F-16 vs F/A-18
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SUSTAINED TURN ?
For the last time: We're talking about ITR & radius, NOT STR!
For the last time: We're talking about ITR & radius, NOT STR!
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
First of all you tell me it's the best at .6IMN, now you shift your premise to 9G?
Seriously, make up your mind.
Yes, I will admit, the F-14 is a very good jet at .6IMN. IT IS BETTER IN THAT REGIME THAN SOME VIPER VERSION aka the heavier Greek jets. And even the standard Block 25/32/50/52 USAF versions. But put those adjusted graphs (as the ad hoc version I did), the Tomcat's superiority in that speed regime shrinks. Against the Block 30 at .6IMN there is no advantage.
Look, I like the Tomcat, less the Eagle. But technology marches on. The F-16 and F-18 are better ACM jets than either. BUT they are even beaten by the eurocanards (EF, Rafale); and all are beaten by the Raptor.
And the Rafale M kicked the crap out of both Navy jets. The HUD tape is not of it gunning from the vertical. The Rafale easily beat it and it beat up on the Hornet. WHY, because technology marches on.
When was the last time a VG jet was designed? Or when was the last time a jet with a fixed 20 degree wing (aka F-18) was designed? All a very long time ago.
CDR Nawrocki said that the F-14D (and Hornet also) were no match for the F-16N. The F-16N has 1,600lbs less power than a standard Big Inlet Block 30. Yet the N is about 800lbs lighter. So the jets are rather similar.
You can postulate all you want about the lackluster HAF jets. But as I have already proved; There are far better performing Viper versions.
Seriously, make up your mind.
Yes, I will admit, the F-14 is a very good jet at .6IMN. IT IS BETTER IN THAT REGIME THAN SOME VIPER VERSION aka the heavier Greek jets. And even the standard Block 25/32/50/52 USAF versions. But put those adjusted graphs (as the ad hoc version I did), the Tomcat's superiority in that speed regime shrinks. Against the Block 30 at .6IMN there is no advantage.
Look, I like the Tomcat, less the Eagle. But technology marches on. The F-16 and F-18 are better ACM jets than either. BUT they are even beaten by the eurocanards (EF, Rafale); and all are beaten by the Raptor.
And the Rafale M kicked the crap out of both Navy jets. The HUD tape is not of it gunning from the vertical. The Rafale easily beat it and it beat up on the Hornet. WHY, because technology marches on.
When was the last time a VG jet was designed? Or when was the last time a jet with a fixed 20 degree wing (aka F-18) was designed? All a very long time ago.
CDR Nawrocki said that the F-14D (and Hornet also) were no match for the F-16N. The F-16N has 1,600lbs less power than a standard Big Inlet Block 30. Yet the N is about 800lbs lighter. So the jets are rather similar.
You can postulate all you want about the lackluster HAF jets. But as I have already proved; There are far better performing Viper versions.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
Yes, but an initial max lift turn is NOT the entire turn radius. As any jet attempts to sustain the turn, the radius starts to open up. Just look at the Mirage 2000 chart. At max lift it is AWESOME. But as the jet attempts to sustain the turn, the radius consequently opens up.
One thing I will add. As CDR Chesire told me, a well flown Tomcat is a very good fight. He gunned Eagles. Why do you think at times it gave the Eagle trouble close up. When close up, and the Tomcat closing angles; the Eagle would hit the vertical. The fixed camber wing is at a disadvantage against a wing with LE flaps or slats.
One thing I will add. As CDR Chesire told me, a well flown Tomcat is a very good fight. He gunned Eagles. Why do you think at times it gave the Eagle trouble close up. When close up, and the Tomcat closing angles; the Eagle would hit the vertical. The fixed camber wing is at a disadvantage against a wing with LE flaps or slats.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
f-16adf wrote:First of all you tell me it's the best at .6IMN, now you shift your premise to 9G?
What in gods name are you talking about ??
This whole debate started as I was correcting garrya about what aircraft had the highest ITR and min radius, he incorrectly stated that the F-15 had a better ITR than the F-14 which is false. The F-14 has both a higher ITR and smaller min radius than the F-15 AND F-16. The F/A-18 there were doubts about as we don't have its doghouse plot. That's it.
Why you all of a sudden came tumbling not being able to decide wether you wanted to talk about ITR, STR, Radius or positive or negative Ps I have ZERO clue about as the original conversation was all about ITR & radius. Infact all I've witnessed here is you going completely crazy the moment the phrase "x has better ITR than F-16" was uttered and from then on you've been talking to a ghost whilst not being able to stick to any single subject.
Seriously, make up your mind.
I don't even have the words... my god..
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
1. The Tomcat bests the Eagle, as far as turn radius is concerned. I agree with you there. Yet against the Block 42 -229IPE there is hardly any advantage at .6IMN. The Tomcat's advantage has shrunk dramatically. And there is no advantage about sustained turn radius against the Block 30.
2. You don't seem to understand that "max lift pull" does not equate to a complete turn circle-
3. I never said the F-16 (any version has the best ITR, it doesn't because of the FCS).
4. Even though nobody here has the actual F/A-18 charts, the Hornet has a Ps spike like the Tomcat.
Read this by fighter pilot JBGator, it will describe the difference between a spike and a plateau.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26829&p=296429#p296429
As far as the Hornet is concerned 35_aoa (a Navial aviator on this forum) has flown the F-18A/C/E. He also flew the F-16A Block 15 as an adversary at NAS Fallon, Nv. He is still active Navy flying F-18E's.
He says that Viper is at an advantage (if flown properly) against the Hornet.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=60
"I''d submit that most of these comparison articles are written by USN folks, like myself, who only flew the F-16N, or in my case, the A/B a number of years later, in a very limited sense, compared to the multitude of mission sets the CAF flies them in.......and obviously neither the -N, nor the block 15 is/was representative of the block 50/52's that are currently on the front lines. We flew them exclusively as red air/adversary aircraft, and in roughly equal parts, dedicated BFM sorties. So while there is a lot of anecdotal info on how the Viper compares to the Hornet/Super in a dogfight (spoiler alert: the Viper is at an advantage if flown properly), I wouldn't say there is a lot out there about how the two compare, in current operational configurations, in the mission sets that are most relevant to a combat scenario. Granted, such a true comparison would be well beyond the scope of an unclassified internet discussion or open source article, so this is hardly surprising."
and here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3477&start=15
"This would be a great topic of conversation at the club/vault, but obviously I can't really get into any meaningful detail here. Suffice to say the Viper and Hornet fight differently……both have strengths and weaknesses. I'd say that I would prefer to BFM in a Viper, but I have also seen that fight go both ways. A slick F/A-18E or big motor F/A-18C is pretty much on par, especially if flown well. In general, the Viper is a bit more forgiving of mistakes, aside from actually departing from controlled flight, in which case it is way scarier than an F/A-18. As for the other stuff, I'd just throw out that you have also probably seen a lot of junior Viper pilots make some dumb mistakes. I've seen AF guys completely fong it away as well, though I don't consider that to be the norm. SFO's are pretty fun though…….closest I will ever get to flying the space shuttle orbiter."
Also, my brother's squadron mate flew small tail Vipers, B30's, and currently A-10's. I have asked him about the teen series (he fought all of them). He said that the Charlie Hornet is the toughest fight out of the bunch; and that it is so good that it would come down to the quality of the pilot-
PS: You have to scroll down to basically the center of the page, of the links I provided for 35_aoa to read his actual words. I just can't seem to get the links to focus on those particular areas. But they are there, just scroll down a bit.
2. You don't seem to understand that "max lift pull" does not equate to a complete turn circle-
3. I never said the F-16 (any version has the best ITR, it doesn't because of the FCS).
4. Even though nobody here has the actual F/A-18 charts, the Hornet has a Ps spike like the Tomcat.
Read this by fighter pilot JBGator, it will describe the difference between a spike and a plateau.
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26829&p=296429#p296429
As far as the Hornet is concerned 35_aoa (a Navial aviator on this forum) has flown the F-18A/C/E. He also flew the F-16A Block 15 as an adversary at NAS Fallon, Nv. He is still active Navy flying F-18E's.
He says that Viper is at an advantage (if flown properly) against the Hornet.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=60
"I''d submit that most of these comparison articles are written by USN folks, like myself, who only flew the F-16N, or in my case, the A/B a number of years later, in a very limited sense, compared to the multitude of mission sets the CAF flies them in.......and obviously neither the -N, nor the block 15 is/was representative of the block 50/52's that are currently on the front lines. We flew them exclusively as red air/adversary aircraft, and in roughly equal parts, dedicated BFM sorties. So while there is a lot of anecdotal info on how the Viper compares to the Hornet/Super in a dogfight (spoiler alert: the Viper is at an advantage if flown properly), I wouldn't say there is a lot out there about how the two compare, in current operational configurations, in the mission sets that are most relevant to a combat scenario. Granted, such a true comparison would be well beyond the scope of an unclassified internet discussion or open source article, so this is hardly surprising."
and here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3477&start=15
"This would be a great topic of conversation at the club/vault, but obviously I can't really get into any meaningful detail here. Suffice to say the Viper and Hornet fight differently……both have strengths and weaknesses. I'd say that I would prefer to BFM in a Viper, but I have also seen that fight go both ways. A slick F/A-18E or big motor F/A-18C is pretty much on par, especially if flown well. In general, the Viper is a bit more forgiving of mistakes, aside from actually departing from controlled flight, in which case it is way scarier than an F/A-18. As for the other stuff, I'd just throw out that you have also probably seen a lot of junior Viper pilots make some dumb mistakes. I've seen AF guys completely fong it away as well, though I don't consider that to be the norm. SFO's are pretty fun though…….closest I will ever get to flying the space shuttle orbiter."
Also, my brother's squadron mate flew small tail Vipers, B30's, and currently A-10's. I have asked him about the teen series (he fought all of them). He said that the Charlie Hornet is the toughest fight out of the bunch; and that it is so good that it would come down to the quality of the pilot-
PS: You have to scroll down to basically the center of the page, of the links I provided for 35_aoa to read his actual words. I just can't seem to get the links to focus on those particular areas. But they are there, just scroll down a bit.
Last edited by F-16ADF on 05 Feb 2018, 02:21, edited 2 times in total.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
Here's what I been trying to get across fromt he start:
ITR = F-14 > F-15 > F-16 (F/A-18 unknown, probably close to F-14, be it better or worse. F-16 is CADC restricted)
Min radius = F-14 > F-15 > F-16 (F-16 is CADC restricted)
STR = F-16 = F-14 = F-15 (virtually identical max STR, difference is in speed needed)
Min sustained radius = F-14 > F-16 > F-15 (F-14 wins hands down due to lower speed needed before max STR)
The lower speed that the F-14 needs to achieve its max STR results in a notably smaller sustained min radius as seen illustration posted before below:
What the above illustration should help people realize is that in any purely horizontal turn fight an F-14 is able to comfortably keep any F-15 or F-16 in its sights by trading speed for rate. The only way for the F-15 or F-16 pilot to combat this is by going vertical to take advantage of his superior T/W ratio.
ITR = F-14 > F-15 > F-16 (F/A-18 unknown, probably close to F-14, be it better or worse. F-16 is CADC restricted)
Min radius = F-14 > F-15 > F-16 (F-16 is CADC restricted)
STR = F-16 = F-14 = F-15 (virtually identical max STR, difference is in speed needed)
Min sustained radius = F-14 > F-16 > F-15 (F-14 wins hands down due to lower speed needed before max STR)
The lower speed that the F-14 needs to achieve its max STR results in a notably smaller sustained min radius as seen illustration posted before below:
What the above illustration should help people realize is that in any purely horizontal turn fight an F-14 is able to comfortably keep any F-15 or F-16 in its sights by trading speed for rate. The only way for the F-15 or F-16 pilot to combat this is by going vertical to take advantage of his superior T/W ratio.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
Yes, I fully understand your diagram. And it is nearly correct if you are comparing it to a HAF Block 50.
But as I have been trying to get across, and as I have already proved.
If you take 3 F-16's all Pratt -229 and load them with 4 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9 and fuel to 26K. All three of those F-16's will have the same performance metrics according to the underlying chart, because all are loaded to 26,000lbs. But the difference is the HAF Block 52 is loaded with 49% internal fuel to get to 26,000lbs as the chart says. The USAF Block 52 is loaded with 61% internal fuel to get to 26,000lbs as the chart says. The USAF Block 42 is loaded with almost 71% internal fuel to get to 26,000lbs as the chart says.
For the same combat load and to 26,000lbs. The HAF Block 50 is loaded with nearly 50% internal fuel, and the USAF Block 50 is loaded with 60% internal fuel as the chart says.
So if we are going to compare jets. The Tomcat (as I have posted earlier in this thread, and will post it yet again....) according to NATOPS is loaded with 50% fuel. So why on God's earth would I want to compare it to a USAF Block 50 with 60% internal fuel or a USAF Block 52 with 61% internal fuel or a Block 42 with 71% internal fuel? The comparison metrics are consequently incorrect.
But as I have been trying to get across, and as I have already proved.
If you take 3 F-16's all Pratt -229 and load them with 4 Aim-120, 2 Aim-9 and fuel to 26K. All three of those F-16's will have the same performance metrics according to the underlying chart, because all are loaded to 26,000lbs. But the difference is the HAF Block 52 is loaded with 49% internal fuel to get to 26,000lbs as the chart says. The USAF Block 52 is loaded with 61% internal fuel to get to 26,000lbs as the chart says. The USAF Block 42 is loaded with almost 71% internal fuel to get to 26,000lbs as the chart says.
For the same combat load and to 26,000lbs. The HAF Block 50 is loaded with nearly 50% internal fuel, and the USAF Block 50 is loaded with 60% internal fuel as the chart says.
So if we are going to compare jets. The Tomcat (as I have posted earlier in this thread, and will post it yet again....) according to NATOPS is loaded with 50% fuel. So why on God's earth would I want to compare it to a USAF Block 50 with 60% internal fuel or a USAF Block 52 with 61% internal fuel or a Block 42 with 71% internal fuel? The comparison metrics are consequently incorrect.
- Attachments
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
Again though I chose the GE 129 equipped F-16C for the comparison as I wanted to compare the typical year 2000 F-14, F-16 & F-15 with similar load outs.
As for fuel percentages, keep in mind that the F-14 contains a lot of internal fuel, over 16,200 lbs, or 8,100 lbs pr engine. By comparison the F-16C has a max internal fuel load of 7,000 lbs.
As for fuel percentages, keep in mind that the F-14 contains a lot of internal fuel, over 16,200 lbs, or 8,100 lbs pr engine. By comparison the F-16C has a max internal fuel load of 7,000 lbs.
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3772
- Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12
Silly USN to stick with Super Hornet when technology (Rafale) beat it up in an energy fight. And then Rafale introduced MICA missiles that could do all sorts of tricks at longer range than contemporary competitors. Funny, but I didn't recall the USN scrapping it's obsolete designs. Technology advancement is a finicky advantage. Or maybe the same technology advancement has mitigated the shortcomings to make both untenable. It just seems like it's better to conceal and avoid direct conflict in the modern era.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
HB. Yes, also the Tomcat is far far heavier than the F-16. And like the Eagle, it is generally draggier (2 giant boxy intakes certainly don't help, and it (like the Eagle) suffers from trim drag). As I told others on this forum, I have yet to see an EM diagram comparing one jet with 71% internal fuel to one with 50% internal fuel. The FWS EM charts compare the Mirage 2000, F-16/79, F-20; and all are loaded with 50% internal fuel as example. The same with the Hornet comparisons in the GAO document. Also the MSIP Eagle gained weight, so did the F-14's that became mud haulers (aka Bombcats).
Madrat. I do not know if you are an American (I am). My country does not have the money to build "jets of fancy" anymore to satisfy all the armchair fighter pilots out there. Our defense industry has seen gross cuts since the end of the cold war. Our military has basically worn down its equipment since August 1990 (Operation Desert Shield). We are becoming more of an entitlement society as the years pass by. That will not change with Mr. Trump as President. Why? Because it's all votes in the end. For all the nerds out there that hate the F-35 (and no, I don't think the 35 is the greatest since sliced bread), guess what? It's here to stay. The US does not have enough money to procure one different jet for the AF, one for the Navy, one for the Marine Corp. Those days are long gone. And good luck with the NGB.
The SH is a cost savings compromise. Again, we didn't have enough money to satisfy all the Grumman cry babies out there- Also, why do you think all the Defense Contractors (McAir, GD, NA, Republic, etc) are no longer? Because there is no money....
The teen series are old (really old). My brother's unit operates A-10's generally from FY 78 (some with over 10K hours or more). Some Block 42 Vipers from the Ohio ANG have over 12K hours. I talked to an Eagle pilot from LAANG with FY 78 tailcode (his jet had well over 10K hours).
And just because I said the EF and Rafale are better in many aspects (with regards to ACM) than the teen series am I going to be burned at the stake here? Those 2 jets have 15+plus years on them. I sure hope they generally would be better in ACM, don't you?
Madrat. I do not know if you are an American (I am). My country does not have the money to build "jets of fancy" anymore to satisfy all the armchair fighter pilots out there. Our defense industry has seen gross cuts since the end of the cold war. Our military has basically worn down its equipment since August 1990 (Operation Desert Shield). We are becoming more of an entitlement society as the years pass by. That will not change with Mr. Trump as President. Why? Because it's all votes in the end. For all the nerds out there that hate the F-35 (and no, I don't think the 35 is the greatest since sliced bread), guess what? It's here to stay. The US does not have enough money to procure one different jet for the AF, one for the Navy, one for the Marine Corp. Those days are long gone. And good luck with the NGB.
The SH is a cost savings compromise. Again, we didn't have enough money to satisfy all the Grumman cry babies out there- Also, why do you think all the Defense Contractors (McAir, GD, NA, Republic, etc) are no longer? Because there is no money....
The teen series are old (really old). My brother's unit operates A-10's generally from FY 78 (some with over 10K hours or more). Some Block 42 Vipers from the Ohio ANG have over 12K hours. I talked to an Eagle pilot from LAANG with FY 78 tailcode (his jet had well over 10K hours).
And just because I said the EF and Rafale are better in many aspects (with regards to ACM) than the teen series am I going to be burned at the stake here? Those 2 jets have 15+plus years on them. I sure hope they generally would be better in ACM, don't you?
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 90
- Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54
f-16adf wrote:HB. Yes, also the Tomcat is far far heavier than the F-16. And like the Eagle, it is generally draggier (2 giant boxy intakes certainly don't help, and it (like the Eagle) suffers from trim drag). As I told others on this forum, I have yet to see an EM diagram comparing one jet with 71% internal fuel to one with 50% internal fuel. The FWS EM charts compare the Mirage 2000, F-16/79, F-20; and all are loaded with 50% internal fuel as example. The same with the Hornet comparisons in the GAO document. Also the MSIP Eagle gained weight, so did the F-14's that became mud haulers (aka Bombcats).
You don't really need to worry about specifics such as trim drag when you have an EM diagram, it takes everything into account
Now I've taken a look at the empty weights of the Block 40/42 as compared with the Block 50/52 and there is litterally no difference, they're identical, the basic aircraft with pilot & oil and without fuel & ammo weighing in at 20,100 lbs as pr. the manual.
So for a USAF 4x AIM-120 + 2x AIM-9 load out we get:
Fuel:..................................7,116 lbs
4 x AIM-120:.........................1,364 lbs
4 x Launcher & adapter:.............452 lbs
2 x AIM-9:..............................390 lbs
Gun ammo:............................287 lbs
_____________________________________
Total =..............................9,609 lbs (or 10,217 lbs with 2 x DT pylons)
This results in a take off weight of 29,709 lbs. (or 30,317 lbs with 2 x DT pylons)
Reducing fuel to 50% we can take away 3,558 lbs, ending at 26,151 lbs. (Or 26,759 lbs with 2 x DT pylons)
The drag index is 34 for the USAF fighter without the droptank pylons (as they come off with the droptanks), and 50 for the types with non-jettisonable droptank pylons.
In conclusion my comparison is spot on for the F-16C with non-jettisonable drop tank pylons.
As for with a reduced drag index of 34 instead of 50, whilst it will have an effect it certainly won't be anywhere near enough to turn the comparison upside down, the F-16 will still have to take the fight vertical against an F-14.
- Banned
- Posts: 2848
- Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
- Location: New Jersey
f-16adf wrote:Madrat. I do not know if you are an American (I am). My country does not have the money to build "jets of fancy" anymore to satisfy all the armchair fighter pilots out there.
The USAF and USN are still far and away the best in the world. heck even the USMC has better air assets than a good majority of the world (and I'm not an American so this isn't patriotism).
What aircraft out there are arguably better than the Teen Series:
EF and Rafale: This is basically their premier A-A platform and was designed to counter the Flanker, so basically, its their Raptor. So comparing it to F-15s which is literally a generation older just isn't fair. The fact that the Eagle can still be competitive against it is just a testament to the F-15.
Grippen: No, I'd say its basically a lite F-16 (block 60 or 70) so maybe it has better avionics and sensors than the current USAF block 50/52s but that could easily be upgraded. Not that they need to cause you know, F-35.
Su-35: No this jet is even newer than the Raptor, 2008 if I'm not mistaken, so why do people keep comparing it to the Eagle? because they're the same generation? Well its not the USAF's fault if they roughly achieved in 1983 what you achieved in 2008.
And since we're on the topic of Fancy Jets for arm chair generals, is anyone discounting old Raptor.
You guys made a fighter with the smallest RCS, all aspect stealth the biggest AESA on a fighter, a passive E receiver thats better than what RC-135 had with speed and altitude that makes it pretty much invulnerable. Oh but thats not good enough, you also made the sucker the best ACM machine ever put into service by anyone.
It just has Fancy written all over it. Lets not get started on the F-35. Thats an F-16 (one of the best ACM machines) with Superhornet like nose pointing, more SA than a Raptor and Stealth. So yeah, the US is nowhere near
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
USAF Block 50
Empty: 19,300lbs (actually 19,261lbs) I ALREADY SHOWED THE CHART (MUST I SHOW IT AGAIN?)
19261+ 3558+ 1364+ 452+ 390+ 287=25,312lbs
According to the "change GW" adjustment chart = increase in turn rate of .4DPS (plus lower actual DI from 50), So at ,6IMN the actual turn rate is 13.3 DPS from 12.9.
The Block 40 weighs nearly 18,700lbs empty. The Block 42 with the Pratt -229 IPE is slightly over 200lbs lighter; since the jet saves weight because of the lighter NSI and the lighter-229 engine vs GE engine.
Hence it empty is (from the words of a 180th FW CAPT) slightly under 18,500lbs. Or between 18,450 and 18,500lbs.
18,500lbs (18,450lbs) + 3558+ 1364+452+390+287=24,525lbs.
According to the "change GW" adjustment chart= increase in turn rate of nearly .8DPS (plus lower actual DI from 50), So at .6IMN the actual turn rate is 13.4 DPS from 12.6.
So the validity of my revised chart still stands. If you are going to compare 2 PS=0 lines, I easily take the Viper over the Tomcat. The F-14 now has only "a very small" advantage at .6IMN. Now do you seriously want me to do this comparison for the Big Inlet Block 30 (which after all is the most numerous USAF/ANG jet), because it just keeps getting worse for the Tomcat-
Empty: 19,300lbs (actually 19,261lbs) I ALREADY SHOWED THE CHART (MUST I SHOW IT AGAIN?)
19261+ 3558+ 1364+ 452+ 390+ 287=25,312lbs
According to the "change GW" adjustment chart = increase in turn rate of .4DPS (plus lower actual DI from 50), So at ,6IMN the actual turn rate is 13.3 DPS from 12.9.
The Block 40 weighs nearly 18,700lbs empty. The Block 42 with the Pratt -229 IPE is slightly over 200lbs lighter; since the jet saves weight because of the lighter NSI and the lighter-229 engine vs GE engine.
Hence it empty is (from the words of a 180th FW CAPT) slightly under 18,500lbs. Or between 18,450 and 18,500lbs.
18,500lbs (18,450lbs) + 3558+ 1364+452+390+287=24,525lbs.
According to the "change GW" adjustment chart= increase in turn rate of nearly .8DPS (plus lower actual DI from 50), So at .6IMN the actual turn rate is 13.4 DPS from 12.6.
So the validity of my revised chart still stands. If you are going to compare 2 PS=0 lines, I easily take the Viper over the Tomcat. The F-14 now has only "a very small" advantage at .6IMN. Now do you seriously want me to do this comparison for the Big Inlet Block 30 (which after all is the most numerous USAF/ANG jet), because it just keeps getting worse for the Tomcat-
- Attachments
-
Last edited by F-16ADF on 06 Feb 2018, 00:45, edited 1 time in total.
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
And if we are seriously going to keep comparing weights. The cover of the NATOPS F-14BD manual says 1987 and 1990:
Which was when the Tomcat was still a pure air to air fighter. I imagine by 2000 it gained weight for the A-G mission (resulting in even lower performance metrics). Because after all, the MSIP Eagle gained 500-600lbs over the original F-15C.
Which was when the Tomcat was still a pure air to air fighter. I imagine by 2000 it gained weight for the A-G mission (resulting in even lower performance metrics). Because after all, the MSIP Eagle gained 500-600lbs over the original F-15C.
- Attachments
-
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests