F-16 acceleration from 200kts to Mach1

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

Oh man, thats a riot. 5 seconds would require nearly 5G of acceleration.

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?

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?

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.

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

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...

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

Maybe he is reluctant to give the real speed /time in you tube interview and put some extra numbers on the real speed/time

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.

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.

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.

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

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.



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

Im sorry. I do need eyes replacement. It was for Mil power. Here's for AB: (still a second or two behind the GE)




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?