - 01/03/09 03:25 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Deadmeat. Offline
Junior Member
Deadmeat.  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 10
Australia
Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Sorry guy, but the gentleman that made this and the others was the same one that made the EMs for the HFFMs. biggrin You don't have to believe it, the facts don't require your belief.

Yet another thing I already knew. I am well aware of who created the HFFMs.
It's irrelevant, that chart is not of the AF FM.


Quote:

Explain it then biggrin

See those three links I put in my Frugs thread for people who don't understand EM diagrams? One or more have a nice explanation of the Ps curves. Did you actually think I could display the Ps=0 curve from the FM without understanding the Ps curves?




Quote:

There is nothing you can do to avoid the fact that in flight tests prove what I've already stated:

1. At SL both airframes have approximately equal acceleration until 600 kias and beyond, where the MiG-29S takes off.

2. At altitudes above SL (namely 15,000' as in my recent tests), the F-16C-52 has a slight acceleration advantage until 600 kias and then the Falcon takes off.


While the acceleration comparisons are fairly balanced, the greater top speed of the F-16C-52 at anywhere above Sea Level allow it to separate at leisure and re-enter a fight with a fresh neutral merge whenever he wishes. The MiG doesn't enjoy this luxury.

Your graphs do not represent in flight tests, they inaccurately show an advantage to the MiG with crude curvature plotting. You cannot perform accurate comparisons with your graphs, which is required for such close performance capabilities. They are too crude for what we are discussing here. smile

Not quite. With some corrections, what you say can be seen in the graphs.

1. Yes, approximately equal, (a few feet/sec^2) (Mig slightly better) until around 600 when Mig advantage increases.

2. Wrong. Accel very close here, the advantage to the Mig is almost negligible, probably less than the margin of error due to human control. Falcon advantage from around 700.

The graphs are accurate. The need for more marked figures on the y axis does not affect their accuracy.

There is no denying (I have never said anything to contradict this:) that the differences in acceleration are very small - look at the graphs; just a few feet/sec^2.
The point of the accel graphs is that the Mig is usually slightly superior (and otherwise equal) in accel below around 700ktas. This denies an avenue of argument that may otherwise come up: the Mig's most important, and noticable advantage, rate and radius, cannot be countered by imagined superior acceleration from the Falcon.




Quote:

Above you say a jet with inferior rate and radius isn't likely to PREVENT a lead turn, yet here you acknowledge that an aircraft with superior roll rate can change lateral or vertical offset QUICKER PRIOR TO THE MERGE. WTF? LOL! hahaha Lead turning importance is WEIGHED MORE HEAVILY PRIOR TO THE MERGE, than post merge. Turning room (angle off/aspect angle) can be controlled by a fighter with the quicker roll rate because he can change plane of motion faster than his bandit prior to the merge and create turning room (which turning room can be denied in Similar Aircraft Tactics). This advantage in roll rate gives that fighter the advantage to DENY TURNING ROOM FOR A LEAD TURN PRIOR TO MERGING! Not only that, but it gives him advantage in geometric positioning prior to a merge.

You know perfectly well that even if the Falcon were able to get a tiny lead turn advantage at the initial merge it would be quickly eaten back up by the Fulcrum's rate and radius.




Quote:

You think that a few degrees per second of turn rate advantage and a very slighty smaller radius are enough to make up for geometric inferiority? You've inexperience speaks volumes.

"Geometric inferiority"? Did you make this statement based solely on superior roll rate?
Yes, absolutely superior rate, radius and acceleration are enough to make up for slightly inferior roll.



Quote:

But alas, you'd rather remain the falcon communities biggest poser sporting a signature of the IDFL that Tank and myself created; yet never having flown one match as far as I know, and not being an advocate of head to head flying by action...but only on paper...just as you're doing here. <chuckles> What? Are you some kinda cheerleader of sorts? hahaha biggrin

Great argument.
I seem to remember having this one a long time ago too.
What you use signatures for is your business. I don't use them to make a statement about myself, I use them as a billboard to promote whatever I see fit. That was IDFL, since 3 or 4 days ago it's been F4chart.
If my new sig is going to deny you something important to complain about I can stick the IDFL banner back on the bottom for you.




Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Likewise, you didn't specify an altitude OR gross weight in your statement to Tank. What's good for the goose is good for the gander eh buddy? biggrin

I mentioned the altitude because the lack of it made it hard to give you an accurate response. As long as you aren't complaining about my choice of altitude in my repsonse then there's no problem.




Quote:

The Fulcrum peaks at 26 DPS for exactly how long? LOL. Also, I can get the Falcon to peak at 23 DPS at SL turning at MCGW (max clean gross weight, in case you've forgotten).

And I can get a Fulcrum(bingo) to peak at 36dps in the ACMI, but that's not accurate (correct figure is about 29dps) and neither is your 23dps. You know as well as I do that you see strange peaks in the acmi due to approximation and refresh rate.


Quote:

2 circle rate fighting DOES favor the MiG-29S, but experience will show you that fatigue becomes a balancing factor. The lack of drag modeling and ability to hold higher load factors for longer come at a cost. Have you done the calculations for exactly how long it'll take a neutral 2 circle fight at max sustained load factors for the MiG-29S to drive to a lead pursuit tracking solution without giving up vertical generalship or blacking out first? This is considering both aircraft are sustained turning perfectly beginning in neutral positions. This right here will show you how much weight you think your higher rating Fulcrum has over the Falcon. Again, this is one of those pilot skill things. smile , but let's not mention again that turn rate/radius doesn't mean jack prior to a merge. (especially with close numbers like these; it's not like we're comparing an F-22 to MiG-21 here)

Yes, you are correct, superior rate means higher g loading(at similar speeds), of course.



Quote:

Additionally, radius doesn't always favor the MiG-29 most especially during deceleration manuevering. Oh wait, you haven't figured out how to calculate the drag effects of speedbrakes yet. biggrin.

"Figure out"? Not so. I simply haven't seen the data for the brakes.
Come back to this when you can calculate any of the graphs shown.




Quote:

You should take your own advice when recommending to readers that they fly against the AI in regards to testing these airframes total potential in BFM.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

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.

I'd rather you didn't put words into my mouth. The AI is good only as a constant reference point to make the differences in performance more noticable to the vpilot. It's also quite ok to do the same without any AI present.
This is a non-issue, I have zero interest in the AI.




Last edited by Deadmeat.; 01/03/09 03:30 PM.

AF Mig29 BFM performance: better than the F16.

See AF F16/Mig29 graphs produced directly from FM data files here.
Download F4chart here.
#2645942 - 01/04/09 01:16 AM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Deadmeat.]  
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
KidVicious Offline
IL2 Rookie
KidVicious  Offline
IL2 Rookie
Member

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 440
Texas USA

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

There is nothing you can do to avoid the fact that in flight tests prove what I've already stated:

1. At SL both airframes have approximately equal acceleration until 600 kias and beyond, where the MiG-29S takes off.

2. At altitudes above SL (namely 15,000' as in my recent tests), the F-16C-52 has a slight acceleration advantage until 600 kias and then the Falcon takes off.


While the acceleration comparisons are fairly balanced, the greater top speed of the F-16C-52 at anywhere above Sea Level allow it to separate at leisure and re-enter a fight with a fresh neutral merge whenever he wishes. The MiG doesn't enjoy this luxury.

Your graphs do not represent in flight tests, they inaccurately show an advantage to the MiG with crude curvature plotting. You cannot perform accurate comparisons with your graphs, which is required for such close performance capabilities. They are too crude for what we are discussing here. smile


Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

Not quite. With some corrections, what you say can be seen in the graphs.

No dude, your curve plot is misleading, crude, and ridiculous to try and compare each aircrafts' acceleration capabilities; just like I stated above...too elementary to be even considered, not to mention misleading and inaccurate. smile

Quote:

2. Wrong. Accel very close here, the advantage to the Mig is almost negligible, probably less than the margin of error due to human control. Falcon advantage from around 700.

The advantage in acceleration of the F-16C-52 at 15,000' is moreso than the advantage the MiG-29S has at Sea Level, that's for sure. There's nothing that can deny this. Although I agree it is close, but still an advantage. You've attempted to mislead readers into believing the MiG holds superior acceleration IN ALL ENVELOPES EXCEPT AT VERY HIGH SPEEDS.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
Ktas vs feet/sec^2.
Horizontal flight.
The Mig29 is superior except at very high speeds.


What about at Altitude? This is exactly what I'm talking about. While I'm objective, even conceding early on in the debate on the portions where my observations were even slightly inaccurate, I corrected them (ie my misconception that the F-16C-52 had better max instantaneous turn rate at bingo fuel...which what I was seeing is closer performance numbers and ability to tighten radius faster than the MiG due to the Falcon's superior deceleration whilst airbraking). It seems you don't have the same level of integrity or attention to detail...I'm not sure which one. biggrin

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.
Sub 300 where the Mig has better sustained rate, max rate, acceleration and radius? Good choice.


Yobbo, I'm not even gonna touch this one. It's becoming tiresome and boring pointing out your gross lack of understanding of how performance advantages (BFM) are weighed during ACM. Let's just say that any type of scissoring action is highly lethal to the MiG-29S, most especially at these machs. If it was a 2 circle rate fight at .57 mach and below I could agree with you, but rate fights are exactly that, rating at max performance and not pure radius control at the lower machs.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

The graphs are accurate. The need for more marked figures on the y axis does not affect their accuracy.

No, it's clearly evident that they are not, most especially in the manner in which you've plotted them. They're misleading to any reader. This goes without saying your not-so-subtle attempts to confuse the reader that the MiG holds overall superiority in acceleration.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

There is no denying (I have never said anything to contradict this:) that the differences in acceleration are very small - look at the graphs; just a few feet/sec^2.
The point of the accel graphs is that the Mig is usually slightly superior (and otherwise equal) in accel below around 700ktas. This denies an avenue of argument that may otherwise come up: the Mig's most important, and noticable advantage, rate and radius, cannot be countered by imagined superior acceleration from the Falcon.


Man....LOL! You have alluded to EVERYONE that the MiG is the better acceleration fighter in all respects! Stop trying to backpeddle for f*ck's sake! hahaha There now have been SEVERAL people that have performed in flight tests aside from my own hand in regards to acceleration at altitude and THEY ALL FIND THE SAME RESULTS! The F-16C-52 is slightly faster (just as you already noted, yet here you contradict yourself by saying "imagined superior acceleration from the Falcon"; but wait, the small margin of advantage the MiG holds IN ONE ALTITUDE STACK AT SEA LEVEL, it's that very slight superiority is HIGHLY NOTED for the Fulcrum by your position. My gawd dude, please stop now just for your own sake.

The F-16C-52s acceleration advantage at altitude is much more heavily weighed because of what I've already stated several times. The ability to exit and re-enter the fight at leisure from any angle; and ability to close off escape windows attempted by the MiG-29S (EVEN IF HE DIVES!!) because obviously you should know that 700+ kias at 15,000' is much faster than 700+ kias at Sea Level. The MiG cannot extend and re-enter nearly as easily. Yet another serious BFM advantage to the Falcon that you conveniently try to deny regardless of the facts. wink

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Above you say a jet with inferior rate and radius isn't likely to PREVENT a lead turn, yet here you acknowledge that an aircraft with superior roll rate can change lateral or vertical offset QUICKER PRIOR TO THE MERGE. WTF? LOL! hahaha Lead turning importance is WEIGHED MORE HEAVILY PRIOR TO THE MERGE, than post merge. Turning room (angle off/aspect angle) can be controlled by a fighter with the quicker roll rate because he can change plane of motion faster than his bandit prior to the merge and create turning room (which turning room can be denied in Similar Aircraft Tactics). This advantage in roll rate gives that fighter the advantage to DENY TURNING ROOM FOR A LEAD TURN PRIOR TO MERGING! Not only that, but it gives him advantage in geometric positioning prior to a merge.


Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

You know perfectly well that even if the Falcon were able to get a tiny lead turn advantage at the initial merge it would be quickly eaten back up by the Fulcrum's rate and radius.

If it was tiny sure, but that's not what you're saying here. You're saying carbon copies of the same pilot handling each jet facing off against each other. You can be DAMN sure that each pilot would max perform the aircraft to maximize it's advantages in all envelopes, and yes pardna...that includes merging. You're not qualified to discuss tactics bro, I'm really sorry, but everyone can see that here. You'd be more suited to trying to make the MiG-29S flight model more accurate by comparison to real world data than you would trying to say it's an overall superior dogfighter than the F-16C-52.

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

You think that a few degrees per second of turn rate advantage and a very slighty smaller radius are enough to make up for geometric inferiority? You've inexperience speaks volumes.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

"Geometric inferiority"? Did you make this statement based solely on superior roll rate?
Yes, absolutely superior rate, radius and acceleration (<----utter bullsh!t as we've already discovered) are enough to make up for slightly inferior roll.


Again, a load of bollocks. I say prove it with me, or at some other competent Falcon handler in the jet and record it. Otherwise you're exactly what I've been saying; a poser without the practical application experience and understanding of BFM/ACM in regards to this DACT BFM SCENARIO; and without that knowledge, and experience you're in no shape, form, or fashion qualified to suggest what you think is superior in regards to weight of advantages in a dogfight like this. Case closed until proven otherwise. biggrin

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

The Fulcrum peaks at 26 DPS for exactly how long? LOL. Also, I can get the Falcon to peak at 23 DPS at SL turning at MCGW (max clean gross weight, in case you've forgotten).

Originally Posted By: Deadhorse.

And I can get a Fulcrum(bingo) to peak at 36dps in the ACMI, but that's not accurate (correct figure is about 29dps) and neither is your 23dps. You know as well as I do that you see strange peaks in the acmi due to approximation and refresh rate.

Please don't be so insulting as to think I would utilize just the ACMI's error spikes in numbers to make conclusions upon. You already know my different methodolgies for calculating these numbers in conjunction with the ACMI. Hell, you learned them from me in the first place. biggrin

Again, you've tried to mislead the reader by adding false weight to your argument where it suits you; by not identifying max instaneous turn rate, or sustained turn rate. It's quite easy to get the F-16C-52 to rate an average of 21 DPS at MCGW at SL, and the MiG at MCGW averages around 23.5. Either way it can be combated in balanced fashion of course, but I'm not going into those details, you'll just have to gain that experience in the jet if you wanna know it. The door is open for you to gain the experience in gentlemanly fashion, all you have to do is walk through it.

Originally Posted By: KidVicious

Additionally, radius doesn't always favor the MiG-29 most especially during deceleration manuevering. Oh wait, you haven't figured out how to calculate the drag effects of speedbrakes yet. biggrin.

Originally Posted By: Deadmeat.

"Figure out"? Not so. I simply haven't seen the data for the brakes.
Come back to this when you can calculate any of the graphs shown.

You'll really need to look into this when learning the comparisons of turn rate vs turn radius at different machs and geometries. It gets even more complicated if the fight proceeds above the horizon.

Like I've been saying bro, this is far more balanced than you believe. Furthering your experience will be a requirement.

Watchout for blackbirds with sharp claws biggrin





Last edited by KidVicious; 01/04/09 01:16 AM.

To the man I aim, not the aircraft
IL2-1946 UP3 Aerial Combat Videos
#2954352 - 02/07/10 06:33 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: KidVicious]  
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
DaiSan Offline
Junior Member
DaiSan  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
Spain
Where can be find F4doghouse program?

Thank you!

#2954919 - 02/08/10 09:10 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: DaiSan]  
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 419
Joes Shop Offline
Member
Joes Shop  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 419
MA, USA
DaiSan,

If you meant that as a joke - you had me laughing!

Regards,

J. P. Kelly


System: Intel P4 2.80 GHz., 80 GB/2 HD
OS: Win XP SP3
Display: 17" XGA TFT
Memory: 1024 MB DDR SDRAM
Video: ATI Radeon IGP 345m w/128 MB Ram
Controls: Saitek X52, Rudder Pedals and Eclipse Keyboard
Current: Third Wire WOV, EAW 1.28d 1024 /SPAW/SPAW45 FAW Fleet Defender, IL-2. Learning: F/A-18 PSF/OIF, Falcon 4 AF, EF2000 Ver 2.0, SH Series (Pacific Aces)
#2954924 - 02/08/10 09:23 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Joes Shop]  
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
DaiSan Offline
Junior Member
DaiSan  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
Spain
No, it is not a joke. I am looking the old air dynamics editor for F4, by Julian Onions. I am unable to find it in the net.

DaiSan

#2955447 - 02/09/10 07:58 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: DaiSan]  
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 419
Joes Shop Offline
Member
Joes Shop  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 419
MA, USA
DaiSan,

Sorry - I thought you were making a comment on the 'tone' of the thread! I did a search myself and can't seem to find it either. I recommend you post your request in a new thread.

Regards,

J. P. Kelly


System: Intel P4 2.80 GHz., 80 GB/2 HD
OS: Win XP SP3
Display: 17" XGA TFT
Memory: 1024 MB DDR SDRAM
Video: ATI Radeon IGP 345m w/128 MB Ram
Controls: Saitek X52, Rudder Pedals and Eclipse Keyboard
Current: Third Wire WOV, EAW 1.28d 1024 /SPAW/SPAW45 FAW Fleet Defender, IL-2. Learning: F/A-18 PSF/OIF, Falcon 4 AF, EF2000 Ver 2.0, SH Series (Pacific Aces)
#2955834 - 02/10/10 12:37 PM Re: F4:AF DACT BFM REPORT: F-16C-52 vs MiG-29S "BALANCED" [Re: Joes Shop]  
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
DaiSan Offline
Junior Member
DaiSan  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 12
Spain
Ok!!!

Thank you!

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
RM Jet Suit Boarding
by Red2112. 05/08/21 02:07 PM
Idiot for the day
by rwatson. 05/07/21 10:55 AM
The cost of Epic free games
by Blade_RJ. 05/06/21 08:28 PM
That mettalic smell you feel is actually yours !
by Blade_RJ. 05/06/21 05:15 PM
Shiny American Rocket, cheaper by the dozen
by Nixer. 05/06/21 12:48 AM
House of the Dragon
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 05:45 PM
Some funny Facebook observations
by PanzerMeyer. 05/05/21 11:53 AM
Chinese Rocket
by carrick58. 05/05/21 12:26 AM
Hope everyone is having a good day
by oldgrognard. 05/04/21 02:09 PM
A long strange trip it's been
by rwatson. 05/03/21 04:31 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0