Super maneuverable F-16 - Theoretical question
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
I may be wrong about this, and please correct me if I am, but I thought that the Su-37 was just a modified
Su-27.
Su-27.
- Active Member
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 27 Dec 2004, 20:49
The problem is not only structural, but real life effectiveness. With today's missiles being able to perform 40+Gs - while pilots cannot sustain even 9+Gs for long. It would not be worthy to spend $$ in something that would just improve the Vipers for airshows. Structural issues apart, there are the software problems, engine stall, G-LOC, etc.. The Viper was born to be a light fighter, not a multirole one, so there is not much space - or weight - remaining for reinforcements.
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/pythonflanker.jpg
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4acm.gif
No wonder you are the unfortunate Flanker pilot that didn't fire 1st: no matter how many high G maneuvers you do, you won't escape the missile.
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/pythonflanker.jpg
http://www.sci.fi/~fta/python4acm.gif
No wonder you are the unfortunate Flanker pilot that didn't fire 1st: no matter how many high G maneuvers you do, you won't escape the missile.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 01:45
- Location: Germany
Notice the low speed when the SU-37 does its special manouvers. It may not pull that high G-load when doing them. In a real fight higher G-loads would be unavoidable and perhaps then we'll see a few SU-37's with bent wings
In the "old" days the Viper had to go thorugh a full "G check" if it pulled more than 9.8G, so thats was the limit of the airframe it appears.
I think he's right on this one.
If they were to put these features onto the 16, then the whole avionics package (you know, that computer that ACTUALLY flies the jet after the pilot suggests what it should do) would have to be redesigned to keep the G levels within a tolerable limit for the pilot. Of course, if we're talking about redesign of this magnitude anyway, they could always lay the pilot flat to reduce the G forces on him/her. If I remember correctly, there was a company that tried this aproach to piloting back in the fifties (Northrup?). This could make it a possibility to add that amount of maneuverability to the jet....
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 01:45
- Location: Germany
There is a small chance of escaping missiles,but still a chance. And a good flanker pilot will most likely always fire first,if he can.
Why wouldnt he?
Shev
This is true of any pilot in any aircraft, though. Some of the other advancements on the F-16 (along with the F-18and F-15) will truly give this ability to these jets...
But that isn't the point of this discusion, my bad!!!
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04
If I remember correctly, there was a company that tried this aproach to piloting back in the fifties (Northrop?).
I think you're right and I think it was one of the Northrop flying wings. I question the comfort and fatigue levels of the pilot if he had to spend hours lying down in the cockpit. I know I would have a very difficult time trying to fly and fight if I wasn't actually looking in the direction of flight . He'd also have a difficult time seeing the targets around him if he was lying down. Overall, I don't expect to see this tried anywhere anytime soon.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
www.parrotheadjeff.com
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Speaking of extreme G-forces, I read in a book that the Vought F7U Cutlass could pull 16G manoeuvres, making it very popular with pilots. How is this even possible?
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3279
- Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04
I highly doubt it due to the era of the aircraft. Maybe it was a typo and the author meant 6G ? That would probably be a decent figure for the time.
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
www.parrotheadjeff.com
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Yeah parrothead, you have to be right, I can't imagine an aircraft that old to be able to pull that many G's.
lamoey wrote:F-16H Super Viper
(H = Hoax)
It is a composite of several different planes. Some skilled member of this board put a pair of Raptor wings on it and colored it to look very sexy. I then put the canards of the early 80's F-16 AFTI on it and tried to make the Raptor engine nozzle look about right for it as well.
Actually, the photo originated from the F-16.net site so I replaced the link. It's not really something which has been crafted by this or any other board.
It is in fact an early scale model of the proposed F-16U Block 60, depicted over desert terrain. And the picture is taken by Bill Sweetman. He told us that he took the photo at the Lockheed Martin booth at the International Paris Air Show at Le Bourget. They were just cleaning up and about to remove the scale model when he quickly took a snapshot.
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Does anybody know why the AFTI F-16's canards were put under the air intake, instead of behide the cockpit like the Jas-39's or the Su-37's?
Technically they were part of the Automated Maneuvering Attack System (AMAS). They were put there to experiment with unorthodox pointing of the nose around the Z-axis. Almost like having a "super rudder" without all the adverse side effects. As an example, in ACM you could point the nose at the opponent without actually turning into him, sliding by while getting a shot off.
Here's a link from the news section. Scroll down to "AMAS"
Here's a link from the news section. Scroll down to "AMAS"
- Active Member
- Posts: 125
- Joined: 27 Dec 2004, 20:49
Truly, a pilot can survive a missile by maneuvering hard. But it will make him/her loose the situational awareness (SA), in the best case, or the consciousness, in the most probable and worst scenario. Extensive testing during the EF-2000 programme showed this. Moreover, even in the very very slim possibility that the pilot retains SA, the aircraft will loose airspeed. Any of the 3 possibilities will let the pilot unable to avoid a 2nd missile. That happened during Kosovo War. Moreover, a 1-vs-1 battle is rare, and even in this case, the pilot will most probably fire 2 missiles at a time - or, even worse, one some time after the other (e.g., a Python 4 AND a Derby), which makes it almost impossible to avoid both missiles. Time has changed, and tail-chase dogfights are possibly part of the past, since a fighter with a modern High-Off BoreSight (HOBS) missile will be highly effective. Some people say, with a good level of confidence, that an A-4 with AIM-9X and JHMCS, for example, will be at least as effective in dogfights as the F-22, since the missile and the helmet are largely platform-independent.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests