Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

toan wrote:

3. "The Eurofighter is certainly, as far as smoothness of controls and the ability to pull (and sustain high G forces), very impressive," he said. "That is what it was designed to do, especially the version I flew, with the avionics, the color moving map displays, etc. -- all absolutely top notch. The maneuverability of the airplane in close-in combat was also very impressive."

How well does the Viper compare with the two? I mean surely the Viper can't be that far off from the Typhoon's agility right? The Viper can also pull and sustain high G forces.

F-16.net Sponsor

Some factors for WVR engagement:

1. Empty weight:
# F/A-22: 18,500~19,500 kg
# EF-2000 Tranch I: 11,000 kg
# F-16E: 9,980 kg (Block 50 with F100-PW-229)
# F-16C: 8,710 kg (Block 60 with F110-GE-132)

2. Combat weight for dogfight (50% internal fuel + SRAAM*2 + gun shells + pilot*1)
# F/A-22: 23,100~24,100 kg
# EF-2000 Tranch I: 13,850 kg
# F-16E: 12,000 kg
# F-16C: 10,720 kg

3. Wing-surface area:
# F/A-22: 78.03 m2
# EF-2000: 50.00 m2
# F-16E: 27.87 m2
# F-16C: 27.87 m2

4. Thrust (AB / Max. Mil.):
# F-119-PW-100: 35,000~39,000 Ib / 25,500 Ib * 2 for F/A-22
# EJ-200: 20,250~22,275 Ib / 13,500~15,525 Ib * 2 for EF-2000
# F-110-GE-132: 32,000~34,000 Ib / 19,000 Ib * 1 for F-16E Block 60
# F-100-PW-229: 29,100 Ib / 17,800 Ib * 1 for F-16C Block 50

5. T/W ratio (AB / Max. Mil.), (4) / (2):
# F/A-22: 1.32 ~ 1.53 / 0.96 ~ 1.00
# EF-2000: 1.33 ~ 1.46 / 0.88 ~ 1.02
# F-16E: 1.21~ 1.29 / 0.72
# F-16C: 1.23 / 0.75

6. Wing-load, (2) / (3):
# F/A-22: 296~309 kg/m2
# EF-2000: 277 kg/m2
# F-16E: 430 kg/m2
# F-16C: 385 kg/m2

6. Subsonic unstability:
# F/A-22: Unknown
# EF-2000: -35% MAC or even less (IDR, 1998 April, Page5)
# F-16C/E: -5% MAC

The estimation of F/A-22's empty weight today is from:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... rt-15.html

The F/A-22's empty weight today is around 40,000 Ib (18,144 kg) class.

http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

Page2:
............To help maintain the cost limit and to ensure its extremely high performance, a weight limit was set at 50,000 lbs. The desires and constraints violated basic laws of physics and aeronautical engineering, and could not be met. The immediate results were that the weight (typically) swelled to 63,000 lbs..............

Page3:
..................The 26 percent increase in gross weight led to a wing loading and thrust-to-weight ratio that are totally comparable to those of the F-15C. That means there was no increase in performance or maneuverability for reasons of physics. The weight increase caused a decrease in fuel fraction from a very proper 36 percent to 29 percent.............

# The original requirement of the F-22's empty weight is 13,600 ~ 14,830 kg

# Fuel fraction of 36% (Original requirement) means that its internal fuel should be: 13,600 ~ 14,830 kg / 0.64 * 0.36 = 7,650 ~ 8,340 kg

# Fuel fraction of 29% (Actual performance now) means that the empty weight of F/A-22 now should be: 7,650 ~ 8,340 kg / 0.29 * 0.71 = 18,730 ~ 20,420 kg

According to the hints of these data, the empty weight of F/A-22 Raptor today should be within the range of 18,000 to 20,500 kg class, and personally I think the most reasonable number of F/A-22's empty weight today should be lied in the range of 18,500 ~ 19,500 kg.

59K lbs is empty. 60K is max for our jacks, so we have to defuel it each time if it goes on jacks.

I get to fight an F-22 tomorrow at Tyndall AFB. We'll see how a Block 50 does against a F-22. We are doing offensive and High aspect BFM. Probably gonna get my ars kicked, I'll let ya all know.

I'm a new member here, but I have been out to EDWs, and have had the "pleasure" of speaking with a few guys. My question is does the f/a-22a, really have 25K lbs of internal fuel. That's more than the eagle with ext. tanks and, full internal. If so all I can is "WOW", talk about persistence!

Quote:

I get to fight an F-22 tomorrow at Tyndall AFB. We'll see how a Block 50 does against a F-22. We are doing offensive and High aspect BFM. Probably gonna get my ars kicked, I'll let ya all know.

Come on man , details , details , details Smile

wonder what happened MATMACWC??
Neways..from the delay in your response i think ur recovering from it..

Ol mother of all storms Katrina did me in. Briefed with em, stepped to fly with em, and then they hurrivaced...i.e. whent and hid their 130 million dollar airplanes somewhere else. US, well, we cut our combat archer 1 week short to run from the hurricane. We had to get a brief on AOA and line of sight, i.e. "It is nothing like you have seen before" eveidentally they do things a normal US fighter pilot has ever seen. They gave us some details but I'll leave it out, it is amazing!! Too bad, I think we'll get another chance soon..............

Damn mother nature... somtimes its just downright bitchy.

calhoun wrote:

Pure annihilation. Goodbye Typhoon.

entropy wrote:

YES!! The Typhoon would stand a slim chance. If the 16 and 15 can't, then the Typhoon can't either.

entropy wrote:

What makes it better? Speed, maybe a little more agility. I know the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring, and it essentially is a triangle with canards in the front. If it weren't for the computer controlling some of the functions, I don't think it would have the agility it has.

Only speed and agility? Smile

I'm not sure that it being 'a triangle with canards in the front' makes it an inferior plane. Rolling Eyes

As for the computer controlling some of the functions, have you ever heard of fly-by-wire? Oh yes, it's on the F-16 too...

If you really believe that the (1979 vintage) F-16 is that close to the Eurofighter, then I sure hope I meet you over the battlefield in the future, so I can hand you your a$$ and prove to you what thirty years of development can do. Smile

Number one rule is never underestimate your enemy, however strong your rose-tinted glasses are Laughing

catisfit wrote:

calhoun wrote:

Pure annihilation. Goodbye Typhoon.

entropy wrote:

YES!! The Typhoon would stand a slim chance. If the 16 and 15 can't, then the Typhoon can't either.

entropy wrote:

What makes it better? Speed, maybe a little more agility. I know the Typhoon doesn't have thrust vectoring, and it essentially is a triangle with canards in the front. If it weren't for the computer controlling some of the functions, I don't think it would have the agility it has.

Only speed and agility? Smile

I'm not sure that it being 'a triangle with canards in the front' makes it an inferior plane. Rolling Eyes

As for the computer controlling some of the functions, have you ever heard of fly-by-wire? Oh yes, it's on the F-16 too...

If you really believe that the (1979 vintage) F-16 is that close to the Eurofighter, then I sure hope I meet you over the battlefield in the future, so I can hand you your a$$ and prove to you what thirty years of development can do. Smile

Number one rule is never underestimate your enemy, however strong your rose-tinted glasses are Laughing

Hmmm so thats why Typhoon (a 2 seater) took on 3 F-16s at once in singapore (WVR, confirmed by test reports) and beat them all with no kills against it. (and before anyone says, "yeah but its been dropped from competition" thats because the aircraft wasn't mature enough for them yet)

How is the pilot the limiting factor?

Quote:

Hmmm so thats why Typhoon (a 2 seater) took on 3 F-16s at once in singapore (WVR, confirmed by test reports) and beat them all with no kills against it. (and before anyone says, "yeah but its been dropped from competition" thats because the aircraft wasn't mature enough for them yet)

Did the f 16 employed JHMCS/AIM 9X or DASH/PIV combos in these WVR engagements? Somehow I doubt Devil

cru wrote:

Did the f 16 employed JHMCS/AIM 9X or DASH/PIV combos in these WVR engagements? Somehow I doubt Devil

No, but the Typhoon was yet to have its PIRATE/HMS installed and was only cleared to use 70% of the flight envelope (FCS software version installed) at the time.... but it was using ASRAAM.

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 vs. F-22