| Author |
Message |
|
calel
|
Posted: May 18, 2009 - 02:25 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 28, 2009 - 10:57 PM
Posts: 64
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
|
| Does the F-16 still has the worlds best turn rates even though the thrust vectoring of the Sukhhoi family of aircraft? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Feb 12, 2012 - 2:46 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
F16guy
|
Posted: May 19, 2009 - 08:38 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Apr 22, 2004 - 03:08 PM
Posts: 366
Status: Offline
|
| Actually, if you ask Skyhigh, F-16's with AL-31FP's would probably have the best turn rates. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
Posted: May 19, 2009 - 01:59 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Mar 10, 2006 - 01:24 AM
Posts: 1075
Status: Offline
|
| F-16 never had the best turn rate, it had world class SUSTAINED turn rates. |
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
bazdriver
|
Posted: May 20, 2009 - 06:01 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: May 20, 2009 - 12:02 PM
Posts: 78
Status: Offline
|
| The F-16 and F-15 are the best sustained energy turning fighter of the 4th generation. No Su-27,30,or MKI or Mig-29 can compete in this category. To not talk about supersonic turn performances were the gap is even higher. Russian current fighters are largely overrated and their reputation has more to do with the glamorous sight of the low-speed but very,very rare dogfight than with actual (Liban, Gulf, Yougoslavia) combat, where overall weapons system and others assets improving SA make the differrence. Today the principle (speed is life) still applies. Even Boyd never argued for low speed dogfighter, but for energy fighter. The F-16 and F-15 were the best and the F-22 will just continue in the same way. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
calel
|
Posted: May 20, 2009 - 08:25 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Mar 28, 2009 - 10:57 PM
Posts: 64
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
|
Bazdriver:
When you say that the f-15s and f-16 were the best, are you suggesting that they are no match for Su-27,30,or MKI or Mig-29???? |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
bazdriver
|
Posted: May 20, 2009 - 10:36 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: May 20, 2009 - 12:02 PM
Posts: 78
Status: Offline
|
| What I said is that those russians fighter are bleeding speed at very high rate with operationnal weight. They are much more draggy than the two american fighters in high speed(subsonic and transsonic) regime, and by the way most Su-27 and Mig-29 flying today are g-limited at speed higher than 450KCAS. I'm not saying they are no match, I said that in most combat situations the F-16 and F-15 enjoy an advantage over them. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
TC
|
Posted: May 20, 2009 - 10:37 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Jan 14, 2004 - 07:06 AM
Posts: 3992
Status: Offline
|
Calel, re-read Bazdriver's second sentence. As for actual combat, you've seen the results. At 104.5-0, the Eagle has never been defeated in AA. The Viper has 75 AA kills, IIRC. Every Fulcrum or Flanker that has faced an F-15 or 16 in AA has lost.
The Fulcrums can do some really cool maneuvers at airshows, but we've said time and again on this site what the difference is between being loaded down with fuel and ordnance, and trying to fight, as opposed to flying slick with a quarter tank of fuel at an airshow. No comparison.
A myraid other factors are involved as well: tactics, training, experience, MX condition of the jet, etc.
When it comes down to the bottom line, that old saying is very true "It's not the machine, it's the man." |
_________________ "He counted on America to be passive...He counted wrong." -- President Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
 |
|
outlaw162
|
Posted: May 21, 2009 - 01:12 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Feb 28, 2008 - 02:33 AM
Posts: 856
Status: Offline
|
The "Baz" is the IDF F-15, so this guy may know what he's talking about.
OL |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Scorpion1alpha
|
Posted: May 22, 2009 - 06:54 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Oct 21, 2005 - 01:47 AM
Posts: 1293
Status: Offline
|
Even to this day, unless I was flying the F-22 (which I would fear absolutely nothing), I wouldn't want to mess with the F-15 or F-16, especially with experienced and skilled pilots flying their best "game".
They have been considered the "gold standard" by many aerospace design bureaus for a long time and which their forthcoming design(s) must surpass. |
_________________ I'm watching...
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Corsair1963
|
Posted: May 25, 2009 - 03:55 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: Dec 19, 2005 - 04:14 AM
Posts: 1830
Status: Offline
|
|
bazdriver wrote:
The F-16 and F-15 are the best sustained energy turning fighter of the 4th generation. No Su-27,30,or MKI or Mig-29 can compete in this category. To not talk about supersonic turn performances were the gap is even higher. Russian current fighters are largely overrated and their reputation has more to do with the glamorous sight of the low-speed but very,very rare dogfight than with actual (Liban, Gulf, Yougoslavia) combat, where overall weapons system and others assets improving SA make the differrence. Today the principle (speed is life) still applies. Even Boyd never argued for low speed dogfighter, but for energy fighter. The F-16 and F-15 were the best and the F-22 will just continue in the same way.
Do we know how the F-35 will fit in this mix????  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Hookturn
|
Posted: May 25, 2009 - 03:37 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Oct 27, 2004 - 10:49 AM
Posts: 70
|
Based solely on a subjective perception of airshow performances of different aircraft: If you want to see rate, watch for Eurofighter Typhoons.
... Or maritime patrol turboprops.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
vadrp
|
Posted: Jun 13, 2009 - 04:05 AM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Mar 23, 2009 - 10:22 PM
Posts: 16
|
|
|
|
 |
|
geogen
|
Posted: Jun 13, 2009 - 06:49 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K

Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2423
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
Give me an F-2 type Viper (or ES variant), with GE-132 power for best sustained turn-rate AND rate of climb!  |
_________________ The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
 |
|
energo
|
Posted: Jun 13, 2009 - 11:37 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Moderator

Joined: Dec 09, 2007 - 02:06 PM
Posts: 439
Status: Offline
|
|
vadrp wrote:
Try this site ... www.tacticalairsupport.com ... for a small surprise ...
Interesting tidbit from the site:
Quote:
Additionally, by revamping the traditional decision-metric of cost per flight hour to a new metric of training or test missions per flight hour, greater cost savings can be realized. As an example, business as usual would involve a simple comparison of relative flight hour costs between adversary aircraft. By this metric, the SU-27 would appear to be more expensive than most other aircraft. However, if a customer looks at cost per training intercept or cost per test run, which is what they are really buying, then the SU-27 quickly becomes significantly cheaper because of its unsurpassed fuel payload (e.g., an SU-27 that can perform four supersonic training intercepts in one hour is far cheaper than typical adversary aircraft that have far less range and endurance, and can only perform a single high-speed training run before requiring refueling.
[..]
The SU-27 represents the pinnacle of aircraft performance. With an 1800 nm range, and the ability to support test projects for extended periods, including 25 minutes of afterburner operations per sortie, our demilitarized Flankers are more cost effective than any other supersonic platform on today’s market.
B. Bolsøy
Oslo |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Guysmiley
|
Posted: Jun 13, 2009 - 06:42 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K

Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
| Ask a Sherman crew from WWII how they liked being in the most "cost effective" tank in combat. They didn't call it the Ronson for nothing. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|