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 ... ?
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
Location: San Antonio, TX

by disconnectedradical » 18 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.


User avatar
Elite 5K
Elite 5K
 
Posts: 5910
Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

by sferrin » 19 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. . ."


Elite 1K
Elite 1K
 
Posts: 1745
Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
Location: San Antonio, TX

by disconnectedradical » 19 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.



Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest