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: Jul 24, 2008 - 10:42 PM
F-16.net Sponsor
This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.
Racer181
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 06:10 AM
Active member
Joined: Mar 07, 2005
Posts: 138
Location: Newburgh IN
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.
_________________ SrA Joe
Former Crew Chief A/C F-16 86-0258
181st Intelligence Wing "Racers"
181st Base Honor Guard
Scorpion1alpha
Posted: Apr 17, 2008 - 12:35 PM
Elite
Joined: Oct 21, 2005
Posts: 744
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 - 01:05 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 - 01:08 AM
Elite
Joined: Jan 31, 2004
Posts: 1476
Location: Near Beale St., Tenn.
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 - 09:08 PM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 340
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 - 12:03 AM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 11, 2008
Posts: 293
Location: 45km @ sea... New England
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 - 09:39 PM
Veteran
Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 340
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.
Search
Register
Log in to check your private messages
Forum Guidelines
