F-16 Reference
5th Gen Fighters
|
| Author |
Message |
|
RedFive
|
Posted: Feb 27, 2008 - 10:18 PM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Feb 27, 2008
Posts: 5
Location: S. California
Status: Offline
|
How would the Viper go up against the MiG Master in these three scenarios:
1. vs. latest block F-8, equal pilot skills, WVR fight - guns/Sidewinders only
2a. In theory: vs. F-8U-3 Super Crusader (Crusader III) had it gone into production, same above criteria
2b. same as above with AMRAAM equipped F-16 vs. Sparrow equipped Crusader III |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
Posted: Nov 19, 2008 - 1:10 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
 |
|
F16guy
|
Posted: Feb 28, 2008 - 08:46 AM
|
|
|
Active Member

Joined: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 209
Status: Offline
|
Tough Questions. This whole F-16 vs. anything thread is usually based upon opinion and lacks a lot of reality. No one fights one v one in war (or has a death wish if they do).
1. Don't know. Don't have any experience flying against one. It retired way before I could fight it. Gums anything?
2. Don't know. Tough to say how something that was never built would fly.
3. Don't know. Most likely the launch and leave AMRAAM. The Sparrow shooter would die trying to keep the target illuminated or have to run away trashing the shot. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
RedFive
|
Posted: Feb 28, 2008 - 09:32 PM
|
|
|
Newbie

Joined: Feb 27, 2008
Posts: 5
Location: S. California
Status: Offline
|
Completely agree F16guy. It's all theoritical as I mentioned above. But then again, not too many F-16 pilots have had actual combat experience with MiGs, Su's or what not either, so yeah, this vs. XYZ thing is usually either opinion-,theoritical (or technical)-,or in some cases, if we're lucky enough, experience-based. I also arranged them in more specific scenarios to avoid the "what if...", "other pilot is better", "..more than one jet" debates that usually come up on this section, and to try to make the fight more fair (we all know the F-8 is a generation or two older). In other words, how would the F-16 do given these handicaps? It's all for fun and imagination as we all know these two fine aircraft will never see the same sky Here's some proposed specs for the Crusader III taken from...dare i say...wiki:
General characteristics
* Crew: 1 pilot
* Length: 58 ft 8 in (17.88 m)
* Wingspan: 39 ft 11 in (12.16 m)
* Height: 16 ft 4 in (4.98 m)
* Wing area: 450 ft² (41.8 m²)
* Empty weight: 21,860 lb (9,915 kg)
* Loaded weight: 32,320 lb (14,660 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 38,770 lb (17,590 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney J75-P-5A afterburning turbojet
o Dry thrust: 16,500 lbf (73.4 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 29,500 lbf (131.2 kN)
* * Fuel capacity: 2,000 US gal (7,700 L)
Performance
* Maximum speed: 2.9 Mach (estimated) at 50,000 ft (15,000 m)[1]
* Cruise speed: 500 knots (575 mph, 925 km/h)
* Range: 560 NM, (645 mi, 1,040) with external fuel
* Ferry range: 1,777 NM (2,045 mi, 3,290 km)
* Service ceiling 60,000 ft (18,300 m)
* Rate of climb: 32,500 ft/min (165 m/s)
* Wing loading: 72 lb/ft² (350 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight: 0.74
Armament
* Guns: 4× 20 mm (0.787 in) Colt Mk 12 cannon (planned; never installed)[4]
* Missiles:
o 3× AIM-7 Sparrow radar-guided missiles
o 4× AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles (planned for production)
Avionics
* Raytheon Aero 1B weapons control system, including:
* Autotechnicas AN/AWG-7 missile control system
* AN/APQ-50 radar (planned for production) |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
Posted: Feb 29, 2008 - 12:36 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 765
Status: Offline
|
The J75 in the Super Crusader would have given the F100/F110 of the Viper a good match. At high MACH the Crusader would have walked away from a Viper... Turbojets are cool!
From: http://gator.crouze.com/chapter5page.html
Quote:
On August 14 (1958), on its 38th flight, the prototype reached Mach 2 (twice the speed of sound) for the first time. Highest speed attained was Mach 2,39, but remarkably even at this speed the aircraft continued to accelerate, going Mach 0.1 faster every 17 seconds! Only a seemingly small detail kept the F8U-3 from going faster: the cockpit glazing fitted, and especially the frontal part, was not designed for speeds faster than Mach 2.2. Going faster than that and the windscreen would soon turn opaque and melt, all due to the friction and subsequent heat generated by the onrushing air. Of course developing new cockpit glazing that would eliminate this restriction was a high priority item, but was never implemented. Otherwise the true potential of the Crusader III would have been revealed. Experience gained from the flight test program predicted a (rather pessimistic) maximum speed of Mach 2.6 at an altitude of 35,000 ft (10,700 m), but near Mach 2.9 was more likely. With some modifications Mach 3 would have been within easy reach, but even without the Crusader III would have become the fastest fighter aircraft in the world. Not only the maximum speed was remarkable, the acceleration too was simply breathtaking, even without the proposed rocket engine. At an altitude of 35,000 ft (10,700 m) at Mach 0.98 the first prototype needed only 3 minutes and 54 seconds to accelerate to Mach 2.2. Only a few fighters of today can match that! The second prototype with its slightly lower powered engine however needed no less than 9 minutes, and it was predicted that the production aircraft's figure would lie somewhat in the middle. Maximum altitude was also not bad, the F8U-3 could sustain 60,000 to 65,000 ft (almost 20,000 m). With a ballistic "zoom climb" trajectory the aircraft could top 90,000 ft (more than 27 kilometers).
Ahh the mighty J75/JT4, what a turbojet!
Super Crusaders were to be engined with the P-8 model producing 28,000lbs of thrust!
Not bad for 1958!  |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
Posted: Mar 02, 2008 - 06:12 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 372
Status: Offline
|
| Dang! Why did Super Crusader never come to fruition? |
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Spartan-120
|
Posted: Mar 08, 2008 - 07:53 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast

Joined: Sep 21, 2007
Posts: 37
Status: Offline
|
| Because the Navy felt that the F-4 Phantom was better suited to the fleet air defense mission. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
sprstdlyscottsmn
|
Posted: Mar 09, 2008 - 11:46 AM
|
|
|
Senior member

Joined: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 372
Status: Offline
|
| Oh yeah. In hindsight the Phantom II did a fine job, but we will never know which was truely better will we? |
_________________ James,
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic (WTF?)
|
|
|
|
 |
|
That_Engine_Guy
|
Posted: Mar 09, 2008 - 01:37 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran

Joined: Dec 14, 2005
Posts: 765
Status: Offline
|
| The F-4/F-8 debate had a lot do due with the RIO in the back seat of the Phantom. The radar/missile systems at the time were not very automated, and the workload for a single person was too high. |
| Description: |
| F-110 Spectre later known as the F-4C Phantom II |
|
| Filesize: |
20.84 KB |
| Viewed: |
1331 Time(s) |

|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|