Super maneuverable F-16 - Theoretical question

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 00:48

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.
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 01:50

I actually see them as very different jets. The 37 is diffrent in size,electronics,weapons,structural,and etc. They may look somewhat similar, but the 37 is much improved over its 27 brother. Even in its performance.

Shev
Offline

renatohm

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2004, 20:49

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 02:13

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.

Image
http://sistemadearmas.sites.uol.com.br/aam/pythonflanker.jpg

Image
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.
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 02:25

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
Offline

wwb23

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 01:45
  • Location: Germany

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 18:37

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....
Offline

wwb23

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 01:45
  • Location: Germany

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 18:40

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!!!
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 20:00

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 :wink: . 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
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 21:00

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?
Offline

parrothead

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3280
  • Joined: 10 May 2004, 23:04

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 21:53

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
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 22:04

Yeah parrothead, you have to be right, I can't imagine an aircraft that old to be able to pull that many G's.
Offline
User avatar

Lieven

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 3661
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 15:44

Unread post02 Feb 2005, 22:10

lamoey wrote:F-16H Super Viper

(H = Hoax) 8)

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.

Image


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.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post03 Feb 2005, 00:44

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?
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post03 Feb 2005, 00:55

Thats a great quistion for the engineers agilefalcon16. I personally dont know the answer to it.

Shev
Offline
User avatar

LinkF16SimDude

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2499
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
  • Location: SW Tenn.

Unread post03 Feb 2005, 01:13

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"
Offline

renatohm

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 27 Dec 2004, 20:49

Unread post03 Feb 2005, 02:03

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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests