Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

Can someone tell me if the wing loading is low or high on a F-16 assuming low wing loading denotes superior instantaneous turn performance & slower minimum speed against dissimilar aircraft?

I 've been reading fighter combat by mr R.Shaw & wondering about how I can apply any of it in Falcon?

Thanks.

F-16.net Sponsor

Salute!

Well, as with all modern fighters ( modern? built in 70's - heh heh), the Viper has what WW2 folks would call 'high' wing loading'.

Stock Electric Jet right outta the box in '79 weighted about 22,000 pounds with two 'winders, full internal fuel and a load of 20mm. Wing area was approximately 300 sq ft. So figure 77 pounds per sq ft. The fuselage and vortex control leading edge strakes/extensions added to the total 'liftin' area, but not in a conventional sense.

As time went on, we added weight to basic plane and also carried more and more external ordnance for 'basic' combat weight.

I wouldn't sweat the wing loading, per se. The leading edge flap system adds a lot to performance by reducing drag at high alpha, reducing buffet, etc. Same goes for those leading edge strakes/doofers.

The 'secret' of the old Viper ws it's ability to put the bat turn on someone, then accelerate rapidly, do it again, and then use high AOA manueverability characteristics to get into a missile/gun firing position. Besides, the limiter allowed you to pull full stick and get the max available performance without being Chuck Yeager. we could roll at 300 deg per second pulling full back stick at 160 knots and 25 degrees AOA.

Times change.

Nowadays, the jet carries Slammers and can shoot enema in the face from 15 miles away with a fair Pk. Can still get into a knife fight, but only as a last resort. Nevertheless, I would prefer the Viper in a knife fight over most any modern fighter. Super vis (better than ANYTHING flying), easy to keep under control, decent avionics and missiles, etc.

Cylon and Standygains can add to this...............

later,

Flounder22, low wing loading still provides better performance but it does not apply the same way to the "electric jet" (or other aircraft such as Mirage 2000 or Gripen): computer-controlled instability adds a lot to basic performance calculated from wing loading.
It means that you cannot really compare the F-16 to another fighter aircraft that does not use fly-by-wire by simply looking at wing loading. For example, Mirage III had big wing area and was much lighter than F-16. However, its instantaneous turn rate was pretty poor compared to a F-16.

The mirage III has no elevators , single engine, delta wing shape & no fly-by-wire, so this would be a energy fighter against the F-16 as an angles fighter & the fly-by-wire computer control gives you better performance cause it controls a more maneuvering aircraft design which without computer control would be unstable?

So the wing loading is less important than fly-by-wire?

thx for your replies.

Okay, I probably gave a bad example. So rather look at Mirage F1: it is a fighter designed for manoeuverability, has advanced wing aerodynamics and wing loading comparable to F-16. It should have instantaneous turn performance matching F-16 performance, but it does not, mainly because computer control enables to get very aft center of gravity, which adds to wing lift to give the F-16 much better pitch rate.

By the way, the Mirage III only has one engine.

Heyo Flounder

Don't you believe that delta wing, old fighters don't have super instantaneous turn rate, not for a second.

I flew the F-102 Delta and we could lay on a turn that would water your eyes. Unfortunately, after the flat-plate turn, we were at 60 knots and it took us 30 seconds nose down in AB to get back to fighting speed.

same for the Mirage series of deltas. F1 was not a pure delta and much more forgiving with respect to energy.

I'll still wait for Cylon and Standbygains to comment here, plus those who have flown a delta or against a delta.

All I know is that when we taught the Pakistani guys, that they were very interested in defeating the Mirage 2000. Guess who had just bought a slew of those suckers? Heh heh.

The secret was to stay outta the superior 'nose pointing' part of the envelope that the delta types enjoyed. Keep the energy up and STILL TURN AT A HIGH RATE. Oh yeah, 15-20 degrees per second is decent if you can sustain it for 10 or 15 seconds. The Hornet, Eagle, Fulcrum and a few more can do that.

The Eagle could always use it's nose-ponting ability at real slow speed to zap us. But it was a one-shot deal. Secret was to stay co-altitude.

The F-16 was a marvel when first on the street. Could sustain a high turn rate and handled really well at slow speed if you got there ( not a good idea, but what the hell).

Let's wait for current thinking and experience from the troops I mentioned....

respectfully,

As far wing loading, gums nailed that one. Relaxed static stability, coupled with a lifting body and LEFs, make wing loading calculations a silly guess at best.

The FLCS is built to allow and assist the pilot in exploring all envelopes of the flight regime during maneuvering. The only real downside to the FLCS is the inability to jink. Some say that this is semantics only, but the Viper cannot jink. The trick to counter that is to merely stay offensive. High alpha maneuvering is very nice though. Despite all the help the FLCS gives you, it is still easy to end up in a low energy state if you aren't flying good BFM. If you can get the jet to corner speed, and use a little bit of vertical to help stay there, you can rate around almost anyone, even Eagles.

As far as slower minimum speed, the slats, the lifting body, and an obscene amount of thrust help the Viper get there. The only time you want to be slow is if you are trying to shake someone out of their tree, or are in a stack.

BFM in the jet is real simple. You don't need a 9G break all the time, or even most of the time. Just break to corner speed and stay there. I like to leave a few extra knots onboard just to cash in if I want to make someone react to my nose position. Fly lag BFM, not HUD BFM like the harriers do. Or just take it vertical. The Viper is the exception to the rule of "what goes up, blows up."

Thx for all the replies & tips, so a delta wing like the mirage F1 could turn inside the turn circle of an F-16 maybe for a snapshop but would lose most or all of its energy because it becomes heavy in the turn with the shift of center of gravity?

Lol, I like the edit thing. Top end of corner speed & rate seem to be most important from what I'm reading in your replies, so now I need to try to use these to get in the opponents turn circle in a guns fight, lag pursuit not pure or hud is another that need to watch,

Yeah, Mirage 2000s have better instantaneous turn rate than F-16s because of delta-wing. European Viper drivers fighting dissimilar against French fighters are well aware of that. However, Mirage 2000s are less powerful, albeit having purer aerodynamics, and carefully-driven Vipers can get the edge.

Talking about delta wing...are Eurofighters more agile than F-16's?

Yes, it would be a pity if a Eurofighter was not more agile than a F-16 since Eurofighter was designed about twenty years later after all. However, I do not know what the Block 60 with its much more powerful engine is capable of. Last but not least, operational F-16s are still very efficient dogfighters, even against last-generation aircraft.

Quote:

Have instantaneous turn performance matching F-16 performance, but it does not, mainly because computer control enables to get very aft center of gravity, which adds to wing lift to give the F-16 much better pitch rate.

By the way, the Mirage III only has one engine.

Did I missread your post wildcat, are you saying that the F-16 shifts the center of gravity to the aft to give it more lift or the Mirage?

Pretty much as stated... It always comes down the the Ps diagrams to tell what fighter will win a dogfight. Something Stbygains mentioned was the Vipers lack of the instantaneous "jink." Kinda like in the mighty AT-38, we go full stick in lap (as fast as you can) at around 330 kts to make the jet "swap ends" and create some good aspect instantanousely. The only problem is that when the jet starts flying again, it's all downhill without a lot of ability. The viper does a "subdued" jink, but the AOA limiter kinda keeps it within the static portions of the Ps diagram. F-106's and T-38's fly "outside" of the Ps curve during drastic / dynamic manuevers like jinks. Actually, the jet itself is not flying, the slabs / actuation surfaces are the only thing pushing / rotating the rest of the jet around it's CG.

I've flown in the mirage 2000, and found it to have a good turn, but VERY poor sustainable energy and rate.

Cylon

Like the other guys have been saying the advantages of a Modern FCS are incredible. You dont have to be as good to be good like you did in the Mustangs, Sabres, and Phantoms.

And as Cylon and Gums have stated defeating an opponent has alot more to do with understanding your strengths and his and exploiting his weaknesses while not letting him exploit yours. The Falcon can turn tighter then most and to turn inside that cause them to be so out of energy when they do that they become defensive. This is one of the reasons lowspeed handling is such a big deal in a knife fight. Planes like the Hornet, Fulcrum, Raptor have incredible lowspeed capability while planes like the Tomcat dont fair so well, One of the leasons quickly learned by the Turkey drivers when they start Air to Air training.

The Eurofighter has alot to thank its forward canards for, its good low speed agility being one of them.

Drew

Flounder22, apparently my post was not as clear as I wanted it to be, sorry Confused

. Actually, I meant that the F-16 was naturally aft-centered, at any time. The center of gravity is not really shifted during the flight. It logically enables better pitch response to pilot input, but it also means that the plane would be almost unflyable without computer control.
The F-16 was the first plane to solve the classical fighter dilemma, i.e. designing a stable plane which is able at the same time to react as quickly as possible to pilot inputs.

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

Wing loading on the F-16