F-16 Maneuverability

coolguyhmr · by **coolguyhmr** » 11 Dec 2016, 07:09

Hello members of this lovely viper forum!

I know this topic has most likely been discussed before but, I think it would be nice to start fresh with more knowledge of the viper's maneuverability. I know that most of the F-16's lift comes from it's lifting body and LERX, but I am just wondering how the latest model Vipers would perform against other modern aircraft in WVR? The Viper has a wonderful sustained turn rate but how good is it's instantaneous and overall turn rates compared to other modern fighters such as the Eurofighter, Rafale, etc. I already know for a fact though that a good pilot in a viper can stomp anything it comes across except for the almighty Raptor! Please discuss and give me any information you know about the maneuverability of the f-16 from test pilots and how it compares to other modern fighters! Have a wonderful day!

-"Remember, once you see the fangs of a viper up close it's already too late."

vilters · by **vilters** » 11 Dec 2016, 22:19

No F-16 is like its brother/sister.
The good old F-16A block 5 compares in nothing to its brother/sister F-16 block 60/62

Aircraft "grow" over time. They win trust but also gain weight.

For "yanking and banking" in WVR?
Give me the good old F-16A block 5 to 10, clean, and at 4.000 lbs of fuel.
That gives us 3-5 minutes of hard-core fun before running on vapor.

In pure WVR with a good pilot?
The only one to beat this combo is another F-16block 5-10 with an equal good pilot.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 22 Dec 2016, 17:56

I have seen Solo Turk in his Block 40 complete a 9G turn in only 15-16 seconds (this was back in 2011, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQi-n6bsQf4, turn happens at 12:10 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBlEU62e8c, turn happens at :34). However, I think that a Block 30 can turn a little quicker, since it is lighter (and they still use the same F110-100 engine).

The best I have seen the Eurofighter do is:www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BRYegCxtm8, turn happens at 4:05. It is probably just slightly longer than Solo Turk's time. However, we must remember that the Eurocanards are all composed of very light composites, something the F-16 family is not. If the F-16C Block 30/40 were built with composites (probably would shave around 1,500-2000lbs off the weight) and installed with the F110-129 engine it would further improve on turn rate and radius . Or imagine a stock F-16A Block 15 made of composites with a -229 engine; it would be a monster in BFM.

The Gripen takes around 18 seconds or more believe. And there is a video from the mid 1990's of a black Rafale doing a complete turn in 17 seconds. I do not know if the Rafale can improve on that mark, since the only turns that it does in the airshow demos currently includes 4 rolls (which is obviously not max performing the jet).

Finally, the baseline Su-27 does the turn in around 15 seconds (search youtube, Russian AF 1990's demos). That's pretty amazing since the jet is so large. It is probably at very low fuel capacity?

Hope that helps-

saberrider · by **saberrider** » 23 Dec 2016, 03:13

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJeAjnADHD0. EUROFIGHTER better for top cover,but Rafale is better on low alt.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsVAO_U78Qg,F16 is in middle.Most constrain came from armament you will have.Eurofighter is a winner for me.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 23 Dec 2016, 04:45

Yes, I think the Eurofighter is tops for me too. It has nice lines; and superb all around performance.

I wish there were available performance numbers on F-16B 81-0816; since it is mated to a -229 IPE. The T/W ratio and turn rates must be incredible!

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 23 Dec 2016, 10:27

IMO, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale are basically next generation F-16s. They are both somewhat better at almost everything (at least on paper) and seem to have quite similar (but improved) characterisics. They have higher T/W ratio (especially Typhoon), more internal fuel and higher fuel fraction, larger load carrying capacity and more advanced avionics. That's basically what 15-20 years time difference in development matters as many things were not really available when F-16 was designed. Of course both are also much more expensive than F-16 also which is why neither has been that big sellers.

saberrider · by **saberrider** » 23 Dec 2016, 19:28

hornetfinn wrote:IMO, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale are basically next generation F-16s. They are both somewhat better at almost everything (at least on paper) and seem to have quite similar (but improved) characterisics. They have higher T/W ratio (especially Typhoon), more internal fuel and higher fuel fraction, larger load carrying capacity and more advanced avionics. That's basically what 15-20 years time difference in development matters as many things were not really available when F-16 was designed. Of course both are also much more expensive than F-16 also which is why neither has been that big sellers.

I consider the new F16 to be J 17 p

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 23 Dec 2016, 21:03

f-16adf wrote: However, we must remember that the Eurocanards are all composed of very light composites, something the F-16 family is not. If the F-16C Block 30/40 were built with composites (probably would shave around 1,500-2000lbs off the weight) and installed with the F110-129 engine it would further improve on turn rate and radius .

As far as I know the F-16 did have a small percentage of composite structure originally - whether the Block 60 has a higher percentage I don't know - or for example the F-2A that supposedly had new wings with 55% composite makeup. Regardless of that it is the final weight that matters and the EF is heavier on given weights than even the Block 60 but has a bit more static excess thrust on paper over later F-16s.

Gums · by **Gums** » 23 Dec 2016, 23:34

Salute!

John-boy can tell us, but only composites I know of for the first blocks were in the tail. Funny, but because of all the carbon fiber and such folks were worried about the tails shorting out the electrical system on the base or downtown!

The block 15's came with aluminum tails, so no more worries.

Personally, and ask some early Viper drivers, but the small tail Block 10 seemed the best combo. Later, I heard from my old wingie that the big mouth block 15 or higher with the GE motor was really good.

Gums tries to remember......

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 24 Dec 2016, 07:07

All F-16s have composite skin vertical tails. The skins are bolted to conventional aluminum spars and ribs. Block 1 - 10 horizontal tails are full depth aluminum honeycomb core with bonded composite skins. Near the tail pivot shaft, bolt fasteners help attach the skin to the titanium root rib and shaft.

The block 15 horizontal tail was completely redesigned with a larger area, aluminum root rib and shaft, corrugated aluminum substructure and mechanically fastened composite skins. (Gums - you may be right about aluminum skin, I'm not certain) Another difference, the forward 20% (approx) of the tail was a removable full depth honeycomb core and composite skin structure. It was made removable to make replacement of easily damaged sharp leading edges possible. The original tails were difficult and expensive to repair.

There were several reasons to redesign the tail. Larger area was desired to provide more control at lower airspeeds, primarily breaking the deep stall, but also to have lower takeoff rotation speeds for heavy external stores. Changing from titanium to aluminum for the root rib and pivot shaft was cost saving and losing dependence on the USSR for titanium supply. Use of the stamped understructure corrugation and mechanical fasteners was also cost saving and more reliable compared to bonded honeycomb.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 24 Dec 2016, 16:04

Composites dominate the composition of the Eurocanards, that is why they are so light. I think it says a lot of the original F-16 design that "generally" lacks most of those weight saving composites (certainly not to the degree of Eurocanards); for a standard Block 40 (like Solo Turk) to still be relatively competitive with the Eurofighter Typhoon's turn numbers down low. I must say Solo Turk puts on an incredible show.

Gums · by **Gums** » 24 Dec 2016, 23:06

Salute!

Well, F-16adf, looking back over 40 years I would say that John Will and others there came up with a great combo of materials, and then there's the aero folks who blew Northrop away on performance. Oh yeah, that big PW motor was awesome..

The other guys back then could not believe what we could do in that little jet, and do it with lerss gas. We routinely ran the Eagles outta gas and they usually had a big centerline tank. The Hornets were terrible for gas mileage.

A Block 15 today with the new avionics would be a formidable adversary. The F-35 sounds even better.

But what do I know?

Gums opines.....

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 25 Dec 2016, 01:24

Hello Gums, I think a modernized light Block 15 with the PW F100-229 engine would be an awesome combo for WVR. I read somewhere that the original F-16A had a turn radius at 9G of 1100-1200ft. There is also a USAF Thunderbirds promo video from around 1985 and it says the turn radius (Block 15) is a little over 3.5 football fields: www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5tmKRXLKZQ, turn happens at 11:48. And I am willing to bet that from 6-7G the turn radius is probably just around 1000ft. The light A model with its lifting body, and the fact that the stab was not fighting the wing could really put on a show.

Even during Randy Ball's Mig-17 demo, the announcer (airshow boss) always says that the FIRST jet to actually turn inside a Mig-17 was (not the F-14, certainly not the F-15) the F-16A Viper. I have seen Ball's Mig-17 demo, and that little thing can surely turn with an incredibly small radius.

I do not mean to ask too many questions (sadly, I never had the eyesight for military aviation) but I also read (I think it was in Flight International many, many years ago) that from 330 KIAS and above the F-16A Block 5,10 could turn inside a Hornet; while from 330KIAS and under the Hornet could turn with a smaller radius than the Viper (most likely due to the F/A-18 having a high aspect ratio wing swept at just 20 degrees)? Do those numbers seem correct?

Sorry once again for all the technical questions, but I have been in love with the Viper (sorry F-4 and 106) since I first saw one at an airshow way back in 1984.

Have a Merry Christmas-

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 25 Dec 2016, 03:52

Thanks, Gums.
Let's talk about composites back then. We could have easily designed the F-16 wing skins in composite, but cost and technical risk made aluminum the better choice. Composite positive effects were lighter weight and possible increased stiffness and fatigue resistance. Risk was high because there was little experience in analysis methods, so potential benefits just might not work out. At the same time, the F/A-18 was developed with composite wing skins. Strength met the requirements, but torsional stiffness was much lower than predicted. That resulted in excessive loss of aileron effectiveness in roll at higher airspeeds (above 0.90 mach below 10,000 ft). Roll performance did not meet requirements, so a redesign was required. Thicker wing skins were designed and leading edge flaps were programmed to assist the ailerons in rolling the airplane.

What had happened? The basic composite material stiffness was adequate, but little was known then about fastening composite skins to aluminum spars and ribs. Part the stiffness gains in the basic material was lost in fastener joint effectiveness.

Today, composite analysis methods and better joint effectiveness make composite designs reliable and effective.

However, composite structure is still limited to mostly wing and tail skins with aluminum understructure. So how much weight can composites save? Fighter structure normally weighs around 25 per cent of maximum takeoff weight, with all skins weighing only about 30 percent of structure. So, skin weight is about 8 percent of total weight. If composites save half of skin weight (they don't) they would save only 4 percent of total weight. That is certainly a worthwhile savings, but it is not a dramatic saving.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 25 Dec 2016, 19:16

So then by modern composition standards an F-16C Block 30 that weighs roughly 17,800lbs would only save about 4%; or a little over 700lbs off its weight?

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but how on earth is Dassault able to make the Rafale C so light? I think it only weighs around 21,800lbs. Even Eurofighter with its giant delta wing only weighs roughly 24,000lbs.

Once again, sorry about all the technical questions. I am not a fighter pilot, I am not an aerospace engineer (never completed the degree and changed majors), all I am is a civilian (commercial) pilot that rents a 172RG bug smasher every once in a while.