F-16 Block 1 vs F-15A climb and acceleration

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

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post18 Jul 2013, 20:01

I'm curious as to which aircraft had better climb and acceleration performance, particularly at low speeds and low altitude. While the block 1 and 5 F-16s were pretty underpowered, they were also quite a bit lighter and possibly lower drag because of the smaller intake. I'm wondering which of the planes would have better acceleration and climb right after takeoff.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5378
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post19 Jul 2013, 17:22

The F-15 held the world time-to-climb records until they were taken by a souped up Flanker (P42 with over driven engines). There was an article in Code One magazine about some study/prep work done to take some of those records back (along with the F-104 Red Baron Starfighter low altitude record) with the F-16 but the USAF squashed the idea.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post19 Jul 2013, 18:30

True, but those time to climb records were taken by a stripped down Streak Eagle. I'm talking about a plain, vanilla F-16 block 1/5 against a plain, vanilla F-15A without all those souped up engines and whatever. And this is mainly concerning low speed, low altitude, like right after takeoff.

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests