| Author |
Message |
|
xenon333
|
 Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 06:31 AM
|
 
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Mar 30, 2008
Posts: 18
Status: Offline
|
Which variants of the F-16 possess a thrust to weight ratio greater than one? If all of them do, then wouldn't it decrease as the newer variants get increasingly heavier? Or perhaps the newer engines compensate for the increased weight, making the ratio the same as before.
And while we're at it, can anyone think of any other modern fighters with a greater t to w ratio? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: Sep 06, 2008 - 8:00 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racer181
|
|
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 07:10 AM
|
|
|
Active member
Joined: Mar 07, 2005
Posts: 153
Status: Offline
|
type in the names of different fighter aircraft at wikipedia.org (I mean if it's on wikipedia it's gotta be true) do a little research on your own and you'll find out more information than just what you are looking for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon |
_________________
SrA Joe
Former Crew Chief A/C F-16 86-0258
181st Intelligence Wing "Racers"
181st Base Honor Guard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scorpion1alpha
|
|
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 01:35 PM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 757
Status: Offline
|
| Depends on several factors such as fuel state, loadout, etc. I can't think of any F-16 variant that would have a T:W greater than 1 fully loaded with fuel and weapons (or any other aircraft in the same configuration, for that matter). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PhillyGuy
|
|
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 02:05 PM
|
|
|
Active member
Joined: Sep 29, 2006
Posts: 177
Location: Philadelphia
Status: Offline
|
From the Crapapedia...
Quote:
Metz has also stated that the F-22 has a top speed greater than 1,600 mph (Mach 2.42) and its climb rate is faster than the F-15 Eagle due to advances in engine technology, despite the F-15's thrust-to-weight ratio of about 1.2:1, with the F-22 having a ratio closer to 1:1.
Umm... what? The laws of physics can be negated by "advances in engine technology"? |
_________________
"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
|
Posted: Apr 18, 2008 - 02:08 AM
|
|
|
Elite
Joined: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 1496
Status: Offline
|
Let's see...depending on your source:
F-15: 1.17 to 1.2 (at MTOW of 60K+, it's significantly less than 1)
F-22: MTOW of 60K pushed by 70,000 lbs max power = 1.16
Only thing I can guess is the Raptor is slicker aero-wise than the Eagle and therefore doesn't take as much power to achieve the same or better ROC. |
_________________
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: May 04, 2008 - 10:08 PM
|
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 343
Status: Offline
|
| yeah, and that the Raptor has to be and MTOW to get a T/W close to a clean internal fuel Eagle. |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: May 05, 2008 - 01:03 AM
|
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 349
Status: Offline
|
| Yes, lift efficiency must be calculated in there somewhere, but I'll leave that up to the physics majors. Just look at the F-16XL with only 29,000lb thrust, BAM!! 65,000' /min dawg. Imagine with a GE -132 mount, or equiv! Bam Bam!!! |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
|
Posted: May 07, 2008 - 10:39 PM
|
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 343
Status: Offline
|
| 65,000 ft/min? Maybe at low fuel loads, the XL is a LOT heavier and climb rate is determined by (T-D)V/W, so at a given weight it will beat a standard viper in a climb due to lower drag, but once you go full fuel the weight will hold it down. |
_________________
James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
