F-16 vs F/A-18

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

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 533
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 14:51

eloise wrote:That chart didn't come from F-15 manual either why should it be trusted more than NASA who tested on an actual F-15 with modern equipment

IMHO, NASA graphs should be even more accurate than original manual because data are recorded by more up-to-date devices. If i have to explain the differences, between them two, hummingbird's graphs probably assume a recommended safe AoA limit. But since we already take no noitice of F-14's G-limit, it is only fair that we do the same for F-15's AoA limit ( Even though, i personally prefer if both are kept)
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 18:27

eloise wrote:That chart didn't come from F-15 manual either why should it be trusted more than NASA who tested on an actual F-15 with modern equipment
Image


NASA's tests & equipment were no different or more modern than those used by Grumman or Douglas, stop looking for excuses. Fact is nothing is based on more flight test data than the official EM charts by Grumman & Douglas themselves, and thus nothing is more accurate.

In short it's quite clear that the F-14 holds the ITR advantage when compared with the F-15, and anything else would also be quite odd considering how much slower the F-14 needs to go in order to reach its peak STR.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post11 Feb 2018, 18:28

garrya wrote:IMHO, NASA graphs should be even more accurate than original manual because data are recorded by more up-to-date devices.


and exactly where did you pull this from?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post12 Feb 2018, 01:50

hummingbird wrote:
garrya wrote:IMHO, NASA graphs should be even more accurate than original manual because data are recorded by more up-to-date devices.


and exactly where did you pull this from?


Even with the chart you provided, F15 has a Clmax of at least 1.5.

Any thought?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1425
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post13 Feb 2018, 05:12

hummingbird wrote:NASA's tests & equipment were no different or more modern than those used by Grumman or Douglas, stop looking for excuses

Though i agree with him, i actually said your graph didn't come from F-15 manual.
hummingbird wrote:in short it's quite clear that the F-14 holds the ITR advantage when compared with the F-15, and anything else would also be quite odd considering how much slower the F-14 needs to go in order to reach its peak STR

STR is a different matter because it is affected by L/D ratio and thrust rather than only CLmax and weight
And talking about sustained turn rate, i reviewed your earlier post with manual data yesterday:
hummingbird wrote:I meant max sustainable load factor, which remains at 0.82 Mach at virtually all altitudes. Hardly a coincidence

@15k ft, max sustainable load factor stay at Mach 0.85, the Ps curve trend started to change significantly at Mach 0.7
lift 15k.png


@35k ft, max sustainable load factor stay at Mach 1.4, the Ps curve trend started to change significantly at Mach 0.78
35k ft device operating.png


@35k ft but with maneuver devices not operating, the max sustainable load factor still stay at Mach 1.4, the Ps curve trend still started to change significantly around Mach 0.78
35k ft device not operating.png


you must know all of this too because you have the manual

In short, you are awfully disingenuous, as soon as we get distracted you try to deceive us.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 01:29

gta4 wrote:
hummingbird wrote:
garrya wrote:IMHO, NASA graphs should be even more accurate than original manual because data are recorded by more up-to-date devices.


and exactly where did you pull this from?


Even with the chart you provided, F15 has a Clmax of at least 1.5.

Any thought?


If the Clmax adds up to 1.5 as pr. the chart then that's what it is, nothing more to say about that.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 01:31

eloise wrote:In short, you are awfully disingenuous, as soon as we get distracted you try to deceive us.


Decieve you??! Consider yourself completely ignored henceforth.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2106
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 15:01

Is it fair to say every Viper model holds a thrust to weight advantage vs. any F-18? Both being clean of course, or with 2-4 AAM's..

I thought so, but have seen reference to 414? powered F/A-18C's having a comparable T/W ratio??
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1420
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 15:43

mixelflick wrote:Is it fair to say every Viper model holds a thrust to weight advantage vs. any F-18?


This actually interesting, the highest thrust to weight hornet is the F/A-18C with GE F404-402 EPE upgrade, can this compete with the lowest T/W ratio Vipers, what is it block 42 or block 25. some export versions maybe?

Now I know it takes more than T/W ratio to beat a Viper in its own game, that whole airframe is fine tuned to retain E, the Hornet on the other hand is fine tuned to go slow, so it'll take more than big motors to out viper a viper
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 16:02

zero-one wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Is it fair to say every Viper model holds a thrust to weight advantage vs. any F-18?


This actually interesting, the highest thrust to weight hornet is the F/A-18C with GE F404-402 EPE upgrade, can this compete with the lowest T/W ratio Vipers, what is it block 42 or block 25. some export versions maybe?


http://www.nationalguard.mil/Leadership ... xtlink%5D/

Block 42 have engine upgraded to pw229 a decade ago. Now block 42 is one of the most powerful block in viper family...
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 533
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 18:41

eloise wrote:And talking about sustained turn rate, i reviewed your earlier post with manual data yesterday:
hummingbird wrote:I meant max sustainable load factor, which remains at 0.82 Mach at virtually all altitudes. Hardly a coincidence

@15k ft, max sustainable load factor stay at Mach 0.85, the Ps curve trend started to change significantly at Mach 0.7
lift 15k.png

@35k ft, max sustainable load factor stay at Mach 1.4, the Ps curve trend started to change significantly at Mach 0.78
35k ft device operating.png


@35k ft but with maneuver devices not operating, the max sustainable load factor still stay at Mach 1.4, the Ps curve trend still started to change significantly around Mach 0.78
35k ft device not operating.png

you must know all of this too because you have the manual
In short, you are awfully disingenuous, as soon as we get distracted you try to deceive us.


TBH, I was mislead as well. Cheers for clear things up.

mixelflick wrote:Is it fair to say every Viper model holds a thrust to weight advantage vs. any F-18? Both being clean of course, or with 2-4 AAM's..

I thought so, but have seen reference to 414? powered F/A-18C's having a comparable T/W ratio??

You can DM Sprstdlyscottsmn, he have all the flight manuals and very knowledgeable.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3400
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 20:33

garrya wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Is it fair to say every Viper model holds a thrust to weight advantage vs. any F-18? Both being clean of course, or with 2-4 AAM's..

I thought so, but have seen reference to 414? powered F/A-18C's having a comparable T/W ratio??

You can DM Sprstdlyscottsmn, he should have all the flight manuals and very knowledgeable.

Good thing I am following this thread.

The worst F-16 T/W would be a HAF Block 52+ with CFTs. Rated thrust is 29,160. Empty weight is 22,000lb and fuel load is 10,000lb IIRC (dont have that one on me). This gives T/W of 1.33 empty and 0.91 with fuel and no weapons.

The best F/A-18C T/W will be the -402 powered planes with 35,400 lb rated thrust, 24,500lb empty weight, and 10,810 fuel. This gives T/W of 1.44 empty and 1.00 with fuel and no weapons.

With (2) AIM-9 and (2) AIM-120 and 60% fuel the -402 Hornet has a best sustained turn rate or 19.2 at sea level and 12.3 at 15,000ft. The HAF with no CFT under same conditions is 18.5 and 12.63.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

marsavian

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 23:00

Do you happen to have the E-M graphs for that 402 Hornet ? Pretty good sustained numbers for a fighter more famed for its instantaneous and AOA ability.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3400
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post14 Feb 2018, 23:26

As far as I know there are no declassified E-M plots for Hornets. Original doc is found here.

https://books.google.com/books?id=XCcLA ... rn&f=false
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 604
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post15 Feb 2018, 09:51

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:With (2) AIM-9 and (2) AIM-120 and 60% fuel the -402 Hornet has a best sustained turn rate or 19.2 at sea level and 12.3 at 15,000ft. The HAF with no CFT under same conditions is 18.5 and 12.63.


It's not the same condition. HAF F-16's loadout drag index = 50 which equals 6+ AMRAAMs + pylongs. Hornet's loadout has a drag index of only 17-20.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests