Here is an idea I had for a challenge race for you all to try. Do the drag race but then do a climb to 10k feet, then split s back down to 500 feet and across the original starting line. It will have everything from acceleration to maneuverability to time to climb.
Climb to 10000 has nothing to do with climb rate but with speed at the start you‘d have to start the race with a climb to make it a climbrate test. But in the end it wouldnt even do much difference because the test is too biased towards acceleration below 10000 feet. The migs and f1 will never perform good because they weren‘t meant to.
Was on the ground crew for when the harrier dragged a Les Mans Audi over a mile. After 3 races we had to start the harrier later so they crossed the finish line at the same time for he photos. Just moves so quick from the start.
In real life the Hornet might have a slight edge during initial acceleration but the Viper would easily win a drag race. Of course it depends on the variants but the Viper is much less draggy and it would out-accelerate a Hornet any day. Love both birds though.
thanks its always go to come back to a win lol. ( i did not chose the F-16 while it is my Fav i flew what ever was not chosen that needed to be represented :)
5:07 carrier based aircraft normally have a better TWR at slow speeds to help them with operations at slower speeds (and low altitudes; just engine optimisation)
@@mikedelta1441 Correct. The world low-altitude speed record was set by Darryl Greenamyer in a rebuilt F-104 on 24 October 1977 at 988.26 mph (869.67 kts; 1'590.45 km/hr) and it wasn't really at sea level (mud lake Nevada on a hot day density altitude can be quite high so we don't know KIAS exactly). But, for nearly 20 years the F4 held the record. 28 August 1961: Operation SAGEBURNER: To commemorate the 50th anniversary of Naval Aviation, Lieutenants Huntington Hardisty and Earl De Esch, United States Navy, flew a McDonnell F4H-1F Phantom II to a Fédération Aéronautique Internationale (FAI) World Speed Record of 1,452.777 kilometers per hour (902.714 miles per hour) over a 3 kilometer (1.864 mile) course at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico. They flew BELOW 125 feet (38.1 meters) above the ground.
Agreed. The F-4 should have been in the mix. I don’t know that it would have won. But it would have been close if it was the YF4-H II. This needs to happen.
Even moreso the British Roll's engined variant - a beast out the blocks and at low altitude. Would leave a US F4 for dead in this sort of race. until the speed and altitude ramped up and then "proper" F4 would reverse the tables.
Been watching this channel for a few years now, and after all Caps whining about the algorithms, I subscribed and did the silly bell thing. I now get notifications for all your uploads so it would seem that works, fyi.
Suggestion for a future video: How would a coordinated ToT strike of Viggens fare against a possible early 90s soviet naval invasion force in the baltic sea?
And, since Sweden had a total of 73 AJS/AJSH capable of carrying the Rb 15F, I would suggest around 50 airframes with two missiles and an external fuel tank each.
I'm baffled of how slow the F1 and the MiG-21bis have been. Those should at least beat the subsonic Harrier which, to be fair, has an utterly excellent acceleration with its TWR that makes it possible to take off vertically in the first place.
Yeah, I would expect them both to hit M0.95 with ease and start to top out around M1.05. MiG's hard limit of 1,350 km/h is not that difficult to reach unless something changed.
Briefly towards the end they mentioned that there is a problem with the automatic shock cone adjustment game mechanic at the moment, so both performed poorer than they should have.
We both hit problems. Mig-21 has engine probs. I *think* I was having fuel probs in Mirage. When you run these with random humans flying, at least one person has a problem that skews results.
give it a little more distance and it will always win, viggen is the fastest on the deck plane in dcs right now makes me curious how the normal fighter viggens would do in the race, maybe they accelerate better and would win?
@@Kevin-hb7yq they may be able to fly in formation to about 25000 just so it's not too high or too low, and then glitch in some high objects to mark start and finish.
From LM In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.
I'm surprised the F-18 did was well as it did, I'm surprised the F-16 won, but I guess that's accurate - F-16 pilots who have flown F-15's do say the plane has impressive acceleration. Plus the aircraft as small, light and has the lowest drag coefficient of all the planes here. The Harrier also surprised me. I suspect at high altitude this would've ended very differently, the F-15 and probably the F-14 would've been the fastest, and the F-16 probably would've been somewhere in the back.
The Mirage F1 cockpit looks a lot like the cockpit of an Xwing from starwars . The Radar display even kinda resembles the Targeting computer form the Original movie..
Mig31 (and 25) is ultimately the fastest fighter-sized plane by miles - BUT - it'd be rubbish from a standing start for the same reason - it's designed to go super fast at high altitude in thin air. I suspect Typhoon would (should) win the drag race from a standing start, followed by Rafale and then F-35. The quickest plane for this race would probably be a Brit spec (RR Spey-engined) F-4. This is all about how the engines are optimised for breathing well at low altitude - stats like thrust to weight ratio and ultimate top-speed are pointless as the most powerful engines aren't so until the conditions are just right for them.
Can't wait till they release the F-111. Will beat all, it was famous for that. Mach 1.2 @ sea level, beats even the Viggen's Mach 1.1 @ sea level. Now to convince the developers to craft this amazing plane.
I assume from its absence that the English Electric Lightning is not modelled in DCS? That was a properly fast jet! Also, I imagine / guess the result would be completely different if you ran this race at, say, 40,000 feet?
Yep, no EE Lightning. I don't think there is enough demand for it to be made. And yes, the engines are highly optimized for different altitudes depending on how they were planned to be used. The harrier is highly optimized for low altitude performance as it needs all that power to lift itself off the ground. The planes with small engine intake ducts are less draggy at low altitude but they suffer at high altitude due to the lack of oxygen. Interceptors like the Mig21 and the F-14A were designed for max speed at high altitude.
I own about half of those planes, and my vote was the F-16C-II straight away. It's by far the fastest in my fleet. I would have like to see which plane could have made it to 40,000 ft (or some number all are capable of reaching). I think that's where the F-15 and Mig 29 would have excelled. But maybe the 16 would end up highest first as well? Be a nice test, fastest time to climb I believe was the F-15 until the 5th gen fighters showed up. Not sure in DCS
I think another cool video like this would be at at altitude do the best maybe use autopilot if they have it hold like 250knts and then have everyone punch it.
I don't get why everybody is so surprised the F16 won a drag race. Its why "Aviation Week and Space Technology" magazine labeled the F16 "The Super Hot Rod of the Skies." Too many people have been influenced they the ED borked version in DCS. "its not Russian so it must suck."
@@grimreapers all good 😁 Thoroughly enjoyed it regardless, always look forward to these. Will be good to see the strike Eagle, typhoon and phantom in there soon!
Cap, when you are doing these races if you want to get a true concept of the difference in air frames you should have them set up apples to apple. Hornet and Viper were set clean while many other aircraft such as the Eagle cannot have the pylons removed. I ran into this issue in a racing series I did. With pylons on, the 16 it performed far closer to the 14 & 15. Still fastest off the line, but top speed was dramatically lower due to induced drag. Another thing you can control if you're just trying to get best power to weight ratio is set all aircraft with 7000lbs, so that fuel weight isn't a consideration for your drag race. All we've seen here is that a cleaner lighter jet with less fuel and same engine can go faster. Witch was always going to be the case.
Souldn't the F-14B Tomcat be the fasted as it was an intercepter? And where would the JF-17 come? & the SU-27? Races are cool! Maybe over 20Km next time?
Totally not related to the video but I just discovered something awesome. Freaking HIMARS on ships. Like they literally rolled one out on the deck and started firing! Mind blown! Just makes you think a little about what kinds of things some of the navy ships are transporting and how they could actually use them lol. Out of sm-2s? No worries we got some trucks loaded in the hold. Roll some out while we reload! There isn't a thing on a ship that isn't on a truck too basically. Even the sea whiz has a mobile land version. A really crafty crew could come up with all sorts of stuff. Need some long range firepower on a cargo ship? Just talk to the Artillery regiment your'e transporting lol.👍
@@grimreapers How they can call this a "simulator" when damage models are obviously pre-scripted like this example - other examples such as nominally land based planes not being able to land on carriers. This is clearly not a simulator. Simulators should simulate physics not pre-scripted outcomes.
