F-16 ceiling limit. Where it is?

Operating an F-16 on the ground or in the air - from the engine start sequence, over replacing a wing, to aerial refueling procedures
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

ynmian

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 43
  • Joined: 08 Jan 2011, 22:04
  • Location: KDFW

Unread post17 Jan 2011, 23:10

my first feeling is that it is not viper, becuse that V shaped seat portio (behind his head) is not viper's....it looks like viper's though
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post18 Jan 2011, 01:12

It is a Viper, a YF-16. (as previously stated)

The YF-16s had different seats. They used the Douglas Escapac.

http://users.bestweb.net/~kcoyne/frame_escapac.htm

:cheers: TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

faust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2004, 03:52

Unread post18 Jan 2011, 04:31

TEG, the video is from 1992, at least 5 year earlier than the first upgraded -200 to -220E in FAV

ok is easy to figure out that a F100 with DEEC as a -220E is will perform better than a -200 tuned a med altitudes, but remember that a -220E has slight less MIL/AB power output than a -200. so may o maybe not perform better in that enviroment, who knows? JBgator?

another factor is the fuel, in the video there's 2 fuel status calls, the first calls the pilot stated a 3700lbs of fuel remaining, and some minutes later aprox 3200 (memory recalls) maybe a lighty loaded light block15 viper (better wing loading) with a minimal external stores (probably a centerline fuel tank empty -in venezuela almost always the F-16 flies with them- and 2 sidewinders) makes easily 55kft in high mach number (thinking in a regular training sortie with no supersonic flying).

but the video is probation of JBgator statement: more than engine performance, or 1 G maneuvering stall line, the basic limitation of altitude in a F-16 is the ECS.

by the way, I remember a Code-one online article, titled: dont strech the limits. where there was a part talking about the zoom climbings in F-16s, sadly, isn't online anymore...
Offline
User avatar

That_Engine_Guy

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2322
  • Joined: 14 Dec 2005, 05:03
  • Location: Under an engine somewhere.

Unread post18 Jan 2011, 05:39

faust wrote:TEG, the video is from 1992, at least 5 year earlier than the first upgraded -200 to -220E in FAV

True, I wasn't looking at the date of the video; sorry.

faust wrote:ok is easy to figure out that a F100 with DEEC as a -220E is will perform better than a -200 tuned a med altitudes, but remember that a -220E has slight less MIL/AB power output than a -200. so may o maybe not perform better in that enviroment, who knows?

The DEEC -220/220E will should provide more 'usable' thrust across the entire envelope because the DEEC keeps the compressors running closer to their stall margin. The DEEC refined things like fuel schedule, CIVV/RCVV schedules, Nozzle ratio, etc. It helps squeeze performance from the engine while keeping the "BANG" from happening. As such, while the PW-200 had a tad more thrust uninstalled/static/standard-day; the PW-220 should provide the best usable thrust at high altitude.

The DEEC also keeps the N2 from blowing up during high-speed/low-altitude flight by limiting N2 compressor pressure. The DEEC also includes a MACH-Idle-Lockout feature, to keep 'inlet buzz' from happening in the Viper when decelerating from MACH 1+. DEEC (and the new SEC mode) greatly increased air-start reliability, and it nearly eliminated stall/stagnation issues that wer had with the PW-100/PW-200. The DEEC is now in it's 6th generational deployment as the Group VI DEEC, the first DEECs on the PW-220 would have been Group I.

NASA/PW/USAF Tested the DEEC in the early 1980s in a NASA F-15. It was also tested up to 60K feet.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/abou ... RC_prt.htm

For the best ceiling I'd go with the PW-229; small-mouth inlet for lowest drag, high pressure ratio, lowest bypass ratio, and high specific thrust at MIL.

faust wrote: I remember a Code-one online article, titled: dont strech the limits. where there was a part talking about the zoom climbings in F-16s, sadly, isn't online anymore...

I'll check my 'hard copy archives' :shrug:

Keep 'em flyin' :thumb:
TEG
[Airplanes are] near perfect, all they lack is the ability to forgive.
— Richard Collins
Offline

faust

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2004, 03:52

Unread post19 Jan 2011, 02:58

good info about DEEC TEG :applause:
Offline

exfltsafety

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 338
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 19:11

Unread post19 Jan 2011, 04:21

JB, it's good to be skeptical. However, the FLCS memory records the same parameters that the FLCS uses to control the jet. I can believe the altitude might be off a little; but, not thousands of feet.

Faust, thanks for the tip on the Code One article. One of my cohorts who's still being productive found Joe Bill's article (April 1993). The last two pages have the details on the event. Joe Bill didn't state the peak altitude; but, he did mention that the engine problem occurred above 70,000'. Since he used engine monitoring system computer terminology, the engine was GE. I was also quite a ways off on when this event occurred.

Back to the original post about the F-16's ceiling limit. The discussion about the cabin (cockpit) pressure light re-kindled some brain cells. When some users a few years ago pushed to get the cockpit altitude at which the light came on reduced from 27,000' to 22,500', the question arose as to why it was 27,000' to start with. The answer was that the design covered the possibility that the aircraft could be flown to 70,000'. The cockpit pressure schedule in the -1 goes up to 60,000' aircraft altitude. Cockpit altitude at 60K is approximately 21 to 24K. I extrapolated the curves out to 70K aircraft altitude and cockpit altitude went to about 23 to 26K. Since the USAF allows flight to 25K in an unpressurized cockpit, it looks to me that there was some consideration for possible flight to 70K.
Offline

Whity

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 16:26

Unread post20 Jan 2011, 21:37

The article used to be available at: http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... index.html but I can't seem to find it anymore on the renewed site.

In attachment a scan of the Semper Viper article in Code One
Attachments
Limits by Joe Bill April 1993.pdf
Copyright by CodeOneMagazine
(5.86 MiB) Downloaded 1269 times
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2800
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post20 Jan 2011, 21:54

exfltsafety-

Perhaps its for temperature variances; you're still below 36,000 feet.
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 324
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post14 Mar 2017, 00:15

faust wrote:jbgator... that's exactly what's happens in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm8piHiEmE4

a real intercept of a U-2 over Venezuela by FAV vipers back in 1992

the HUD shows an altitude of 54kft and the pilot said that the U-2 was at 55Kft

just before dissapearing the HUD symbology, the pilot said "i have the equipments hot" and after he said: "I lost the pressurisation"


Anyone know more about this? Link to a story? No clue why a U-2 on a mission would be anywhere near 55K feet over a target area.
Previous

Return to F-16 Procedures

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests