F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

Feel free to discuss anything here - as long as it is F-16 related.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

boilermaker

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12

Unread post09 Nov 2019, 03:39

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.
Offline

Patriot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 536
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post09 Nov 2019, 21:04

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".
Last edited by Patriot on 09 Nov 2019, 21:20, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1851
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post09 Nov 2019, 21:18

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.
Online
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1503
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post15 Nov 2019, 16:54

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.
Offline

f119doctor

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 42
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 03:48

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!
P&W FSR (retired) - TF30 / F100 /F119 /F135
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 791
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 07:14

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.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1145
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post16 Nov 2019, 10:44

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?
Previous

Return to General F-16 forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests