F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 14:22
by Patriot
Ok. Ive just recently heard out the latest episode of The Fighter Pilot Podcast and the subject of discussion was this time the Eurofighter or Typhoon as Brits like to call it.
One thing out of the entire interview that amazed me & aroused my suspicions the most was when the (german) pilot stated that being at 200ft above the sea level at 200kts he can accelerate to supersonic (which at this alt would be 660kts) in 5 seconds! Five seconds literally... unless my ears require fixing.

The part in question starts at about 46:00 through 47:00 minute in the interview.

Personalny I think it should take about 20-30s.
Howabout the Viper?

https://www.fighterpilotpodcast.com/epi ... r-typhoon/
https://youtu.be/_fX6u558JbI

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 15:12
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Oh man, thats a riot. 5 seconds would require nearly 5G of acceleration.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 15:50
by f-16adf
Here is acceleration for Block 50.

Notice the best number comes from a Gross Weight of just 20,000lbs meaning the jet is only flying with about 700lbs of fuel. And it takes 17 seconds from 200-650KIAS. On Aircrew Interview, the RAF pilot (Paul Godfrey) said the Typhoon was basically a F-16 on steroids. So i'm guessing this guy means probably about 15 seconds for its acceleration (Yet the Tiffy could be carrying more than 10% internal fuel as in the F-16's best number/though, F-16 "may" have less frontal drag than Typhoon --if so, not by much). His comment about Tiffy v F-16 BFM is pretty interesting.


However, his 5 second quote number seems off even with the Typhoon being the monster that it is. He also was kinda confused earlier in the interview when he said the Gripen "could have" fixed canards, but not to quote him on that. Could be a language issue?


I could be wrong?

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 16:32
by Patriot
And he also said that the Eurofighter engine the EJ-200 has "about the same thrust" as the F-15/16 engine... which isnt the case. EJ-200 has 1/3 less thrust than above motors (models 129/229).

Id love to see such a drag race to Mach1 between Viper and Eurofighter. Giving the Eurofighter has some more frontal area and more induced drag... maybe Viper would hit Mach faster?

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 17:56
by basher54321
With 40K lbs of thrust I expect it is fairly good - must be one of the best accelerating Jets going and will be good to see the real figures. I would say that the difference in subsonic acceleration with 4 Gen and later jets is often seconds in similar configurations.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 18:58
by Patriot
F-35 has the same amount of total thrust as Eurofighter but does it accelerate nearly as good? Meaning the sheer thrust figures aint mean anything untill you dont match it up against the 1. mass & 2. drag.
Interesting fact. The empty weight of Eurofighter is exactly the same as the empty weight of MiG-29. But.. the Typhoon has a 2 tons (4400lbs) of dry thrust more and two something tons of wet thrust more. If the drag is fairly comparable then physics says the € would win a drag race with MiG29 at any day easily

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 19:07
by basher54321
Yes basics really the thrust has to overcome both weight and drag - and of course the actual thrust output is not 40K lbs - that is just an SL static rating.

The F-35 with an internal weapons bay can be clean in a combat configuration which can help despite the apparent weight difference.

The flight performance data for the MiG-29A/G that you guys use(d) suggests it was better near the deck but it falls off as it got higher.

On the face of it Typhoon should be better - but you know...

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 19:45
by Patriot
40K lbs of thrust for F-35 isnt real figure... Because it's static unistalled? or because it's higher than 40 when it is flying fast, low, eating huge volumes of air? Ofcourse the total figure of max thrust is not a constant but depends on altitude & speed, right? The lower the faster the more thrust - the higher the slower the less thrust.

Ps. I wonder how € would match up against this birdy. Can accelerate vertically, at 5:25
https://youtu.be/B_9NVEomQwo

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2019, 20:02
by saberrider
Maybe he is reluctant to give the real speed /time in you tube interview and put some extra numbers on the real speed/time

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 07:53
by hornetfinn
Patriot wrote:And he also said that the Eurofighter engine the EJ-200 has "about the same thrust" as the F-15/16 engine... which isnt the case. EJ-200 has 1/3 less thrust than above motors (models 129/229).


True but he probably meant the engines many F-15Cs and F-16s have which are PW F100-PW-100/200/220. Compared to those EJ200 has only 8-9 percent less dry thrust but 17-18 percent less AB thrust. Of course that's exactly not the same as "about the same thrust", but not that far off either. It's pretty good result for such a small engine, but both Snecma M88 and F414-GE-400 have roughly equal T/W ratios.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 18:00
by basher54321
Patriot wrote:40K lbs of thrust for F-35 isnt real figure... Because it's static unistalled? or because it's higher than 40 when it is flying fast, low, eating huge volumes of air?


For Typhoon and the F-35 (and most fighters) the thrust output would probably be lower than static uninstalled when sitting on a runway due to losses from installing it - and is probably thousands of pounds higher in flight by M0.9 low altitude. The thrust drops off significantly as the Jet gets climbs and the air gets thinner.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2019, 23:38
by jetblast16
Oh man, thats a riot. 5 seconds would require nearly 5G of acceleration.


^ This. The Typhoon, though a fine interceptor/ dog fighter, does not have the installed horsepower to even remotely accelerate that quick.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 00:12
by Patriot
I think that if anything can compete with the Typhoon on acceleration it's the Viper. Put GE-132 into the Block 50 or 70 and Typhoon would comes 2nd every time. Even that heavy heavily modified Block 60 airframe with said motor climbs like a Saturn 5 rocket - as seen on the video above 8)

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 11:33
by Patriot
Wait. What? f-16adf I just compared the chart you posted for GE-129 Viper with the same chart for PW-229. Either my eyes need replacement too or something's WAY off wrong with these figures.

Image

Let's look @ the 0.91 Mach treshold. From 200kts it takes GE Viper 15 seconds to accelerate. Yet for the PW Viper it takes 35 seconds :o :wtf:

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 12:10
by Patriot
:oops: Im sorry. I do need eyes replacement. It was for Mil power. Here's for AB: (still a second or two behind the GE)

Image


f-16adf, do you have a MIL chart for GE-129 to see & compare if PW-229 greater dry thrust translates for acceleration as well?

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 13:29
by basher54321
Patriot wrote:I think that if anything can compete with the Typhoon on acceleration it's the Viper. Put GE-132 into the Block 50 or 70 and Typhoon would comes 2nd every time. Even that heavy heavily modified Block 60 airframe with said motor climbs like a Saturn 5 rocket - as seen on the video above 8)


Block 60 should on paper at least be the quickest F-16.

How about a Block 30:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article691.html

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 17:03
by Patriot
:shock: That Block 30 could have easily replaced Space Shuttles I guess for the nano fraction % of its cost.
Shame.

Too bad that Block 30/GE132 test pilot isnt on this forum to tell how that wonder was behaving in the air. 8)
Id love to see the acceleration figures charts for that one!
Ps. Is there any such for Block 60 or the entire manual?
Block 70 should comes with that engine by default.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2019, 17:08
by basher54321
Nothing on the Block 60 and I wouldn't be pasting charts from it on here if I did have it - bad form.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2019, 16:46
by f-16adf
Patriot,

Sorry for the delay, was gone yesterday. But here it is (you can also find it in the Flight Supplement):

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 06 Oct 2019, 22:06
by Patriot
Thanks!

It's a bit counter intuitive. 35 seconds to .91 Mach - same as Pratt despite the Pratt has according to specs entire 5kN (1150lbs) more on the MIL.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2019, 14:06
by jetblast16


That thing must have been a rocket ship!

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2019, 16:28
by f-16adf
Pretty impressive Block 60. I wish they would do a demo w/o those CFT's on the jet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaiSkasXec8 they had to ruin it by playing that idiotic Kenny Loggin's song in the beginning :doh:


I think the 60 is approx 20,700lbs empty (no CFT's), so with that gigantic engine it could have the best accel/climb rates of the entire F-16 famiglia (except for that T&E B30 w/-132, obviously that jet is the true definition of a rocket ship).

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2019, 13:26
by Patriot
Which one of the three would accelerate the fastest from a brake release on the runway to Mach 1? F-16, F-15 or F-22? Assuming conditions: clean config, 50% internal fuel, sea level runway, negative 15°C.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2019, 15:26
by f-16adf
Patriot,

The only Level Flight Accel chart for a clean Eagle is at 10,000ft and at 40,000lbs Figure B9-21. So according to that doc, 29,500lbs empty - 40,000lbs= 10,500lbs of gas or .78 internal. For the F-16 you would have to reference Figure B8-10 chart (sheet 1) and interpolate for .78 internal fuel. Which on a Block 50 would be 5,586lbs. Add that to its empty weight of 19,261lbs and you get 24,847lbs. So do some math (between 24-28,000lbs columns). F-16 should beat the Eagle at 10Kft by about 1.5 seconds. Sorry, can't really be more specific only looking at the charts on a cell.

These temps are for a standard day at 10Kft which is -5 Celsius. (Standard day at SL is 29.92Hg and 15C, standard lapse rate is 2C ((3.5F)) per 1,000ft).

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2019, 15:40
by Patriot
Thanks for that computing.
Im curious specifically about Viper vs. Raptor.
A long time ago somewhere on this forum (or elswhere, cant recall) I've read that on a cold day anywhere between 0 - 10K ft MSL of altitude a clean Block 50 Viper has a better acceleration than a Raptor.. and that allegedly was the statement of Lockheed test pilot.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2019, 15:49
by f-16adf
I've only seen the Raptor about 3 times in flight (once at an airshow, twice in the Traffic Pattern above my house). It's very impressive. When the Raptor departed, he did an unrestricted climb out (again, quite impressive).

I've heard about the clean Block 50 beating it too under 25,000ft. So I guess, it probably could be true. If that is the case, then I imagine that the Eurofighter Typhoon can beat all of them. Raptor pilot did mention that EF had impressive acceleration.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2019, 16:11
by Patriot
Gotchya.
Look at this one here.
The climb rate and the fact it is able to accelerate vertically after high alpha pass says something about the potential of the 16 too

https://youtu.be/B_9NVEomQwo

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 05 Nov 2019, 19:46
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I've read several times that the Raptors intakes are turned for supersonic flight and that it reduced the thrust for subsonic flight. That would explain pretty much everything you are saying wouldn't it?

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 13:35
by Patriot
I guess.. Physics is the same for everybody. The huge surface body area of the F-15, F-22 or Eurofighter exposed to the slipstream at high angels of attack produce huge amounts of drag slowing them down taking away g's & °/s. Viper might be the best turning thing at low altitudes. As far as acceleration goes, Block 50/70 with GE-132 would kick Eurofighter's @$$ with ease. Id put some :2c: on that.

https://youtu.be/HBlP4cCRVmk

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 06 Nov 2019, 14:44
by f-16adf
Patriot, this is one of the best F-16 Turn videos on YT. (Solo Turk Block 40)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBlEU62e8c


It begins at :34 second mark. It is about 14.7 sec total. He is not turning at Ps=0, but above. He is starting at 9G and decelerating down to approx 6Gish (notice his turn circle is getting smaller/ and he maintains altitude). So his average turn rate is 24.5Deg/sec. Meaning he is turning on average around -250Ps.






As far as the Raptor goes, here are words from Paul Metz & Code One Magazine.(from one of TEG's old posts)

By Paul Metz, F-22 Chief Test Pilot wrote:
"I’ve been talking about drag, but the real secret to supercruise is thrust minus drag. The big thrust comes from the incredible F119 engines. We sometimes forget about these beauties as they continue to perform trouble-free at all flight conditions—the perfect engine for a fighter pilot. They tolerate any throttle motions and pilot demands from ridiculously low speeds to supersonic flight at altitudes above 50,000 feet. Although the F-22 uses a fixed inlet design, the overall engine and airframe are optimized for the high supersonic speeds. Acceleration and Ps are phenomenal at the right hand side of the flight envelope. The Raptor can easily exceed its design speed limits, particularly at low altitude. We have incorporated max speed cues and alerts to remind pilots when approaching the limits."


I think also that the Raptor is just larger in frontal cross section than the F-16 or Typhoon. Granted the Raptor is big (not as big as the Eagle or Tomcat) but large in more of a "compact" way so to speak. Maybe that together with it being optimized for high end speed, is the reason why the Block 50 can supposedly beat it under 25,000ft (or possibly Typhoon as well).

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2019, 03:39
by boilermaker
I am still skeptical of people saying the F35 has greater kinematics because it has no storage pylons (except for the C version). It is heavier than the F15C with like only 2/3rd of the thrust. No way in my book it has acceleration like the F16 or F15.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2019, 21:04
by Patriot
I agree Boilermaker. Physics... is beautiful because it dont lie. Apart from weights the 35 has a significantly large frontal cross section which is the reason I guess why it cant go through Mach on dry thrust already. Not so long time ago Ive spoke with F-35 test pilot Dave(?) McLaren. He told me that 35A at mil power stops at .99 Mach and the acceleration is little less than on F-16 however I dont know his defintion of "little".

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 09 Nov 2019, 21:18
by basher54321
boilermaker wrote:I am still skeptical of people saying the F35 has greater kinematics because it has no storage pylons (except for the C version). It is heavier than the F15C with like only 2/3rd of the thrust. No way in my book it has acceleration like the F16 or F15.



Generally that refers to an A-G loadout comparison where the F-35 can carry a useful A-G loadout internally whereas the F-16/F-15 must carry all of that externally and suffer a significant DRAG penalty (More so over M1.0) - so not just weight to consider.

Note that all F-35s can carry stores externally if there is a need.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2019, 16:54
by marsavian
F-15C was never engined with later larger thrust (-129/-229) engines so the F-35A has about 90% of the F-15C engine thrust. I have also read that the EOTS nacelle is what prevented supercruise.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 03:48
by f119doctor
Of course, the -229 was designed as a drop in replacement for the -220, little or no modification required on the airframe. If the USAF has wanted to spend the money, the F-15C performance would have been eye watering!

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 07:14
by disconnectedradical
marsavian wrote:F-15C was never engined with later larger thrust (-129/-229) engines so the F-35A has about 90% of the F-15C engine thrust. I have also read that the EOTS nacelle is what prevented supercruise.


Source on EOTS mount preventing supercruise? It seems a bit unlikely to me.

Re: F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2019, 10:44
by vilters
We have the technology to build 15+ G airframes that can do crazy stuff.

Unfortunately : We can not build 15+ G sustainable pilots.

And on a second note : With BVR missiles that can go 100 miles?