F-16 vs F/A-18

[F-16ADF]

Notice no "HAF" in the upper corner? You are just too ignorant to realize that these figures were already decided on years before the Greeks bought their Block 50-52's? And the 26,000lb and 50DI doesn't represent any specific load out? USAF Block 42/50/52 do not weigh 20,000lbs or 20,200lbs empty; why is it so hard for you people to get it-

[eloise]

There is no error in the EM charts, they are based on exhaustive real life testing. Thus they at any point trump any armchair calculations you guys have attempted.

There isn't any error on the EM or lift charts themselves , but there are errors when you extrapolate parts of EM charts that wasn't drawn due to G limit. Which is shown in previous thread when you thought there isn't any change in lift curve.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=120.
There are errors in not considering the weight differences between various F-16 block too.
As for you calling NASA CL charts an armchair calculation, that just desperate.

In short in any purely horizontal fight the F-14B/D will be able to comfortably keep either the F-15 or F-16 in its sights without issue. The F-14 will only start to struggle if the fight is taken to the vertical, but in terms of ITR its got the advantage across the board.

Except that F-15 get advantage in ITR, and except in WW I, dogfight aren't purely horizontal.

Seems like you're very much attached to the F-16, as such I don't really care for discussing anything you consider as "fact".

That a bit rich coming from you, i have yet to see you address his point about different F-16 blocks

[garrya]

Notice no "HAF" in the upper corner? You are just too ignorant to realize that these figures were already decided on years before the Greeks bought their Block 50-52's? And the 26,000lb and 50DI doesn't represent any specific load out? USAF Block 42/50/52 do not weigh 20,000lbs or 20,200lbs empty; why is it so hard for you people to get it-

F-16A/B is roughly 15k lbs empty, or about 25% lighter than empty HAF F-16 block 52?


Since pylons of 370 gallons tank come with them when ejected, drag index of F-16 with 6 AIM-120 will be:
4 x LAU-129's + adapter (4x6) = 24
4 x AIM-120's (4x4) = 16
So total DI= 40, down to 32 if it spent 2 missiles for BVR.

[hummingbird]

There isn't any error on the EM or lift charts themselves , but there are errors when you extrapolate parts of EM charts that wasn't drawn due to G limit. Which is shown in previous thread when you thought there isn't any change in lift curve.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=120.

I didn't extrapolate, I showed you there was no further change beyond full wing sweep by providing you with the actual lift curves out to 7.5 G's at high altitude, allowing you to draw the line from said charts yourself. How you still haven't comprehended this is a mystery.

Except that F-15 get advantage in ITR, and except in WW I, dogfight aren't purely horizontal.

It's odd you keep repeating this when none of the official data available supports it, that to me is being "desperate".

You really ought to stop and think for a moment how odd it would if the F-15 had a better ITR when it's min radius is considerably larger, logic should eventually kick in.

[eloise]

I didn't extrapolate, I showed you there was no further change beyond full wing sweep by providing you with the actual lift curves out to 7.5 G's at high altitude, allowing you to draw the line from said charts yourself. How you still haven't comprehended this is a mystery.

Except that the actual lift curve did change and you didn't realized that because it was a steady decline.

I'm sorry, but here you are flat out wrong. Calculating CLmax is very easy with the charts you have provided. It is a straightforward thing with effectively no room for error. I have already plotted CLmax for the tomcat at 35,000 using the chart you provided and have proved that CLmax does indeed drop as speed increases the entire time, not just where the flaps stop working. If CLmax was the same then at twice the speed needed for 1G there would be 4G available, but there isn't. The max CL is steadily declining which is why it looks to you as though it is not changing.

In addition, you keep blurring the line between lift curve @ 35k ft and lift curve @low altitude. But when we look at the maneuver devices charts, when you reduce the altitude, clearly the wing sweep back sooner, maneuver flaps are also retracted at slower velocity, up to 0.3M different between sea level and 35k ft. A clear distinction.

It's odd you keep repeating this when none of the official data available supports it

NASA test data isn't official? cherry pick much

You really ought to stop and think for a moment how odd it would if the F-15 had a better ITR when it's min radius is considerably larger, logic should eventually kick in.

Min radius is calculated with sustainable turn rate instead of instantaneous turn rate. It isn't odd at all because while F-15 doesn't have a steep CL curve, it compensates by going higher AoA. You should know this, because this is the same way F-14 compensates once the wings are swept back.

[garrya]

Quick question: where the heck do you guys get the turn radius for F-15?
Btw, on the topic of low-speed turn rate, according to HAVE DRILL/ HAVE FERRY evaluation in Vietnam war, Mig-17 is a beast at low speed.

[F-16ADF]

Yes, the small tail B5 is 15,137lbs empty (with no pilot).



The HAF B50 and 52 are 20,000 and 20,200lbs empty. The reason why the Greek jets are heavier is for further emphasis on the A/G mission (as an A-7 replacement I believe) and particularly for the 52, beefed up to handle the CFT's.




See the difference.

A 700lbs difference translates into performance improvements as far as the USAF T.O. EM charts are concerned. A better sustained turn rate (P=0). And improved +/-P lines.

Load up a USAF B42/52/50 with 50% internal fuel and 4 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9, and 20mm and they are all well below the 26,000lbs arbitrary figure. Not to mention the DI is actually 42 and not 50.


That is why the change in GW chart is provided.
These original charts do not mention a "set" fuel weight or "specific" weapon load out on the DI. That is left up to the pilot to adjust.





The F-15 turn radius for Sustained Level Turns is on the lower right corner of the diagram. The F-15 has a fixed leading edge, that's why its radius tends to suffer at certain speeds.

[hummingbird]

and you didn't realized that because it was a steady decline.

Again you seem to have a reading comprehension problem because there is nothing that I "didn't realize", on the contrary I showed you how you could draw the lift line past slat & flaps deactivation ( slats @ M 0.85 / flaps @ M 0.83 at <14 kft, 0.85 at >20 kft) as well as full wing sweep, because (now keep attention this time) I have the actual lift curve for way beyond that point. In short NO extrapolation was done or is needed, all the data is there.

[F-16ADF]

Sure, you can draw a 9G line, but will you also remember to draw the -1600, -1800, -2000fs (if not more) lines?


Even if the Tomcat pilot wanted to attempt to pull an instantaneous 9G turn, it would be a very fast downhill ride.



For the Tomcat 9G was the exception, not the rule. It doesn't matter anyways, the jet turns best at 6.5-7G around 325KIAS.


Notice that Lt. Muczynski was at 26-28,000ft, as he said in his own words he pulled a 7G turn. (And he was in actual combat, hence your reasoning is incorrect). So it was a downhill ride for him and his RIO. Hence, he shot his Fitter at 20,000ft. The Tomcat A, B, or D cannot even sustain a level 5G turn at 20K.


Once again, I have emailed CDR Chesire about this 9G topic. Sorry, but he said something different than what you just want to believe. If you think i'm full of BS, then email him yourself.

[F-16ADF]

Here is Lt. Larry "Music" Muczynksi's interview back in 1982.

Here is his later interview on video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjDTGS4BDmU

[hummingbird]

I'm not sure what it is your trying to prove with that interview F-16adf, there are plenty of documented cases where Tomcat pilots went well past 10 G's. The airframe was bench tested to 13 G without issue, and there was no FCS to hold the pilots back.

Infact let me qoute an expert on the subject:

"With respects to the G limitation, the F-14's original sweep program was for CL max. The Navy didn't like the amount of flexing moment they witnessed in the wing, and had Grumman reprogram the system for Ps.

This gets into the G limitation for the reason that the test flight aircrews were told to treat it like a 13G airframe and fly it accordingly. Military aircraft are generally designed for stresses up to 1.5 times operational G limit (although there are exceptions: see F-16, having a substantially lower margin).

If 13G was the point Grumman was telling their pilots how to treat it- and you can be certain that the flight test aircraft were abused to make sure the state of the art construction/fabrication techniques used in the type, you're realistically looking at a design target of 8.5-9G.

As others have said elsewhere, it was the reality of the 70's economy that made the Navy begin worrying about long term purchases; some of this involved the nature of the flyaway price lockdown that Grumman offered to the Navy, which blew up in their face with the energy crisis. Had clearance not been given for the sale of the Tomcat to Iran, if memory serves, Grumman would have been forced to close its doors in 1977 because the prices were not permitted to change over the first few Blocks.

When you're up against that sort of situation, you're going to baby your favorite toys, because you may never get any more of them, and you're a long way away from being able to get a suitable replacement.

The flipside of this what was done to the machine in service. Hoser put 10+G on one avoiding Hawk Monroe, and did even worse at AIM/ACE." [12 G] " Muczynski put 10.2 on Fast Eagle 107, and there wasn't a single issue during the required inspection. A good pal of mine, former RIO, had his pilot put 9.5 on in a break turn during a FFARP setup, and nothing was found in the way of stress or damage- this was 1989 at this point, and was in an A from what would have been the 82/83 timeframe (if memory serves), and they'd all been pushed pretty good by this point during multiple excursions over the op limit.

Some of the electronics hated the stress that would be put on them, which caused many of the changes over the years in replacement versions of the boxes, but the machine itself was a beast. I know a lot of ex-crews, and I am hard pressed to find any of them who have recollection of overstress doing anything substantial.

Fun fact, while we're at it (that RIO pal with the 9G introduction of his face to his kneecap would be mad if I didn't tell somebody): part of the Tomcat went to the Moon.

Take a guess which."

[hummingbird]

Also it's quite amusing that now you're all of a sudden posting F-14A graphs (that I also provided) and talking about STR when the whole conversation has been about F-14B/D, F-16C & F-15C radius & ITR since the beginning, for which I've (also) provided the relevant F-14B/D graphs, which includes its lift curve graphs, so you all can see the figures for yourself.

[hummingbird]

As for Muczynski's incident:

[F-16ADF]

The only problem HB, is that your quoting from the Debrief book(written by an AF guy). My source is from a personally taped interview that Muczynski did (first person) for Mr. KInzey. It says it in the top corner of the first page I provided. The source is F-14A Detail and Scale by Bert Kinzey.


Once again, on a few instance it could do 9G, but that was not the norm. It would drop like a rock. Do you even understand negative Ps? Draw them in on your 9G chart.



EMAIL CDR. JOHN CHESIRE ABOUT G LIMITS: FLITETIME.NET





CDR Chesire says 6.5 to 7G
CDR Nawrocki says 6.5 to 7G
Tbarn (F-14D pilot) says 6.5 to 7G
and LCDR "Smokin" Joe Ruczika says 6.5 to 7G



So you are wrong once again.


I will admit Hoser didn't give a crap about it, he pulled over 11g. In the "Hooser shoot book".





Wrong about the graphs, I have all the Tomcat performance supplements-
HB I have those same graphs.

[hummingbird]

You're not reading or listening F-16adf, Muczynski did a normal 7 G turn to get on the enemy's tail, he later did a 10.2 G pull to avoid debris as recorded by the aircraft's own accelerometer. Aircraft was perfectly fine.

Any pilot you ask about limits will say the limit was 6.5 to 7 G because that's what the Navy prescribed, however during combat you didn't give a damn if the situation demanded that you pulled more than that, something the aircraft was perfectly capable of doing without a hitch and many pilots did.

The 6.5 to 7 G Navy limit was there for longevity reasons as there were no more Tomcat's coming in, thus during any training or exercise you would normally stick to this or risk a serious reprimand, that's it.