Forum: General

F-16 still best turn rate?



Search Search  Register Register  Private Messages Private Messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   1, 2, 3  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
calel
PostPosted: May 18, 2009 - 02:25 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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?
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Feb 12, 2012 - 2:46 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





  Send private message  
 
F16guy
PostPosted: May 19, 2009 - 08:38 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sprstdlyscottsmn
PostPosted: May 19, 2009 - 01:59 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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?)
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bazdriver
PostPosted: May 20, 2009 - 06:01 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
calel
PostPosted: May 20, 2009 - 08:25 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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????
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
bazdriver
PostPosted: May 20, 2009 - 10:36 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
TC
PostPosted: May 20, 2009 - 10:37 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
outlaw162
PostPosted: May 21, 2009 - 01:12 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Scorpion1alpha
PostPosted: May 22, 2009 - 06:54 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
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...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: May 25, 2009 - 03:55 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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???? Question
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Hookturn
PostPosted: May 25, 2009 - 03:37 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
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.

Very Happy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
vadrp
PostPosted: Jun 13, 2009 - 04:05 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Mar 23, 2009 - 10:22 PM
Posts: 16

Try this site ... www.tacticalairsupport.com ... for a small surprise ...

_________________
vadrap - fighter jet fixer
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
geogen
PostPosted: Jun 13, 2009 - 06:49 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 2K
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! Applause

_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
 
energo
PostPosted: Jun 13, 2009 - 11:37 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Moderator
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
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Guysmiley
PostPosted: Jun 13, 2009 - 06:42 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
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.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2011 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel
Site F-16 Section Forum