F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 13:31
by oldiaf
Is the F/A-18 considered as strategic asset because its ability to launch from aircraft carriers while the F-16 is more tactical asset because its cheap and reliable ?

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:24
by slapshot!
The F/A-18 has roughly the same overall ability as the F16 in terms of putting bombs on target. It just does so in a less efficient manner because of what it needs to be carrier-capable. The main difference is one is built to the USAF wants and needs, and the other is built to the USN wants and needs. They both accomplish the same mission, with different ways of being deployed.

There are cases when we have an airbase nearby, and other times we only have water nearby.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2015, 19:39
by madrat
The carriers are strategic assets that operate aircraft on the tactical level. Carriers haven't operated strategic aircraft for several decades now. It's politically implausible to declare nuclear strategic capabilities on carriers today. Does it matter to the enemy if carriers or submarines sit off shore with nuclear tips? Neither one will be stopped from delivering it's cargo on target if that becomes necessary. It's just as possible to load conventional loads on those same missiles.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 11:27
by cassava
It was in 2003 when 2 USN Hornets of USS Carl Vinson flew over Indonesian air space in order to escort the fleet. Due to the report from Indonesian domestic airlines they saw through radar about a quick and high manouvre aircraft within their lines. Responding the report Indonesian AF scrambled 2 Falcons to identify what was happened up there. The Falcon's pilots said that they were engaged first so they made an evasive manouvre. One of the pilot admits he saw the USN fleet while was doing a manouvre. Another Falcon also engaged the Hornet and waited an order to release its AIM9. Both parties stopped their action when a Falcon made a rocking wing. A communication had made the Indonesian told the Hornets flight had interfered the domestic airlines line and asked them to make a contact with the nearest atc.

Both parties confirmed each other and made a military salute before the Indonesian returned to base.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 23 Aug 2017, 22:24
by hummingbird
Interestingly the French rated the F/A-18C quite highly compared with the F-16 in terms of ACM:

Image
Image

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 01:44
by h-bomb
Can someone translate the lower left on the last image? I understand the load outs, but not what the distances are meant to be.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 02:09
by hummingbird
Temps de Montée = Time to climb

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 20:59
by tailgate
My journey started in the 15, after many years transitioned to the F-16, and when my unit was inactivated in 2006, I was selected and transitioned to the F-22. The F-22 was where I ended my career.

This is my opinion and based on personal experience. The block 30/40/50 F-16 (GE equipped) has the best acceleration of the three I mentioned. Those jets would jump out to their maximum quick and could probably go beyond it if were not for the fixed intake and the canopy. In all my years of flying, nothing beat the F-16 (GE) for acceleration. period. It was a screamer and it was one of the best ACM platforms I ever flew.


I'm a newbie, limited to three post....lol, so hence the edit

Sorry Gents, should have mentioned low altitude in A/A config. The F-16C (GE) will surprise you with its acceleration. An old Eagle driver like me was quickly impressed on my first few rides. I never flew it, but I hear that the-229 F-16 is a sage burner also. I know allot of Viper drivers who flew the older Pratt versions, and the difference was substantial between the two. I can just speak the GE equipped block onwards.

Here is a little tidbit that will get you guys all riled up. The F-15A/C (flew both) were not particularly fast at low altitude, above 30 and that changes. Ready......I've flown a lot of Eagles and not a single one of them would accelerate in the vertical straight from brake release, I know, we've tried. I know some of you guys on here will figure out why, but I'll give a hint.............denser air at low altitude, T/W ratio versus decreasing thrust. A specially modified Eagle (think Streak) but me and my compatriots never got a line Eagle to do it.....lost quit a few beer bets on this.

I say this and this only about the 22 (opsec). It's a generational leap above anything currently flying anywhere in the world. It brings a whole different aspect to air combat. F-35 excluded, of course.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 21:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
tailgate wrote:My journey started in the 15, after many years transitioned to the F-16, and when my unit was inactivated in 2006, I was selected and transitioned to the F-22. The F-22 was where I ended my career.

This is my opinion and based on personal experience. The block 30/40/50 F-16 (GE equipped) has the best acceleration of the three I mentioned. Those jets would jump out to their maximum quick and could probably go beyond it if were not for the fixed intake and the canopy. In all my years of flying, nothing beat the F-16 (GE) for acceleration. period. It was a screamer and it was one of the best ACM platforms I ever flew.


Jim


Having run the numbers of the heavy HAF Blk50 vs a -220 powered 15 I can't say I am surprised there, but I am surprised that it outdoes the Raptor in acceleration. I always thought that the 22 ran away from everything once supersonic. You're saying it wasn't much different than a 15?

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 21:43
by basher54321
Not the first pilot to state that - probably the first ex F-22 pilot 8)

Didn't know the F-16 had 2 canons de 20mm - learn something every day.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2017, 22:39
by sprstdlyscottsmn
basher54321 wrote:
Didn't know the F-16 had 2 canons de 20mm - learn something every day.

I thought it had six :roll:

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 01:09
by hummingbird
basher54321 wrote:Not the first pilot to state that - probably the first ex F-22 pilot 8)

Didn't know the F-16 had 2 canons de 20mm - learn something every day.


Probably a typo for the -16 & -18 as it's stated correctly as 1 cannon below ;)

How reliable the charts are though, haven't the slightest clue. Interesting to note the French observation though.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 16:55
by basher54321
The data looks mostly correct being simple public figures - the only thing I cant verify is the M2000-5 climb data which you might expect to be close to the M53-2 powered M2000C considering the engine looks to be the same.

Of course the question is who has produced it (outside of a French person) and for what audience - because having figures that make the M2000 look good at ~39,000ft is great if the reader is after a high altitude interceptor - which is why the M2000 kept the movable intake cones after all - but get some operationally representative figures at useable speeds and altitudes and almost guarantee it doesn't look so hot.

As for their representation of aerial combat as consisting of a simple turn fight - it maybe gives a clue as to the date this was done because no mention of AIM-9X (which I can use in my diagram 8) ) - also even French wiki makes no mention M2000-5 etc ever got a HMS system.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 17:04
by basher54321
tailgate wrote:I'm a newbie, limited to three post....lol, so hence the edit

Sorry Gents, should have mentioned low altitude in A/A config. The F-16C (GE) will surprise you with its acceleration. An old Eagle driver like me was quickly impressed on my first few rides. I never flew it, but I hear that the-229 F-16 is a sage burner also. I know allot of Viper drivers who flew the older Pratt versions, and the difference was substantial between the two. I can just speak the GE equipped block onwards.

Here is a little tidbit that will get you guys all riled up. The F-15A/C (flew both) were not particularly fast at low altitude, above 30 and that changes. Ready......I've flown a lot of Eagles and not a single one of them would accelerate in the vertical straight from brake release, I know, we've tried. I know some of you guys on here will figure out why, but I'll give a hint.............denser air at low altitude, T/W ratio versus decreasing thrust. A specially modified Eagle (think Streak) but me and my compatriots never got a line Eagle to do it.....lost quit a few beer bets on this.

I say this and this only about the 22 (opsec). It's a generational leap above anything currently flying anywhere in the world. It brings a whole different aspect to air combat. F-35 excluded, of course.




Hi Jim / Tailgate - very glad you could drop by - another well respected member of this board (ex 15/16) also claimed the big engine F-16C was better sub 30,000ft so that makes at least 2 with that opinion.

What made you think it could go up vertically then - did you skip the Aero 101 class? :D

You cant have been out that long - did A-A get so easy in the F-22A you decided to start flying airliners ! ?

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 20:25
by tailgate
Thanks for the greeting Basher. I hung up my boots July 2016. I'm not taking the airline route, but will figure out something down the road. I've actually gotten into arguments (me, who flies the thing) with people (who don't fly the thing) because
they read somewhere that one of the "fame to claim" is that the Eagle will accelerate going straight up. It's a myth and it won't do it. Need to stop perpetuating this myth. On several occasions me and my buddies would try and test out the theory, just as a point of fact, but we could never do it.
I loved the Viper, to me it's what a fighter aircraft should be. I'll admit being an Ex-Eagle driver I was sceptical of it when I took my first rides. It proved me wrong. I would take the Viper to any fight.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2017, 20:52
by basher54321
Don't think you will get too many arguments here - because most have seen it debunked by both Aero performance charts and from other F-15 drivers over the years - other places you might just have to smile and say sure it does :D .

Was there anything you liked most about the Viper - was it just the overall feeling when flying it?

Did you do much DACT against F-14/18 or others over the years?

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 00:13
by tailgate
The F-16 was just a performer. Even though the tub was a little cramped, you still felt like you were part of the machine. It has outstanding maneuverability, accelerates like a bullet and has an amazingly low RCS for a non-VlO/Stealth aircraft.

I have flown against the 14/18 many times and without giving up my secrets here it is......... :D

Both the F-14 and F-18 are excellent aircraft. The F-14......it provides a big target in the WVR arena, the key is the wings, everything you need to know is found by watching the wings :roll: F-18.....gotta be careful with this fella because he has outstanding nose authority. If I'm in the WRV arena with either of these fighters, I'm gonna get close, squeeze the fight closer until either one starts losing nose authority. Neither one is gonna out accelerate me at this point.

Now before I start getting pummeled by the F-14/18 crowd let me say, I've been on the losing end many times. It's why we train constantly to hone the skills. And I haven't even mentioned helmet mounted cueing systems /HOBS in the 16. Above was just using heaters and the gun....... 8)

Jim

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 06:36
by 35_aoa
@ Jim, I've also won and lost to vipers in a Hornet or Rhino, though I can't say I have ever "lost" to an F/A-18 when flying a viper.....and I wasn't even that experienced in the F-16, I just knew what the Hornet/Rhino guy was going to do #cheating

Cheers

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 15:24
by f-16adf
35_aoa,

Generally, do you feel more "capable" in the A/C model Hornets WVR, as compared to the F/A-18E ? I think the Rhino may have slightly better alpha, yet don't the legacy Hornets have better P's?

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 16:43
by outlaw162
gentlemen choose your weapon,

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 17:30
by f-16adf
AFRES F-4D?


Just total love for the Phantom II (B,C,D,E,F,G,J,K,M,N,S, and even the RF's). :D


I hope this pic doesn't offend anyone, but it's funny as hell:

http://imgur.com/a/V4Ng2

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 18:18
by garrya
tailgate wrote:The F-16 was just a performer. Even though the tub was a little cramped, you still felt like you were part of the machine. It has outstanding maneuverability, accelerates like a bullet and has an amazingly low RCS for a non-VlO/Stealth aircraft.

I have flown against the 14/18 many times and without giving up my secrets here it is......... :D

Both the F-14 and F-18 are excellent aircraft. The F-14......it provides a big target in the WVR arena, the key is the wings, everything you need to know is found by watching the wings :roll: F-18.....gotta be careful with this fella because he has outstanding nose authority. If I'm in the WRV arena with either of these fighters, I'm gonna get close, squeeze the fight closer until either one starts losing nose authority. Neither one is gonna out accelerate me at this point.

Now before I start getting pummeled by the F-14/18 crowd let me say, I've been on the losing end many times. It's why we train constantly to hone the skills. And I haven't even mentioned helmet mounted cueing systems /HOBS in the 16. Above was just using heaters and the gun....... 8)

Jim


Is this the correct general ranking ( > is superior)
Acceleration: F-16 > F-15 > F-14 > F-18
Instantaneous turn rate: F-18 > F-15 > F-14 > F-16
STR high subsonic (Mach 0.7 to 0.9) : F-16 > F-15 > F-14 > F-18
STR low subsonic (Mach 0.3 to 0.6): F-18 > F-14 > F-16 > F-15
Roll rate: F-16 > F-15 = F-18 > F-14
Post stall nose pointing: F-18 > F-15 = F-14 = F-16
Assuming they only carry light load of 4-6 air to air missiles and nothing else.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 18:22
by outlaw162
adf,

yup AFRES F-4D, just before we got Blk 10 Vipers. (I like your pic :D )

This was quite an exercise, put on by the AFRES 419th at Hill. Guard F-15As, Marine F/A-18s, AFRES Vipers and Phantoms.

Each type flew 4v2, 2v4 and 4v4 against each other type and you weren't told in advance how many or what type you were up against. It was all on the ACMI so even the old AIM-7E2 was credited with some kills on the newer types.

The final fight was a 12v12 with 12 Vipers against the 12 other guys. :shock:

Notice the only one with an external tank. :lmao:

I only flew Blk 10 and 15, but I do know my neck and back hurt a lot more fighting Viper to Viper than fighting the other guys.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 19:41
by f-16adf
The ultimate insult to the Century Series :D


http://imgur.com/a/hrhZ7

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 21:00
by outlaw162
Actually to be fair, the Phantom couldn't turn or scissors with the first Century Series aircraft (or even the A-7).

The only fighters I've had the pleasure of out-turning in a Phantom were the F-105 and CF-101B.

That is probably why we were valued by the F-14 community at NKX as threat simulators.....we could go fast, couldn't turn and had depressed angle radars so realistically we had to start down low.

However, if you could get in close, and if you could hold them at bay until their wings went forward, well some days are diamonds....

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 21:55
by f-16adf
Outlaw,

Couldn't even the "hard wing" Phantoms out turn the F-104? I'm guessing the slatted Phantoms fared better against some of them in ACM. But don't you think that for an all around package none of those jets could even approach all the tasks that the Phantom performed, especially in SEA. And during that time period (1960-1975).

They sent the F-100, F-102, F-104 as MIGCAP and they all performed terribly. Even if they would have put F-106's (no internal gun) in Vietnam, the Mig-17's and Mig-21's probably would have still had their way with them.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2017, 22:38
by outlaw162
Good point. The only times I saw an F-104 in a fight, he disappeared in the distance at a high rate of speed with the glow of the AB getting smaller and smaller. I knew he had to turn around eventually to go back home. He went by the second time just as fast. :D I don't think 'turn' was in their repertoire.

Against a slatted F-4, a clean hard-wing would lose some nose-tail initially in a scissors, but could eventually gain some vertical separation same as you could against the F-14B when the wings went forward.

To be fair again, an F-100 got the first kill in the war, with no losses to the -17s....other then the 3 F-105s, which speaks more to F-105s holding over the target at 350 knots than the Hun's shortcomings. It was not a true CAP airplane by that time, just a reasonably good day fighter with GCI (and guns).

There were indeed an F-102 and F-104s lost to MiGs and probably would have been the same for any machine that went into that environment for any length of time. The F-100 was pulled early, but I wonder what could have been done with 2 F-100s paired with 2 F-4s like the MiG-21, MiG-19 Kubans. We'll never know.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 00:43
by f-16adf
Outlaw,

Thank you for your insight. It is very much appreciated. :D

I was just a young kid with Phantoms flying directly over my house on a near daily basis in the 1980's. It was truly a great time for me.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 03:36
by 35_aoa
f-16adf wrote:35_aoa,

Generally, do you feel more "capable" in the A/C model Hornets WVR, as compared to the F/A-18E ? I think the Rhino may have slightly better alpha, yet don't the legacy Hornets have better P's?


They are both very capable, but you have to fly them differently. I had to shed a lot of bad habits from the Legacy when I started flying the rhino. Theoretically, they are similar, in practice, it is a new airplane.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 05:58
by saberrider
35_aoa wrote:
f-16adf wrote:35_aoa,

Generally, do you feel more "capable" in the A/C model Hornets WVR, as compared to the F/A-18E ? I think the Rhino may have slightly better alpha, yet don't the legacy Hornets have better P's?


They are both very capable, but you have to fly them differently. I had to shed a lot of bad habits from the Legacy when I started flying the rhino. Theoretically, they are similar, in practice, it is a new airplane.

What bad habits you are forced not to do in order to fly better?I read about Rhino , been a forgiven a/c, it is more benign at high AOA , not dropping one wing if you pull quickly in a turn ,like legacy Hornet .

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 12:51
by f-16adf
35_aoa,

Thank you very much for the info. :D

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 15:55
by loke
hummingbird wrote:Interestingly the French rated the F/A-18C quite highly compared with the F-16 in terms of ACM:

Also quite interesting the Finns rated the Hornet quite highly compared to the F-16 -- only the Mirage 2000 and Hornet made the shortlist in Finland. The F-16 did not!

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 16:09
by basher54321
loke wrote:Also quite interesting the Finns rated the Hornet quite highly compared to the F-16 -- only the Mirage 2000 and Hornet made the shortlist in Finland. The F-16 did not!


What did they prefer over the MLU and erm the Gripen? - Apart from APG-73 and AMRAAM for one - M2000 had no fox 3 capability until the late 90s. (neither did the MLU come to think of it)

I think the FA-18 is treated as 9G as a land based platform isn't it? (HornetFinn?)


On May 16, 1992, Finland announced that it had selected the F/A-18C/D Hornet to replace the entire front-line Ilmavoimat fighter force of two SAAB J-35 Draken squadrons and one squadron of MiG-21bis fighters. The Hornet won in a flyoff against the F-16A MLU, SAAB Gripen, Dassault Mirage 2000-5, and Mikoyan MiG-29.

A letter of acceptance was signed on June 5, 1992 for a total of 64 aircraft, with the first seven F/A-18Ds being built by McDonnell and the remaining 57 F/A-18C single seaters all being assembled by the Valmet Aircraft Industry Co. (now renamed Patria Finavitec OY) of Kuorevesi from McDonnell-supplied kits.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 17:30
by f-16adf
The F/A-18C tends to be underrated. It's an excellent jet.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 17:32
by f-16adf
They probably rejected the MLU because of its radar.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 17:44
by dsc
tailgate wrote:...
This is my opinion and based on personal experience. The block 30/40/50 F-16 (GE equipped) has the best acceleration of the three I mentioned. Those jets would jump out to their maximum quick and could probably go beyond it if were not for the fixed intake and the canopy. In all my years of flying, nothing beat the F-16 (GE) for acceleration. period. It was a screamer and it was one of the best ACM platforms I ever flew.
...


You are talking about a CLEAN F-16 Block 30/40/50, right? :D

According to this 2008 article, Jon Beesley, LockMart test pilot, besides stating that the F-35 has equal acceleration to the F-22 and F-16, he also says that the F-22 has the same acceleration as a clean F-16 Block 50. He implies that. Take a look:

https://www.livescience.com/3032-fighte ... fleet.html

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft's thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its' larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The "subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor- which is about as good as you can get." Beesley said.



This is very subjective.
There are obviously many more variables influencing both airplanes acceleration performance...
I dare to say the F-22 is better at higher altitudes, and the F-16 at lower altitudes.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 21:29
by basher54321
He stated A-A config earlier - and it was his opinion.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 21:32
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote:They probably rejected the MLU because of its radar.


Possibly - the FA-18C also probably looked the lowest risk out of that lot in 1992 of actually happening by 1995.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2017, 21:57
by tailgate
Between the 15/16/22 (aircraft I flew), the F-16 (GE) accelerated better. Just my opinion. I am not comparing overall capabilities of each, just one aspect.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 01:36
by dsc
basher54321 wrote:He stated A-A config earlier - and it was his opinion.

No, he stated that only and after, he edited his reply. :)
And in the edit he wrote, i wasn't sure if he was still comparing the F-16 acceleration with the F-22...


tailgate wrote:Between the 15/16/22 (aircraft I flew), the F-16 (GE) accelerated better. Just my opinion.
...

I believe in you.
I was only asking when you said the F-16 Block 50 accelerated better, if you were referring to a clean F-16 Block 50 or a combat loaded F-16 Block 50. Just and only that. :)


tailgate wrote:...
I am not comparing overall capabilities of each, just one aspect.

Neither am i. I was only comparing acceleration.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 02:15
by tailgate
No worries. Now between blocks (F-16), the Block 30 was the best performer in ACM. The block 30 had the best acceleration of them all. Don't get me wrong, the -129 is a kick in the pants, but the Block 50 also grew a little in the weight department... :)

Jim

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2017, 15:06
by f-16adf
Tailgate,

This article is from a former F-15C pilot. When you flew the Eagle, was that generally how you fought the F-16 (GE Vipers). Was getting slow against a light Block 10 small tail or Block 15 more dangerous because they had a lighter nose (as some F-16 pilots attest to)?



Here is the article:


"In my experience, the best fighter pilot usually wins between an F-15C, F-18, F-16, MiG-29, etc. when that pilot is decidedly better.

(Assume all the jets I talk about are configured air-to-air and are basically ‘clean’ (i.e. no external fuel tanks but with air-to-air missiles loaded).

The F-16 does best in an energy fight, a fight that stays faster with pilots pulling high-g when their speeds are higher but backing off to more of an optimum turn as the fight gets slower . . . as opposed to a fight where everyone pulls as many G’s as they can to try to point & shoot the other guy sooner which causes the fight to get slow much more quickly.

Where the F-16 has the advantage is in straight and level acceleration. Imagine an F-15 and F-16 meet neutral and both pull max G to turn and try to point at each other for the first shot before getting to min range on missiles. Both end up slow after that first turn and neither get a shot because both turned so violently and stayed so close to each other that they are both inside the min range of their missiles.

Now imagine that both jets level out and accelerate straight ahead for a while. If starting from 200 KCAS, the F-16 will get to 400 KCAS about the time the F-15 gets to 300–330 KCAS. So when they start turning again, the F-16 starts the turn at 9 G’s while the F-15 cannot pull anything near 9 G’s. Turn advantage F-16. A big turn advantage.

Every time either fighter reduces G to accelerate, the F-16 takes advantage and turns faster as a result of getting more speed back quicker than the Eagle. Plus, the faster you are, the more thrust you have because more air (i.e. more oxygen) is entering the intake which means more fuel can be added so more thrust is produced. So the same jet at 200 and 400 knots produces a lot more thrust at 400 knots with the throttles in full afterburner.

So how does the F-15 beat an F-16?

He turns the fight into a slow speed and vertical up/down fight as soon as he can. A Viper doesn’t fly nearly as well as an Eagle in a nose high, slow speed fight. The Eagle has the advantage. Plus Eagle pilots do a lot more 1v1 BFM so have seen a lot more of the ‘pictures’ of a vertical fight so fly with more precision in a vertical fight than the Viper pilot.

The pictures for a flat, horizontal fight are the same throughout the 360 degrees of a full turn. The fight looks the same whether your heading is north, south, east, or west. The vertical fight has 4 different zones where you want different pictures and flight parameters because what you want to see going straight up is very different from what you want to see going straight down which is also very different in level flight with high speed at the bottom of the vertical which is just as different when level (though upside down) at the top of the vertical at slow speeds. The basic advice is to lag your opponent at the bottom of the vertical circle (to get more speed when needed) and pull lead at the top to take advantage of the best way to turn at different speeds and G’s.

Many Viper units used to have a min restriction speed of 150 KCAS for safety which made it even easier. A Viper at 150 is going to move forward of an F-15 who is at 110 and/or allow the Eagle to out climb the Viper at the same time when in a slow speed scissors fight. (Called ‘scissors’ because you go back and forth across each others flight paths.)

Bottom Line? Flat, fast, energy fights almost always go to the Viper while slow speed, vertical fights go to the Eagle. As an Eagle pilot, I must force a fight with a Viper into a slow speed vertical fight if I want my best chance to win. But I need to do so at the very beginning of the fight. The longer I wait, the better for the Viper driver.

F-15 vs. F-18?

An F-18 is kind of like an F-15E junior with very similar weapons/avionics systems to an F-15 and very similar capabilities. (Made by the same company. Makes sense.) But in an air-to-air mode, the F-18 has leading edge slats and maneuvering flaps. (Added to allow them to take off and land much slower on a carrier.) During BFM, it allows them to turn and maneuver much better at slow speed.

In my experience, when starting a fight from a beyond visual range, the best pilot wins because of the similarities in basic jet and weapons and avionics between the two jets. Against equal pilots of high skill, if both pilots survive to the merge for a BFM fight, the fight will tend to get slow where the F-18 will out-turn the Eagle but the Eagle will tend to outclimb the Hornet. Once you get 2000 feet vertical on a slow opponent in an Eagle, you have the ability to dive and guns track just about any opponent who is slow and below you and basically horizontal. The slow speed makes it very hard to defeat a gun shot with a guns jink maneuver.

Caveat. I never flew against an F-18 pilot with a lot of air-to-air experience. Most of the Hornet pilots I flew against had transitioned to their jet from other jets (F-104, F-4, etc.) that weren’t good BFM aircraft and had less than 2–3 years in Hornets while I was very experienced by the time I flew against my first Hornet. And F-18 pilots as a whole did not yet have the extensive collective experience of the F-15C community. That’s changed so it would be interesting to learn how the best Hornet pilots of today do against the best Eagle pilots in similar air-to-air configurations.

The original question: F-18 vs. F-16?

I do not know. But if forced to guess, I think it would be similar to the Viper vs. Eagle fight with the F-18 doing better in a slow, vertical fight and the Viper doing better in a higher speed, higher energy fight.

MiG-29 vs. any American modern fighter?

A Fulcrum is very similar to an F-15C in basic aerodynamics and maneuvering capabilities. But the HOTAS (Hands On Throttles And Stick) sucks compared to American fighters. Its my understanding that the Germans couldn’t wait to get rid of their MiG-29’s after East & West merged.

HOTAS is very important during BFM because shot opportunities come and go very quickly and constantly change during different phases of the fight. So you have to constantly work to get and then reacquire a radar lock and to also be ready with the next most likely weapon to be shot so that you can shoot during a 2–3 second window when that is all you have.

When I BFM new F-15 pilots in the Boeing full visual simulator, if we fly exactly the same flight profile, I will typically fire 3–4 times as many shots as the rookie because I recognize when shot envelopes are coming and have selected the correct weapon and gotten the lock ahead of time (when needed). When pointing at my opponent, I can also easily shoot no-lock shots without a radar lock with all of my weapons which new guys tend to not even think about.

Su-27 vs. USAF/USN/USMC fighters (but not the F-22)?

I never flew against them, though I have escorted Flankers across Alaska. They can turn and maneuver very well. They have a lot of gas (i.e. endurance). They have pretty good avionics and weapons. Myself, I do not want to go to a merge against a Flanker. Against an average to below average pilot I will probably be okay. Against a skilled pilot, he may have a big enough turn AND energy advantage that I don’t want to fly either an energy fight or slow speed fight with him.

So my plan would be to pull 10–11 G’s at the merge (I was a G-god at 66.5″ who lifted weights 2–3 times a week and ran 3–4 10K’s a week at my peak so could pull some G’s) . . . which would over-G the jet but not rip the wings off . . . and get the first shot post-merge. That would be a lot easier with the helmet mounted site and AIM-9X.

The real goal would be to never go to a merger with a Flanker. The truth is that in modern, large force scenarios, almost EVERYONE who turns & burns at a merge dies because it so very easy to point for everyone else in the area to shoot from 1+ miles away out to a max visual range or about 5 NM. People don’t survive BFM fights in RED FLAG because everybody and their mother quickly point and shoot at them because they are sitting ducks."

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Sep 2017, 13:37
by zero-one
F-15C pilot wrote:Su-27 vs. USAF/USN/USMC fighters (but not the F-22)?

I never flew against them, though I have escorted Flankers across Alaska. They can turn and maneuver very well. They have a lot of gas (i.e. endurance). They have pretty good avionics and weapons. Myself, I do not want to go to a merge against a Flanker. Against an average to below average pilot I will probably be okay. Against a skilled pilot, he may have a big enough turn AND energy advantage that I don’t want to fly either an energy fight or slow speed fight with him.


Different pilot, different opinion
https://hushkit.net/2012/07/13/hushkit- ... inal-word/
Rhino pilot wrote: it would be pretty fun to turn with those guys and see what they can do. We’re definitely not going to keep up with those guys in drag race, but it would be nice to mix it up in the BFM environment.”

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 15:10
by hummingbird
garrya wrote:
Is this the correct general ranking ( > is superior)
Acceleration: F-16 > F-15 > F-14 > F-18
Instantaneous turn rate: F-18 > F-15 > F-14 > F-16
STR high subsonic (Mach 0.7 to 0.9) : F-16 > F-15 > F-14 > F-18
STR low subsonic (Mach 0.3 to 0.6): F-18 > F-14 > F-16 > F-15
Roll rate: F-16 > F-15 = F-18 > F-14
Post stall nose pointing: F-18 > F-15 = F-14 = F-16
Assuming they only carry light load of 4-6 air to air missiles and nothing else.


Not quite.

Firstly the F-14 has a better ITR than the F-15 & F-16, and probably similar to the F/A-18 (would need official F-18 charts to be sure), the F-15 being last on the list.

Next the low subsonic STR goes to the F-14, then F-18, F-16 & F-15.

As for post stall nose pointability, the F-18 wins hands down, after that the F-14, F-15 and finally F-16 which is limited by its FCS.

Apart from those three points the list looks ok though.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 16:19
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:
Not quite.

Firstly the F-14 has a better ITR than the F-15 & F-16, and probably similar to the F/A-18 (would need official F-18 charts to be sure), the F-15 being last on the list.

Next the low subsonic STR goes to the F-14, then F-18, F-16 & F-15.

As for post stall nose pointability, the F-18 wins hands down, after that the F-14, F-15 and finally F-16 which is limited by its FCS.

Apart from those three points the list looks ok though.

Not true, we calculated it.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=90
ITR: F-18 is top at the list then F-15, then F-14 then F-16 being last due to its FCS.
As for post stall controlled maneuver, F-18 is the only one with that ability, the rest are only put in spin to recover. F-15, F-14, F-16 were all tested to high AoA: spin resistance, flight departure and recovery, maintain high AoA but none has the control authority of F-18 in post stal regime




Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 20:55
by tailgate
@ADF, Yes, pretty much agree with what he said. I always tended to drag the fight into the vertical where the Eagle will start to take advantage. Low and level the 16 was a tough customer and could really get around on you quick. Now, I have to stick a disclaimer in here, the older 15 A's with the -100 Pratts were a little trickier because you never knew what that engine would do when you put the screws to it, the -200/220 corrected allot of the issues that we encountered back then.

I think when you talk any kind of turn rates, allot of factors come into play at any given time. ITR is great, but I have gone up against allot of Hornets (and Super) and have never really dealt with any of them trying to ITR me. For one, speed and energy are your best friends, you try not to give up any during the fight. Two, Naval and Marine Aviators are going to fight to the aircrafts strength. A 2 second ITR maneuver to try and get an advantage is not high on their lists of tricks.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 21:31
by f-16adf
Tailgate,

Thanks for the reply. Very much appreciated.


Did the Eagle high up (say above 25,000ft.) have any advantage against the GE powered F-16's? I figured that against the weaker PW Vipers--Yes. But I am unsure about the GE Vipers?



Thanks again.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2017, 21:45
by tailgate
Yes sir, once above about 25 and higher, the 15 started getting the advantage on any Viper. When I flew the Viper, especially against my old ride, I always tried to keep the fight between 9 to 20. Problem is most Eagle drivers now this and will still try and coax the fight vertical. When I was in the 15, I always tried to drag the 16 high.
Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 01:15
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:
hummingbird wrote:
Not quite.

Firstly the F-14 has a better ITR than the F-15 & F-16, and probably similar to the F/A-18 (would need official F-18 charts to be sure), the F-15 being last on the list.

Next the low subsonic STR goes to the F-14, then F-18, F-16 & F-15.

As for post stall nose pointability, the F-18 wins hands down, after that the F-14, F-15 and finally F-16 which is limited by its FCS.

Apart from those three points the list looks ok though.

Not true, we calculated it.
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=90


I'll take the actual performance figures over your "calculations" thank you, and here the F-14 is the clear winner (hence it's significantly smaller turn radius of 1,500 ft @ 10,000 ft).

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2018, 08:31
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:I'll take the actual performance figures over your "calculations" thank you, and here the F-14 is the clear winner (hence it's significantly smaller turn radius of 1,500 ft @ 10,000 ft).

I wish it was my or Spurt calculations but it was NASA's who delivered the CLmax from real world measurement. What we did is multiply it with references wing area and speed to draw the curve.There is less room for error than you extrapolate from E-M graph.
As for turn radius, it is calculated with STR rather than ITR

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 16:30
by f-16adf
The F-14 is not the "clear" winner anywhere. You are not adjusting the charts for various F-16 Block empty weights.

The Block 50 USAF version weighs in at 19,300lbs empty. A 700lb difference from the "HAF" Block 50, hence, turn rates go up approx .4DPS.

The Block 42 version weighs (the USAF/ANG operates 3 squadrons with the Pratt -229 IPE motor) in at 18,450lbs empty. A massive 1550lb difference from the "HAF" Block 52, hence, turn rates go up approx .8DPS.

The Block 30 Big Inlet performs better than both the above Viper versions (sorry, but every F-16 pilot I have spoken to confirms this as fact). And at .6IMN, has approx the same STR as the F-14B/D.

Also, the DI index is arbitrarily set at 50, the actual DI number is 42 for 2 Aim-9, 4 Aim-120 load out.


Additionally, the F-14's Ps are a "spike", not a horizontal "plateau". Read the below post by JB (a USAF F-16 pilot) to get an understanding between the two:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26829&p=296429#p296429



The 1500ft number on the Tomcat chart is only at "max lift". So in order to sustain the turn, the radius would consequently increase.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2018, 16:40
by f-16adf
I have never seen a F-15, F-14, F-18 perform a 360 degree turn in barely 15 seconds. GE Block 30/40 Vipers can do it.

In fact, watch this RCAF CF-18A demo at Abbotsford 1986 airshow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgO6rhyA2FA

and at 2:27:25 of this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5IH04Qp2E

The F-18 turns faster (it's under 19 seconds) than any F-14 demo that I have ever seen. And the Canadian jet has a centerline tank on it-

If you can find a demo vid of an F-14 beating this turn, please post it.


Here is an F-14D at Abbotsford in 1991 (when the jets were basically new). There is a 360 turn and a high alpha pass:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M59JltgQ_Z4

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 00:36
by basher54321
The F-16 charts are given for 26,000 lbs so you can just up the F-16 fuel percentage in the comparison. They would seem to confirm some of the advantages the F-16 pilot could utilise over the Tomcat B in those configs.

Have to assume these charts are taken from the F-14B NATOPS - to me the lift line (bolder line) comes over a bit to about 1700ft - but not that it matters really as you allude to above - the lift drops off a cliff.

The charts although as stated are estimated on 1988 Flight test data they should be pretty good. Airshow videos give very little for comparison - you can guess the state but can never know for sure, and the turns almost certainly change altitude - therefore if you want to look at individual variables (STR ,ITR etc) then you really need charts - especially after Boyd went to all that trouble 8) . If you want the big picture on BFM /ACM that these charts don't show then ask a pilot or join the airforce I suppose.


The F-14A did have what was described as a very impressive initial turn rate in the first 180-270 degrees of a turn and the F-14B should be very similar in that regards. Gums has stated several times he thought the F-102A had a better initial turn than the F-16As so in terms of Max initial turn rate and G you will find a lot of other aircraft that have higher figures on a chart - although I'm sure the Fokker Dr1 might look good too on a turn chart :D


In that leaked Video in 2008 Col Fornof described the Block 50 as still a very good dogfighter. You have to hand it to the designers and thinkers really because almost every attempt to improve the F-16 in this area was rejected over the years, yet despite the weight growth you have someone stating 30 years later that it still sits alongside the F-22 as a very good dogfighter - and those charts at least still show some of that original thinking.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2018, 00:48
by f-16adf
I agree Basher.


One thing I would like to mention; I have seen many dozens of Tomcat demos, not once did it complete a 360 degree turn quicker than basically 19.8 seconds (19.8 seconds being the best time and from a mid 1980's demo, most are generally longer). I am fully aware of Density Altitude, and how it has an effect on field conditions. The F-16 on the other hand (Turkish demos, and early GE flight tests, prove the 15 seconds completion time). The other teen series jets lag well behind this.


Also, I would like to point this out:


Notice in the upper left hand corner of the chart below, there is no "GR" in T.O. line, which implies this chart is for the original "CJ" series (years before the Greeks purchased their Block 52's). Yet the funny thing is, it has the exact same metrics as the later "HAF" chart from the Hellinic supplement that everyone is in possession of. And this proves my point that this is from a USAF Block 52, which is lighter than the subsequent HAF Block 52.

F-16C  PW-229 IPE.png


So it means that at 26,000lbs and DI of 50 they both have the same turn performance. Here's the deal: the USAF version is loaded with 61% internal fuel, not the 48% fuel load of the HAF machine (19,200lb empty weight vs 20,100lb empty weight). So use the GW effect/turn rate graph on the upper left to compensate for the weight difference. Hence, you want to adjust it for 50% internal fuel to be equal with the Tomcat charts.



Notice in the upper right corner of the Tomcat supplement it states "....with 50% internal fuel"

scan 1F-14AD_.jpg






Let's do some math:

We have 3 F-16's all with the -229 motor, all weighing 26,000lbs, all with a DI of 50. Here's the thing:

1. The HAF Block 52 has 48% fuel.
2. The USAF Block 52 has 61% fuel.
3. The USAF Block 42 with the Pratt -229 has 71% fuel.

If you adjust the 2 USAF planes down to 50% internal fuel, their corresponding Ps all improve. Meaning all the lines go up and greatly reduce what advantage the F-14B/D had (in the .6 M regime) against the heavier HAF F-16 version.



At .6 Mach the Block 42 STR increases to 13.4DPS (maybe to 13.45DPS), remember the DI is at 50. 2 Aim-9 and 4 Aim-120 = a DI of only 42. While the Tomcat's STR is at 14DPS . My point is that the entire Ps=0 curve on the USAF Block 52 and 42 increase; negative Ps decrease, and positive Ps increase. Implying that the metrics on the chart move upward; due to the increase in performance from internal fuel loads decreasing down to 50%.


The same holds true for the USAF Block 50, it empty is 19,300lbs; Not the 20,000lbs as the HAF Block 50. The STR on the chart at .6 Mach increases to 13.3DPS (maybe slightly more due to the decrease in DI from 50 to 42). Hence, the lines all go up.


It is very likely the Block 42 w/PW-229 (with 50% internal fuel, and a DI of 42) would look like this:
(Tomcat's line is Blue and spikes up to .61 Mach. Revised F-16 line in Black, and above the old Ps=0 line. Both lines terminate at Mach 1.) Sorry, don't have the time to revise the other -/+ lines.

Estimated turn rates.jpg




The Tomcat advantage at .6M has now reduced considerably. And against an even better performer like the big inlet Block 30 there is no advantage-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 00:37
by basher54321
Yes weight is one variable that affects those figures but it is only one of the things you could suggest is wrong with taking a few data points from a static level turn chart in such a dynamic variable subject.

I suppose the F-14A +/B came in 1990 so there is the timeframe for F-16 version comparisons although where you compare is still subjective - e.g. ditching fuel weight increases some figures on a chart but generally fuel is probably a nice thing to have off the chart - anyway the charts look good to me regardless I guess.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 01:07
by f-16adf
My point is (which many other jet forum websites seem unable to comprehend) that there are many different versions (blocks of F-16). And since some are heavier than others, some are more powerful than others---..... they have different performance metrics. It's as simple as that.



When people are comparing Jet X to an F-16. Okay, what type of F-16?


If one jet is at 50% fuel, why would I want to compare it to another at 60% fuel? That is rather illogical (especially when dealing with info from an EM diagram). Hence the results become skewed-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 01:22
by basher54321
Your point has been very clear all along to everyone I expect but it is not really illogical - skewed results have always happened on the interwebs due to various things like a lack of knowledge, laziness or simply wanting to represent their favourite aircraft in a manner to either make it look good or to win an argument.
Very easy to fudge the figures (like any figures) to your liking and misrepresent to an audience that most likely wont question it.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 05:32
by garrya
f-16adf wrote:If one jet is at 50% fuel, why would I want to compare it to another at 60% fuel? That is rather illogical

To be fair though, i think it could be logical depending on combat radius, load out and afterburner time involved.
Ex: F-35 with 50% fuel will last quite a bit longer than F-16
That why i love Sprstdlyscottsmn's operational comparison, every single small detail are taken into account

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 10:04
by f-16adf
We are dealing with EM diagram comparisons, I have never seen one that compares a jet with 50% fuel to another with 60% or 70% fuel?

These diagrams prove my point:

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 13:29
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote:We are dealing with EM diagram comparisons, I have never seen one that compares a jet with 50% fuel to another with 60% or 70% fuel?

These diagrams prove my point:


These simplistic EM comparisons at 50% internal fuel were perhaps more valid in days gone past if you are looking for a degree of fairness - however Gary A also has a valid point - to do an EM comparison between the F-35 and F-16 at 50% internal fuel would skew the results in favour of the F-16.

check PM

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 14:41
by vilters
With math and tables you can prove anything, anywhere, anytime.

The F-35, F-18, and F-16 are 3 different birds for 3 different missions.

You can "corner" one of them on any tech spec, and prove and declare it "the winner".

The F-16's initial concept was A2A. And that is where it is good at.
The F-18 was fleet defense, and that is where it is good at in a navy environment.

The F-35 was "born" as multirole with ALL around all aspect situational awareness. AND it has the fuel to do so for a long time.

3 different birds, for 3 different missions, and NO math or table required.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 15:02
by 35_aoa
vilters wrote:The F-18 was fleet defense, and that is where it is good at in a navy environment.


I'd submit that it originally was built to fill the light/medium attack mission, replacing the A-7. Obviously program management issues down the road (A-12 cancellation, A-6 and F-14 sundowns) caused it's role to expand significantly.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 15:06
by sprstdlyscottsmn
And to replace the multi role capability lost when the F-4 was replaced by the F-14. I have some old promotional material comparing the F-4 to the F/A-18.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 15:14
by f-16adf
Search Gums old post (and others who flew the F-16). What did they say?

According to Gums: he said that on the ACM range in the Viper "he flew the other teen series out of gas."



And what does this Naval Aviator who also authored this article have to say, sound similar?
According to CDR Nawrocki:

"I have time in the F-14 (2 cruises in VF-114, Enterprise) and the F-16N (VF-126). We would fight the F-14's until they were out of gas and then we would typically fight each other, guns only until we were bingo. When we were in A-4's we would also fight each other, guns only as it was spectacular training for us...and fun! We most definitely trained to fight the F-16 as an F-16. We also provided adversary support to the fleet (F-14's and F-18's mostly...occasionally supporting F-15's) as all sorts of aircraft, including full up F-16's when they wanted to see what it could do. And it could do a lot. It had the most aft CG of the F-16's, no hard points, no Aux tanks, never carried anything but a TACTS pod and a captive AIM-9. Big GE motor... It was a rocket ship!"

CDR Nawrocki also authored this:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53704



So I think that a Naval Aviator who flew the F-14A, F-16N, F-8, A-4 should know what he is talking about.


He also added:

"The A model had a slightly different leading edge slat program (also, as I recall...it was 30 years ago!) that resulted in slightly reduced bleed rates. The F-14A was a 6.5 G airplane (as was the "D" model, as I recall - I never flew it, but fought it once), so when you talk about "corner velocity" it is at that max G. The F-16N was a 9.3 G airplane so the corner velocity was at that G loading. The corner velocity of an F-14A at it's designed 6.5 G limit was 325 KIAS. The corner velocity of the F-16N at it's 9.3 G limit was 408 KIAS. All corner velocity is, is the lowest speed at which you can generate your designed maximum load limit. If you look at an energy diagram, the turn radius remains surprisingly constant as the speed degrades below corner and your available G load also degrades. As you go above corner, your turn radius suffers. So, in a one circle fight, where you are both following a single circle, being at or below corner is better. Issues such as the lowest speed at which you can generate a pure vertical maneuver and bleed rates at corner come into play. Below vertical speeds, roll rates come into play with bleed rates as the fight usually degenerates into a rolling scissors. In a slick F-14A, you were generally about 20 degrees nose low at corner and max G to maintain your airspeed. By virtue of your loss of altitude, your total energy state (kinetic or airspeed + potential or altitude) was reduced. The same could be said if you maintained altitude and bled airspeed. In a fight, energy state is critical. It's that energy differential, altitude or airspeed, which facilitates gaining a positional advantage, nose on, with weapons separation which is your goal. It is a complicated chess match. If you go into a 2 circle fight (think both of you making a left turn at the merge), the important consideration becomes turn RATE. A higher G-rated fighter will always have a rate advantage (as opposed to a radius advantage) in a 2 circle fight. Energy loss is still an issue, though and the critical speed is corner velocity. In the radius fight, you can get slow and still be close to min radius, in a rate fight if you go above OR below corner, you lose turn rate. Higher turn rates get you nose on first. In the F-16N, at 408 KIAS and 9.3 G's you were about 8-10 degrees nose low as compared to the F-14A at 20 degrees nose low. Obviously, you lost energy faster in the 14A. The main advantage to the A+ (B) or D was that the bigger GE engines reduced bleed rates. Rate, radius and bleed rates are hugely important, but an understanding of the 3 dimensional geometry involved is something that is more art than science. When I fought the 9G F-15 (when it was slick), I found it to be very close in performance to the F-16N. The big mouth on the C was an improvement as speed increased, as it allowed greater power...sort of like bigger intakes on a muscle car. I'm not sure if that sheds any light on your questions or not. Let me know if there's anything else."

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 06:15
by 35_aoa
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 16:54
by zero-one
So we always hear that a Hornet pilot fighting an energy fighter like a Viper, an Eagle or a Fulcrum should force the fight into a slow speed, high AOA fight. Vise versa for Viper who should force the fight into a high speed, high G maneuvers.

So if its not classified I'd like to ask?

1. How do you force someone to go fast? I mean I can see how the Hornet could force someone to go slow by forcing the other guy to overshoot. But how does someone force another to stay fast or go faster.



2. What happens when you go on a neutral merge with a super maneuverable plane (i.e Raptor, Flanker) that can fight both fast and slow? Do you wait for him to move first?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2018, 15:24
by mixelflick
35_aoa wrote:
vilters wrote:The F-18 was fleet defense, and that is where it is good at in a navy environment.


I'd submit that it originally was built to fill the light/medium attack mission, replacing the A-7. Obviously program management issues down the road (A-12 cancellation, A-6 and F-14 sundowns) caused it's role to expand significantly.


Correct. F-14 was fleet defense. The F/A-18 was conceived to replace both the A-7 and F-4. If memory serves, there were to be dedicated attack (A-18) and fighter (F-18) models. That was later consolidated and the designation F/A-18 given. And in that role, I think it made a lot of sense. It was only when they went to an all Hornet Navy that things got sideways IMO.

Be that as it may, I've heard from more than 1 F-16 driver it's pretty easy beating a legacy Hornet by fighting in the vertical, whereas the Super Hornet is a different beast. Much more capable though still not up to the Viper's sustained turn radius/super energy retention..

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 07:04
by Corsair1963
mixelflick wrote:
35_aoa wrote:
vilters wrote:The F-18 was fleet defense, and that is where it is good at in a navy environment.


I'd submit that it originally was built to fill the light/medium attack mission, replacing the A-7. Obviously program management issues down the road (A-12 cancellation, A-6 and F-14 sundowns) caused it's role to expand significantly.


Correct. F-14 was fleet defense. The F/A-18 was conceived to replace both the A-7 and F-4. If memory serves, there were to be dedicated attack (A-18) and fighter (F-18) models. That was later consolidated and the designation F/A-18 given. And in that role, I think it made a lot of sense. It was only when they went to an all Hornet Navy that things got sideways IMO.

Be that as it may, I've heard from more than 1 F-16 driver it's pretty easy beating a legacy Hornet by fighting in the vertical, whereas the Super Hornet is a different beast. Much more capable though still not up to the Viper's sustained turn radius/super energy retention..


The Hornet i.e. F/A-18 was a Multi-Role Strike Fighter from the start. Which, means that it would perform both Fighter and/or Strike Missions. Hence replacing both the A-7 Corsair II and F-4 Phantom....

There was never a dedicated attack version. Yet, Northrop was suppose to build and market a land based variant called the F-18L. Which, never happen as McDonnell Douglas (now part of Boeing) just sold Naval F/A-18 to land based Air Forces directly. (i.e. Australia, Finland, Kuwait, etc.) This of course pissed off Northrop and they did file a lawsuit.....(and lost)

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 10:10
by hornetfinn
mixelflick wrote:Be that as it may, I've heard from more than 1 F-16 driver it's pretty easy beating a legacy Hornet by fighting in the vertical, whereas the Super Hornet is a different beast. Much more capable though still not up to the Viper's sustained turn radius/super energy retention..


I think F-16 vs. F/A-18A-D also depends on respective versions used. Later F/A-18C with -402 engines has pretty good T/W ratio, very comparable to most F-16 versions. Of course there are F-16 versions with better T/W ratio and it probably still has better STR.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 12:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'm seeing that as well, that a -402 powered Hornet is in many ways comparable to a Blk50 Viper. A -400 powered Hornet can barely get out of its own way once loaded.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2018, 17:12
by ricnunes
Corsair1963 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Correct. F-14 was fleet defense. The F/A-18 was conceived to replace both the A-7 and F-4. If memory serves, there were to be dedicated attack (A-18) and fighter (F-18) models. That was later consolidated and the designation F/A-18 given. And in that role, I think it made a lot of sense. It was only when they went to an all Hornet Navy that things got sideways IMO.

Be that as it may, I've heard from more than 1 F-16 driver it's pretty easy beating a legacy Hornet by fighting in the vertical, whereas the Super Hornet is a different beast. Much more capable though still not up to the Viper's sustained turn radius/super energy retention..


The Hornet i.e. F/A-18 was a Multi-Role Strike Fighter from the start. Which, means that it would perform both Fighter and/or Strike Missions. Hence replacing both the A-7 Corsair II and F-4 Phantom....

There was never a dedicated attack version.


You're right that the US Navy Naval Fighter Attack Experimental program which culminated on the F/A-18 Hornet was Multi-Role in nature - You can also add the A-4 Skyhawk to the A-7 and F-4 to the list of aircraft meant to be replaced by this program.
However mixelflick is also right, when the Hornet (which was based on the YF-17 Cobra) was selected as the winner of the US Navy Naval Fighter Attack Experimental program, the initial plan was to have two variants of the aircraft, the F-18 which was a dedicated air-to-air fighter to complement the F-14 Tomcat and the A-18 which was a dedicated air-to-ground aircraft. Both the F-18 and the A-18 were based on the same airframe, however avionics and sensors were to be different. In the meanwhile there were big advances in electronics during that time period which lead to big/huge advances in avionics and sensors which meant that at that time it was already possible to put the avionics and sensors required for the air-to-air missions and the ones required for the air-to-ground missions in the same aircraft, which resulted in the F/A-18 name due to this reason :wink:


mixelflick wrote:Be that as it may, I've heard from more than 1 F-16 driver it's pretty easy beating a legacy Hornet by fighting in the vertical, whereas the Super Hornet is a different beast. Much more capable though still not up to the Viper's sustained turn radius/super energy retention..


Yes, the F-16 has the advantage in terms of energy maneuvering over the Hornet but saying that it's pretty easy for a F-16 to beat a Hornet is IMO a bold overstatement!

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 26 Jan 2018, 18:23
by mixelflick
I thought I was right about the dedicated A-18/F-18 versions. If memory serves, Testors had an A-18 model I even built way back when. Whatever the case, it was a wise move to consolidate the two into the F/A-18. Cheaper to buy 1 testors model vs. 2 :)

Yes, I'll agree its a bold over-statement to say the F-16 can "easily" defeat any Hornet. Perhaps the pilots I ran into fought against inexperienced F-18 aircrews, I don't know. I've also heard where an F-16 pilot described "easily" beating 2 F-18's, albeit he quickly followed that up with "they were just 2 kids.."

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2018, 02:07
by tailgate
I never had a problem "beating" hornets. Legacy hornets just didn't have the "umph" to keep up with the 16 especially after bleeding energy after hard maneuvering. Better engines and the super solved allot of issues, but the advantage still went to the 16. There are some great articles written out there from some naval aviators stating how they owned the skies still flyin the 16 Nancy.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 08:11
by zero-one
tailgate wrote:I never had a problem "beating" hornets. Legacy hornets just didn't have the "umph" to keep up with the 16 especially after bleeding energy after hard maneuvering. Better engines and the super solved allot of issues, but the advantage still went to the 16. There are some great articles written out there from some naval aviators stating how they owned the skies still flyin the 16 Nancy.


Greetings Tailgate, just want to ask, did you go up against big motor (GE 404-402) Hornets? Because here's an interesting article from a Hornet/Rhino pilot. He says the big motor legacy is the best 18 for phonebooth scenarios.

In summary, if I had to choose which aircraft to dogfight in, I’d pick a “big motor” legacy Hornet, with it’s crisper maneuverability and enhanced thrust. However, both aircraft utilize the AIM-9X Sidewinder and Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), so as I usually say, it comes down to the “man in the box.”


https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fight ... er-hornet/

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 13:33
by madrat
From what I remember about readings covering development of the F/A-18, the difference was configurations and pilot training. However, it was the same aircraft. It was always multirole, whereas planes like F-4 were multipurpose. During the development phase the syllabi overlapping between the F-18 and A-18 made separate training moot.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 13:39
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:.


35 flew the big engine Hornets I would gather and commented they were impressive slick but also commented he thought the F-16A Block 15 he flew would beat it every time in a drag race.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 13:49
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:
35 flew the big engine Hornets I would gather and commented they were impressive slick but also commented he thought the F-16A Block 15 he flew would beat it every time in a drag race.


No surprise there, an F/A-18's ACM strength is in it's high AOA, slow speed handles and deceleration rates. No use trying to fight like an energy fighter.

It's weakness has always been it's E-M, but if you can minimize that weakness to a degree, then it might make the platform better at ACM overall. The Rhino was able to do that, but from what I hear, the big motor legacy had the best E-M among all Hornets.

Question is, how does it stack up? is it still meat on the table against F-16's in an energy fight, or does it give Vipers a challenge now?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 14:22
by sprstdlyscottsmn
A big motor Hornet is fairly comparable to a HAF block 52, which is several tons heavier than a Blk30, to say nothing of the little Blk 15.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 14:57
by tailgate
zero-one wrote:
tailgate wrote:I never had a problem "beating" hornets. Legacy hornets just didn't have the "umph" to keep up with the 16 especially after bleeding energy after hard maneuvering. Better engines and the super solved allot of issues, but the advantage still went to the 16. There are some great articles written out there from some naval aviators stating how they owned the skies still flyin the 16 Nancy.


Greetings Tailgate, just want to ask, did you go up against big motor (GE 404-402) Hornets? Because here's an interesting article from a Hornet/Rhino pilot. He says the big motor legacy is the best 18 for phonebooth scenarios.

In summary, if I had to choose which aircraft to dogfight in, I’d pick a “big motor” legacy Hornet, with it’s crisper maneuverability and enhanced thrust. However, both aircraft utilize the AIM-9X Sidewinder and Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS), so as I usually say, it comes down to the “man in the box.”


https://fightersweep.com/5334/ask-fight ... er-hornet/



Maybe 35_AoA can help out here.......from my experience the "big motor" did add power and control. I think even though the block 50 gained "weight", the additional power was more offset (GE-129) than the Super Hornet. The hornet, all variants, had outstanding nose authority and had the unusual tendency to bring its nose "round' on you if you weren't careful. Had to really stay away from his front quarter. And with off boresight, it got worse....lol

My feeling in the block 50 F-16, is that i always had the power advantage. And that is big. Compared, The 16 just has that acceleration factor especially in ACM. It's a rocket. I felt that even when I got myself into a sit, maybe low or slow, that i could always "power' out of it quickly. Energy regain and retention was amazing.

Of course I've never been in a hornet, but I would have to say that it did possess outstanding low speed capability, Im just not sure how many aviators would want to catch themselves there. Maybe 35_AoA can shed some light on the "acceleration" factor between the different engine types in the hornet. I only spent a few years in the Viper, but some veterans of the jet said that the motor upgrades drastically improved the performance rates in the Viper, I'll take their word for it..........

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 15:22
by basher54321
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:A big motor Hornet is fairly comparable to a HAF block 52, which is several tons heavier than a Blk30, to say nothing of the little Blk 15.


For late 80s Block 15 OCUs think more Block 32 airframe - assuming the Navy didn't lighten those.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 16:03
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
Question is, how does it stack up? is it still meat on the table against F-16's in an energy fight, or does it give Vipers a challenge now?



Considering the 402 engines were going in from the early 1990s(?) I didn't think this extra power was such a new revelation thus was not surprised when 35_aoa stated what he did (ties up with other pilot comments).

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 16:21
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:Considering the 402 engines were going in from the early 1990s(?) I didn't think this extra power was such a new revelation thus was not surprised when 35_aoa stated what he did (ties up with other pilot comments).


Got me thinking for a bit, the Hornet seemed like the perfect multi role platform if they just slapped on bigger motors on it. Why didn't they just do that. nose pointing goodness with all the smash the Viper has....why not

Oh but they did, its called the F-35

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 17:06
by basher54321
Adding thrust usually means degradation in range/endurance (with same fuel/airframe) - and if so what is more important or what is even acceptable at the end of the day.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 31 Jan 2018, 22:25
by mtrman
zero-one wrote:So we always hear that a Hornet pilot fighting an energy fighter like a Viper, an Eagle or a Fulcrum should force the fight into a slow speed, high AOA fight. Vise versa for Viper who should force the fight into a high speed, high G maneuvers.

So if its not classified I'd like to ask?

1. How do you force someone to go fast? I mean I can see how the Hornet could force someone to go slow by forcing the other guy to overshoot. But how does someone force another to stay fast or go faster.



2. What happens when you go on a neutral merge with a super maneuverable plane (i.e Raptor, Flanker) that can fight both fast and slow? Do you wait for him to move first?


Gentlemen, while reading the thread, I noticed that the two great questions of "zero-one" were left without answers. The second question may be a bit complicated, I don't know. But I also wonder the answer of the first question.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 02:05
by rheonomic
Engineer, not a pilot, but I feel like specific ACM tactics and techniques are best left for the vault.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 02:06
by f-16adf
The fighter pilots on here can answer this one the best.


However, I actually asked CDR Chesire an almost identical question a few years back. He, being an F-14A Tomcat pilot, said that "I don't ever recall going into a fight less than 450 or 500kts indicated. However, we did not want to get any faster, unless we just wanted to blow through and disengage."

Keeping the speed up at the merge to start turning into your opponent, is what I believe was the underlying meaning here. Obviously, hard turning equates into bleeding airspeed and going downhill (losing altitude).

Also, In the 1981 Su-22 Fitter incident, Lt. Larry "Music" Muczynski said that he and his Commander (CDR. Kleemann) had to "go to zone five afterburner to get our speed up to about 500 knots." he further added: "At this time I was coming 'down the hill' (he was initially at 26-28,000ft) and was doing a hard turn closing in behind the leader." Lt. Muczynski then fired an Aim-9L and destroyed the Su-22 at 20,000ft.

But remember we are dealing with F-14's here, not other "teen series" jets. However the 500KIAS number said by the 2 pilots seems to give an important clue here.




I guess as the old saying goes.... "speed is life."






Lt.(now CDR.) Muczynski has an interview here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjDTGS4BDmU

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 02:25
by tailgate
mtrman wrote:
zero-one wrote:So we always hear that a Hornet pilot fighting an energy fighter like a Viper, an Eagle or a Fulcrum should force the fight into a slow speed, high AOA fight. Vise versa for Viper who should force the fight into a high speed, high G maneuvers.

So if its not classified I'd like to ask?

1. How do you force someone to go fast? I mean I can see how the Hornet could force someone to go slow by forcing the other guy to overshoot. But how does someone force another to stay fast or go faster.



2. What happens when you go on a neutral merge with a super maneuverable plane (i.e Raptor, Flanker) that can fight both fast and slow? Do you wait for him to move first?


Gentlemen, while reading the thread, I noticed that the two great questions of "zero-one" were left without answers. The second question may be a bit complicated, I don't know. But I also wonder the answer of the first question.


Getting someone to go fast is not the issue, at the merge, everybody is already there. You are not gonna slow down. Energy retention is vital in acm. If you are anything other than 1v1, it’ll be quick fight. Even then, 1v1, I don’t know a pilot out there that’s slow ....on purpose....jmho

Again speed and energy are key here, it’s first maneuver against first maneuver. Me.....15/16, I’m pulling you vertical to take advantage of power and off boresight.....in the 22, I’m taking you vertical with speed and power, where I have tons extra to burn.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 07:49
by zero-one
tailgate wrote: I don’t know a pilot out there that’s slow ....on purpose....jmho



But I always thought Hornet pilots deliberately wanted to go slow.

A good Hornet pilot will take the fight downhill, try to get slow, and use his superior maneuverability to bleed the Viper down into his wheelhouse – a close-in knife fight at slow speed. If he tries to take the fight uphill or flat, the F-16’s superior rate and thrust to weight ratio will prevail.


https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs ... part-four/

By the way,i just wanted to say, We really appreciate all your insights tailgate, thanks for taking the time.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 15:37
by mtrman
Thanks for the answers.

By the way, I think this is the key answer for the first question:

tailgate wrote:... Getting someone to go fast is not the issue, at the merge, everybody is already there. You are not gonna slow down.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 16:45
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:But I always thought Hornet pilots deliberately wanted to go slow.



That is describing a situation where he is trying to force mistakes out of the F-16 pilot - a good pilot shouldn't get into that situation.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 17:46
by ricnunes
tailgate wrote:I never had a problem "beating" hornets. Legacy hornets just didn't have the "umph" to keep up with the 16 especially after bleeding energy after hard maneuvering. Better engines and the super solved allot of issues, but the advantage still went to the 16. There are some great articles written out there from some naval aviators stating how they owned the skies still flyin the 16 Nancy.


tailgate wrote:Maybe 35_AoA can help out here.......from my experience the "big motor" did add power and control. I think even though the block 50 gained "weight", the additional power was more offset (GE-129) than the Super Hornet. The hornet, all variants, had outstanding nose authority and had the unusual tendency to bring its nose "round' on you if you weren't careful. Had to really stay away from his front quarter. And with off boresight, it got worse....lol


First of all, thanks for sharing your opinion and experiences.

By reading your posts and namely those two parts that I quoted above, I get the impression that if you fight with Guns only (or in older times, rear-aspect missiles) that the F-16 will indeed have a considerable advantage over the Hornet since and due to its higher energy the F-16 pilot can choose when, where and even if he/she wants to engage.
But the tables seem to somehow turn (or at least making things much more difficult for the F-16) when we're taking about engagements with all-aspect missile (such as the AIM-9M and later the -X) since the Hornet will likely manage to point its nose first and thus the Hornet pilot is more likely to make a first successful shot.

Could you confirm or dismiss my assessment?
And by the way, did your engagements against Hornets included Guns (and/or rear-aspect missiles) only or they also included all-aspect missiles?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 18:26
by basher54321
jbgator has discussed in the past - any jet killing all its energy to get the nose on was often suicide - and you still had to meet parameters for AIM-9L/M.

AIM-9X is a different story but both have HMS so nose pointing not required - sounds like mutual suicide :P

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 19:04
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:AIM-9X is a different story but both have HMS so nose pointing not required - sounds like mutual suicide :P


Not required but likely preffered. Most fighters are only configured to carry 2 9Xs. I really don't think a HOBS shot would be a pilot's first option, given a choice.

Thats also what puzzles me a bit, to me, a hornet's job should be easy in WVR,

Get to your corner speed which I hear is around 300 KCAS, a hornet also decelerates faster than any American fighter, so this should not take too long I think.

point your nose with that world beating slow speed maneuverability, get the target within your engagement zone then Fox 2.

Its a low off boarsite shot and if you end up slow, use the Turbo nose down logic (if you are a Rhino) to gain back E.

But then again, I've never flown anything weiging more than 50 grams so this is all just Nerd talk and theory. But thats why I'm perplexed at how Viper drivers beat Hornet guys even when they can literally point and shoot their way out of a furball.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 19:09
by ricnunes
zero-one wrote:
basher54321 wrote:AIM-9X is a different story but both have HMS so nose pointing not required - sounds like mutual suicide :P


Not required but likely preffered. Most fighters are only configured to carry 2 9Xs. I really don't think a HOBS shot would be a pilot's first option, given a choice.


Precisely.
And even a missile with HOBS capability will have far better chance to hit an enemy aircraft when this same enemy aircraft is within the frontal aspect of the launching aircraft compared with if the enemy aircraft is within the side or rear aspects of the launching aircraft.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 20:32
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:
basher54321 wrote:AIM-9X is a different story but both have HMS so nose pointing not required - sounds like mutual suicide :P


Not required but likely preffered. Most fighters are only configured to carry 2 9Xs. I really don't think a HOBS shot would be a pilot's first option, given a choice.
point your nose with that world beating slow speed maneuverability, get the target within your engagement zone then Fox 2.



The context is or was 1v1 BFM in which case I get the impression they don't waste fuel simulating HOBs missiles for this - pilots might not learn much BFM.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 20:36
by basher54321
ricnunes wrote:Precisely.
And even a missile with HOBS capability will have far better chance to hit an enemy aircraft when this same enemy aircraft is within the frontal aspect of the launching aircraft compared with if the enemy aircraft is within the side or rear aspects of the launching aircraft.


So who is in the better position - the guy at 80kts with an incoming missile or the guy at 380kts who went HOBs? - probably neither :D

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 20:47
by tailgate
ricnunes wrote:
tailgate wrote:I never had a problem "beating" hornets. Legacy hornets just didn't have the "umph" to keep up with the 16 especially after bleeding energy after hard maneuvering. Better engines and the super solved allot of issues, but the advantage still went to the 16. There are some great articles written out there from some naval aviators stating how they owned the skies still flyin the 16 Nancy.


tailgate wrote:Maybe 35_AoA can help out here.......from my experience the "big motor" did add power and control. I think even though the block 50 gained "weight", the additional power was more offset (GE-129) than the Super Hornet. The hornet, all variants, had outstanding nose authority and had the unusual tendency to bring its nose "round' on you if you weren't careful. Had to really stay away from his front quarter. And with off boresight, it got worse....lol


First of all, thanks for sharing your opinion and experiences.

By reading your posts and namely those two parts that I quoted above, I get the impression that if you fight with Guns only (or in older times, rear-aspect missiles) that the F-16 will indeed have a considerable advantage over the Hornet since and due to its higher energy the F-16 pilot can choose when, where and even if he/she wants to engage.
But the tables seem to somehow turn (or at least making things much more difficult for the F-16) when we're taking about engagements with all-aspect missile (such as the AIM-9M and later the -X) since the Hornet will likely manage to point its nose first and thus the Hornet pilot is more likely to make a first successful shot.

Could you confirm or dismiss my assessment?
And by the way, did your engagements against Hornets included Guns (and/or rear-aspect missiles) only or they also included all-aspect missiles?



Guns is mano e mano.........you against the other guy. I like the Viper in guns only wvr. I spoke to the advantages.

It was never really intended for BVR, but the AMRAAM gives it a robust long range engagement capability.

I think in any scenario today you're gonna have to get by the BVR shots first. If you survive this, and the other guy LETS you close, then SRM and guns will be the option. If memory serves, I was always "taken out" long before the WVR occurred in allot of instances.

In my opinion, the 16 possess' little VLO or "stealth", however, you would be surprised how small a CS it has. I had difficulty sometimes picking the 16 up when in Eagles and Raptors, specifically down low it tends to blend in or get caught in the clutter.

The most difficult thing to me engaging the 16 WVR is that it is hard keep it in sight. Having fought with and against, the thing just seems to bounce around the sky.

The 9X gives you that expanded engagement envelope and allows for shots without wrenching your aircraft as much now, but it still has to be fired within that envelope. In theory anyway, you could possibly cause a missle to maneuver itself out of energy thus hindering ts ability to home for the kill. I probably wouldn't like to test that.

As far as low energy Hornets, It doesn't happen unless its new "sticks" who get themselves sideways......lol. Low speed in ACM will get you dead quickly..........

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 01 Feb 2018, 22:28
by ricnunes
tailgate wrote:
Guns is mano e mano.........you against the other guy. I like the Viper in guns only wvr. I spoke to the advantages.

It was never really intended for BVR, but the AMRAAM gives it a robust long range engagement capability.

I think in any scenario today you're gonna have to get by the BVR shots first. If you survive this, and the other guy LETS you close, then SRM and guns will be the option. If memory serves, I was always "taken out" long before the WVR occurred in allot of instances.

In my opinion, the 16 possess' little VLO or "stealth", however, you would be surprised how small a CS it has. I had difficulty sometimes picking the 16 up when in Eagles and Raptors, specifically down low it tends to blend in or get caught in the clutter.

The most difficult thing to me engaging the 16 WVR is that it is hard keep it in sight. Having fought with and against, the thing just seems to bounce around the sky.

The 9X gives you that expanded engagement envelope and allows for shots without wrenching your aircraft as much now, but it still has to be fired within that envelope. In theory anyway, you could possibly cause a missle to maneuver itself out of energy thus hindering ts ability to home for the kill. I probably wouldn't like to test that.

As far as low energy Hornets, It doesn't happen unless its new "sticks" who get themselves sideways......lol. Low speed in ACM will get you dead quickly..........


Once again thanks for your insight :thumb:

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 01:21
by jbgator
Wow, you guys are way over analyzing and therefore over simplifying a complex question. I can never get over the fixation with WVR fighting with you guys when that is mostly building block stuff in training and last-ditch stuff in real life. Where do I start? First to the question of what do you do when you look over at a 5th Gen (call it Raptor) passing your 3/9 line in a fight? First, MOA wars or real war? When you're afraid of dying I think you will do differently. Most of what fighter pilots will talk to you about are MOA wars. Clean jets, nobody dies, the ultimate game. But little of it fits a real world merge in combat which most have not experienced. If I looked over at a Raptor passing my 3/9 and he was an enemy who could ultimately kill me today, not win the debrief, I'm not sure I wouldn't run like a MF thanking my lucky stars that I was still alive. I don't have time to ask myself why? Is he winchester? Did his ID fail and he had to VID? Does he have a wingman? Do I have a wingman? Do we all have sight of each other? How am I configured, how is he? In the time I asked myself those questions we went from 3/9 passage to 2+ miles apart if we did nothing. If we turned we are both through 180+ degrees of turn. No time for that sh*t. So in training you try to figure these things out so you already have some idea what to do. Most of us are pre-programmed to turn, not run. So he's a bad a$$, I'm still alive, and he could have some big stuff to put in my face. I would keep him close. One circle turn all the jet can give me. After that I am just reacting cause he holds all the cards.

You ask how you get someone slow or keep them up high....you can't. All you can do is try to drive the fight. You try to make him make a mistake. If I meet a Hornet that wants to get slow and low I stay high. Not go up....just level energy sustaining turn. If he wants to dive for the dirt and get slow he gives me vertical turning room and I use the energy I have sustained to go IDLE (yes pull power off in a phone booth) and use the smash to get a gun or missile on him quickly. If he recognizes he can't give me that room and stays high, guess who has more energy 360 degrees from now at this height? His only option is to cash it all in to threaten me and force me to turn harder. He cashes it all in on a low PK shot to try to influence my reaction. In MOA wars I don't really care. Like the Fulcrum, he may try to win the debrief with a Pk argument about his Slem but the reality is until we see millions of WSEP shots with 9X et Al I am not recommending any young aviator bet their a$$ on those shots. If he is a highly capable 4-5 gen jet with 4-5 gen missiles in a real conflict I might have to react differently. Cause I might die if I get it wrong.

There are 1,000,000 variations in a 3D environment. How you react is based on your training and experience. And are you afraid of dying or losing the debrief? In the end, most engagements are decided before you ever see the other guy, in MOA wars or real combat. The only way you train for that is by artificially eliminating all the pre-merge permutations to do some standard BFM setups. You never talk about how you got to that spot, how many things didn't happen to get you there, just what to do when you get there. Perch setups, high aspect setups, they all have artificialities introduced. Guns only and heaters only is mostly old school stuff and wasn't done much even when I quit flying in 2005. They are done to achieve that artificiality of a situation where somehow you survived to be in this 9,000 perch setup. That may be more of a requirement now with the HOBS missiles. Navy and Marine Hornets loved to do 3,000 line abreast setups at 300 knots. Why? Because it favored them in initial move. Never did they explain how it was that we arrived at such a start point for an engagement. You had to work hard at it but you could beat them in that situation because you had more zoom capability. But you got very slow in the F-16 and that required finesse to avoid departure, and the horn would be blaring like a MF which might get you in trouble if it went on too long. As a young LT-Capt I didn't have that and struggled with those setups. Later it almost always resulted in the Hornet getting gunned. Especially against an inexperienced Hornet driver. Better, worse? You tell me. It was all games. Meet up with a Bad Guy flown Hornet in a real world situation, both of you loaded up with tanks and bombs and the whole thing would be different. But you are both equally disadvantaged so the clean fight stuff at least gave you a starting point, and get that sh*t off the jet as fast as you can.

So I don't really give a shinola what the F-35 can do in phone booth as much as I care what it can do at 40+ miles. Will it get there on rare occasions? Sure, but I think the pilot's training and the jets capability will set it up pretty well. Which jet is better? Which one did you fly last? It's all bar talk built on MOA wars BFM. Might earn you a free beer....or as I have seen on occasion a punch in the nose. Doesn't matter. Ask any fighter pilot if they were flying off into the MOA today and might not come back alive which jet they would rather be flying. If they took the question seriously you might get a different answer than normal bar talk. Me, I would take an F-22 or F-35. You can have your Euro Canards, SUs and MiGs, Chinese fantasy jets, and every 4+ gen jet out there. Just my old-guy opinion.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 02:47
by Meteor
What JB said...

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 06:33
by MVSGas
f-16adf wrote:My point is (which many other jet forum websites seem unable to comprehend) that there are many different versions (blocks of F-16). And since some are heavier than others, some are more powerful than others---..... they have different performance metrics. It's as simple as that.



When people are comparing Jet X to an F-16. Okay, what type of F-16?


If one jet is at 50% fuel, why would I want to compare it to another at 60% fuel? That is rather illogical (especially when dealing with info from an EM diagram). Hence the results become skewed-

Would you be OK with me quoting you every time I see a F-16 comparison online? I lost count how many time I try to convey this and people don't seem to get it.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 18:24
by zero-one
jbgator wrote:Wow, you guys are way over analyzing and therefore over simplifying a complex question. I can never get over the fixation with WVR fighting with you guys when that is mostly building block stuff in training and last-ditch stuff in real life.


Easy there buddiee, its simply because WVR is intresting thats all. We know its not the norm, we know that it will likely be rare in today's network centric battlefield. We get all that. But what else do you want to talk about in these forums?

How tailgate detected a simulated bandit from 140 miles out in his F-22, engaged him 70 miles out and poof, simulated kill. Wow, the guy, never even knew what hit em. Yawn, I bet he could've been eating a sandwich in the cockpit and the result would have been pretty much the same.

Im sure you've seen the History channel series "dogfights" and honestly what episodes would you rather watch, the one where Giora Epstein went against 5 or 6 migs alone or the one where a formation of 4 F-15s took down a formation of
3 Mig-23s and creamed them from BVR without even leaving formation. The latter was probably the most boring war story I've ever heared.

BVR is the reality, everyone knows that, but its literally submarine warfare, nothing to see, not much to talk about.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 19:20
by f-16adf
MVSGas,

Sure, no problem.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 19:30
by jbgator
Zero,

I will use your own words as my response:

But then again, I've never flown anything weiging more than 50 grams so this is all just Nerd talk and theory. But thats why I'm perplexed at how Viper drivers beat Hornet guys even when they can literally point and shoot their way out of a furball.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 02 Feb 2018, 23:49
by popcorn
jbgator wrote:
There are 1,000,000 variations in a 3D environment.


Thanks for your insights gator. A long time ago I read a quote describing air combat as an "analog infinity" and it's been a meme ever since.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 11:04
by zero-one
jbgator wrote:Zero,

I will use your own words as my response:



I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, but thank you... I guess. Point is you can't force people to talk about things that are boring just because its more likely. So, we're sorry if you find us fixated on a less likely scenario.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 11:52
by zero-one
tailgate wrote:.in the 22, I’m taking you vertical with speed and power, where I have tons extra to burn.



Interesting, I noticed that your BFM tactics on the 22 seem awfully similar to your tactics on the Eagle. not surprised because the ATF's maneuvering requirements were heavily influence by the Eagle,

but are there any unique Raptor tactics that you use as well. I'm curious cause when you go in DACT with an Eagle, both of you are going vertical, is the Raptor's advantage in the vertical so overwhelming that you can basically beat the Eagle in his own game or do you tend to take advanatge of the Raptor's unique kinematic advantages

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 15:25
by mixelflick
I have heard and seen reference to the F-22's performance in the vertical being (in a word) astounding. There is no doubt it's head and shoulders above even the F-15...

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 17:38
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:
basher54321 wrote:AIM-9X is a different story but both have HMS so nose pointing not required - sounds like mutual suicide :P


Not required but likely preffered. Most fighters are only configured to carry 2 9Xs. I really don't think a HOBS shot would be a pilot's first option, given a choice.

Thats also what puzzles me a bit, to me, a hornet's job should be easy in WVR,

Get to your corner speed which I hear is around 300 KCAS, a hornet also decelerates faster than any American fighter, so this should not take too long I think.

point your nose with that world beating slow speed maneuverability, get the target within your engagement zone then Fox 2.

Its a low off boarsite shot and if you end up slow, use the Turbo nose down logic (if you are a Rhino) to gain back E.

But then again, I've never flown anything weiging more than 50 grams so this is all just Nerd talk and theory. But thats why I'm perplexed at how Viper drivers beat Hornet guys even when they can literally point and shoot their way out of a furball.


F-16s defeat F-18s on the way down to your scenario. By being able to turn tighter for longer at higher speed they usually get an advantageous position first. Of course if they haven't by the time speeds are well under 300 knots they might be in trouble as turn rates and radius have got less for both with the F-18 still having a considerable high AoA ability in its pocket ready to use at the death. This is why it is fundamentally a question of discipline for rate/energy fighters, they can't prematurely bleed off their speed and energy for the sake of a few extra degrees of instantaneous manoeuvrability otherwise they lead themselves vulnerable when close to stall speeds.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 17:46
by f-16adf
I have seen Block 52's and and F/A-18C's turn on the same day. The F-16 easily wins the rate, the Hornet wins the radius, but not by much. It's really an insignificant margin.

As JB said, they have one good move then they are slow ducks......read his old posts. He flew fighters for over 20+ years, he knows what he is talking about-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 18:21
by marsavian
zero-one wrote:So we always hear that a Hornet pilot fighting an energy fighter like a Viper, an Eagle or a Fulcrum should force the fight into a slow speed, high AOA fight. Vise versa for Viper who should force the fight into a high speed, high G maneuvers.

So if its not classified I'd like to ask?

1. How do you force someone to go fast? I mean I can see how the Hornet could force someone to go slow by forcing the other guy to overshoot. But how does someone force another to stay fast or go faster.

2. What happens when you go on a neutral merge with a super maneuverable plane (i.e Raptor, Flanker) that can fight both fast and slow? Do you wait for him to move first?


1. By going fast yourself thereby inviting the opponent to follow otherwise he risks being at a low energy Ps state making him vulnerable to fast slashing attacks on re-engagement.

2. Positioning becomes key against a fighter that can out turn and out accelerate you. Complicated 3D maneouvering that involves constant change of direction while retaining energy in the hope of making a passing shot count. Only the best most intelligent pilots would survive.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:02
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:
hummingbird wrote:I'll take the actual performance figures over your "calculations" thank you, and here the F-14 is the clear winner (hence it's significantly smaller turn radius of 1,500 ft @ 10,000 ft).

I wish it was my or Spurt calculations but it was NASA's who delivered the CLmax from real world measurement. What we did is multiply it with references wing area and speed to draw the curve.There is less room for error than you extrapolate from E-M graph.
As for turn radius, it is calculated with STR rather than ITR


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.

Here's an illustration of the minimum radius at each aircraft's max rate of turn based directly on the official EM charts:
Image

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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:27
by rheonomic
Wow, so if you fly M0.2 slower you can turn tighter? Who would've thought that?!

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 20:44
by f-16adf
That's a pretty drawing.

Does the USAF fly any HAF Block 50 or 52's? The answer is no.


The USAF operates one squadron of Block 52's (SCANG). 2 squadrons of Block 42's with -229 IPE motor (OKANG, OHANG). All are lighter than the HAF 52 jet. And I have already proved that by the (non HAF) weight chart which I posted. And the (non HAF) chart of a standard USAF Block 52 at 10K and DI of 50 which is posted earlier in this thread.

Obviously you and your buddies don't understand weight differences between various F-16 Blocks. Nor do you understand the GW effect/turn rate adjustment chart (why do you think the T.O. provides for it?), nor do you understand the difference between a Plateau and a Spike. (read JBGator's post on it)

It's very simiple: The lighter the jet= improved performace.

As with my earlier Non HAF Chart, a USAF Block 52 has far more internal fuel than the HAF Viper, Same goes for the Block 42 with the Pratt 229. Guess what, it's the same exact jet (physically) yet substantially lighter. The USAF Block 52 is loaded with 61% internal fuel, the USAF Block 42 is loaded with 71% internal fuel.

Adjust the Block 42 for 50% internal fuel and it nearly dominates the Tomcat.

Here is the Block 42 vs F-14B comparison:

The blue line is the Tomcat, the Black line above the old Ps=0 is the new adjusted F-16 sustained turn rate. Both lines terminate at Mach 1.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:05
by f-16adf
And let me ask you this. You guys posted the "Abbostford 1986" air show F-14 demo as the "supposed" best. Sorry, it's not. I have already posted an F/A-18A of the RCAF at the same airshow (Abbostford 1986) as the Tomcat. And it beats the Tomcat's turn by over a degree. And the Canadian Hornet is flying with a centerline external fuel tank. Or are you going to seriously imply that it has a smaller turn radius against the Hornet? Completely laughable....

here's the link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgO6rhyA2FA



And if the Tomcat is such a great turner, please show me one demo of it completing a 360 turn in less than 19 seconds, or 18 seconds, or 17 seconds, or 16 seconds, or equaling Solo Turk's 15 second time. Oh, that's right there are none-






And lets read what CDR Nawrocki had to say about the F-16N vs F-14D:

"I was flying in VF-126 (Bandits) when we got the F-16N. Prior to that, I made 2 cruises in VF-114 in the F-14A, and went through NFWS while in the F-14. I have over 1000 hours in the F-14A. Typically, we would go out and fight F-14's, or F-18's and, after they left we would fight each other, guns only. It was very common to go to the full 9.3 G's regularly, particularly when we fought each other. I once pulled 10 G's and it wasn't a write up if the FBW let you. The F-14 and the F-18 were no match for the F-16N. Not even close. But you have to understand that the F-16N was not at a real combat load. No drop tanks, no weapons hanging from hard points, the most aft CG of any F-16 model and big GE engines, a TACTS pod on one wing and a captive AIM-9 on the other really put it in a class by itself. I also fought the F-14D and it was no contest past the merge in a 1V1. Now, the F-14 could shoot you in the lips at long range, but we are only talking close in fighting."




So here we have it from a Naval Aviator who flew the Tomcat, Viper, Scooter, and Crusader. I will trust Mr. Nawrocki's view of this issue over a bunch of kids who probably were not even born when TOPGUN came out back in 1986.


Read this by CDR Nawrocki:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53704
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=60




And here is a demo of a F-14D back from 1991 (it has a 360 turn and high alpha pass).... If the F-14D is so great how come I'm not seeing it? It's the same old almost lethargic near boring display as all the rest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6dnYnKEfeA






And what did the French say of the F-14D when they fought it back in 2002?

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/pages/do ... IfMyo.99:i

Faced with the F-14 and F-18C (USS Stennis and Roosevelt) in 2002

Rafale kill on F-14D.jpg


F-14 in the HUD of a Rafale
Just operational in the Flotilla 12F, the Rafale battle against the F-14 Tomcat and F-18 Hornet in Basic Fighter Maneuvering (BFM) measurements:



Translated from French:

"... Against the Tomcat, it's a real butcher's shop ... The Rafale is incomparably more manageable than the heavy F-14 and we take advantage of the commitment ..."

"... in the face of the F-18, the task is more complicated but thanks to the flight controls, the weight / thrust ratio and its low wing load, it quickly shows its superiority ... The fighting often starts at 10000 ft and 400 kts to finish at 5000 ft and 150 kts ... The Rafale is very agile, especially at low speed ... "

Source Air Fan n ° 282


The article of Rafale M vs F-14D, F-18C was also in an issue of Combat Aircraft from late 2002. I use to have that issue but seemed to have either lost it or misplaced it.



But, It sure seems the Rafale pilots thought the F/A-18C was far more of a challenge. Let me guess, the French pilots are full of BS and you armchair DCS guys know the real score?




I understand you guys like the Tomcat, but the inaccuracies are becoming almost laughable-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:47
by hummingbird
What's laughable is when airshow demos are used as ultimate proof of max turn performance. The abbotsford video shows the F-14 in a sustained turn with a low entry speed, and it kept going for several circles keeping within the ~19 secs, which was a record.

Also had you payed attention I used the GE 129 chart for the F-16C, not the PW one.

Either way you're welcome to believe what you want to believe. I am only interested in reality, and here the F-14 has a clear advantage in ITR & radius over the F-15 & F-16, regardless of wether it's a HAF or USAAF F-16.

The french opinion is of no interest as they fought F-14's constrained by a 6.5 G limit, something you wouldn't be constrained by in real combat, and they no doubt used the vertical plane to good effect as well.

Either way you'll be able to experience it for yourself once Heatblur's F-14B DCS module is out.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:51
by f-16adf
Sorry, you are lying. The RCAF Hornet (with an external tank) beat the Tomcat. I have already proved it.

If airshow demos are so inaccurate, than why does your website post them?



Guess what the HAF Block 50 is 700lbs heavier than the USAF Block 50. I have already posted that weight chart as well.


And are you going to seriously imply the F-14D can beat a Big Inlet Block 30? The Block 30 beats all other Viper versions and will destroy the Tomcat.



More lies, about the "G" limits. The Tomcat had near laughable low G limits(in the 4-5G range) in the late 70's, mid 80's, and later 1990's. Sure it had no limiter but it was nominally a 6.5-7G jet.


AND IF COMBAT IS YOUR SOLE CRITERION, LETS SEE WHAT A TOMCAT AVIATOR WHO ACTUALLY FLEW ONE IN COMBAT HAD TO SAY?????

When IN COMBAT according to LT. Larry "Music" Muczynski he PULLED A 7G TURN.

Here it is from his own words:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjDTGS4BDmU


Notice he DOESN'T SAY 9G. AND HE IS IN ACTUAL COMBAT :D


If you think that I'm lying why don't you email CDR John Chesire (he flew the F-14A from 1976-1990) and get his opinion of actual Tomcat G limits. I did.
His website is Flitetime.net

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:55
by hummingbird
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".

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 21:58
by f-16adf
"your" facts are all lies.

It seems like you are attracted to the Tomcat dare I say?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 22:06
by hummingbird
Image

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 03 Feb 2018, 22:25
by 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-

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 02:38
by eloise
hummingbird wrote: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.
hummingbird wrote: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.

hummingbird wrote: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

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 05:27
by garrya
f-16adf wrote: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?
Image

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.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 12:13
by hummingbird
eloise wrote: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.

Eloise wrote: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.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 18:14
by eloise
hummingbird wrote: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.
Image
Image

hummingbird wrote: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

hummingbird wrote: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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 18:41
by 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.
Image

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 19:47
by 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.

Greek HAF - Copy.jpg

F-16C Block 50 early weight DI.jpg






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.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 21:24
by hummingbird
eloise wrote: 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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 22:25
by 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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 22:50
by f-16adf
Here is Lt. Larry "Music" Muczynksi's interview back in 1982.


Music 1.jpg
Music 2.jpg
Music 3.jpg
Music 4.jpg
Music 5.jpg






Here is his later interview on video:

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

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 23:49
by 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."

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 04 Feb 2018, 23:58
by 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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:20
by hummingbird
As for Muczynski's incident:

Image

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:31
by 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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:35
by 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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:37
by f-16adf
The Tomcat CANNOT DO A SUSTAINED 7G TURN AT 25,000 FT.

READ THE CHARTS-


Music said he was going downhill.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:42
by hummingbird
WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT A SUSTAINED TURN ?

For the last time: We're talking about ITR & radius, NOT STR!

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:50
by f-16adf
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 00:57
by f-16adf
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 01:21
by hummingbird
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..

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 01:41
by f-16adf
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 01:49
by hummingbird
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:
Image

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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 02:06
by f-16adf
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 02:35
by hummingbird
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 03:49
by madrat
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 04:49
by f-16adf
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?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 09:32
by hummingbird
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 10:29
by zero-one
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

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 12:16
by f-16adf
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-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 12:37
by f-16adf
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 12:51
by f-16adf
Zero, ask yourself why the Raptor was cancelled, HUM........

Because Barack Obama (who many in the US and around the world think is the second coming of Jesus Christ) wanted the US defense budget cut as far as possible for his social welfare programs. What did Obama pass in 2010????? Do you arm chair kids on this site (and on Picard 1-7, Eagles.ru, Airliners.net, Forums, and all the other Horse Sh*t sites) even remember????

THE SO CALLED ACA (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT) AKA OBAMA CARE!

I have been paying taxes in this country since I was 16 years old. Quite frankly, I do not need a bunch of egotistical European punk kids to tell me the Rubics of my country.

Obama increase the welfare roles, increased the disability roles. And remember all the supposed "IF YOU LIKE YOUR DOCTOR, YOU CAN KEEP HIM" talk? OR THE SUPPOSED $2,400 SAVINGS IN YEARLY PREMIUM DEDUCTIBLES THAT HIS "AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT" WAS TO GIVE US? The resultant is that Health Care costs have increased, and continue to, duh-



I have health insurance provided by my employer, yet my premiums and out of pockets have increased for over 2 years in a row.



So once again, if you people want to continue this game. Go ahead, but realize the US is broke.


Seriously, I don't need the lecture-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 13:09
by madrat
Amen.

(I grew up next door to SAC, if that is clue enough.)

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 13:38
by zero-one
f-16adf wrote:Quite frankly, I do not need a bunch of egotistical European punk kids to tell me the Rubics of my country.


Not European as well, sorry, I'm Asian to keep you from guessing. I'm from an allied country, so take your guess there, Japan, S.Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand maybe. :mrgreen:

Anyway, you guys don't know how great you have it. The Raptor was never canceled, it was reduced, so were the EF, Rafale, Grippen, Su-27 and Mig-29 orders, they were all canceled.....errr reduced

Imagine if you switched AFs with the UK, you only had a few hundred EFs which is not as good as their premier air superiority fighter, 1 carrier which is smaller then theirs and you needed their help so you can get in the whole stealth game.

But even then you wouldn't be considered broke.

lets switch you again with China, ahhhh yes mighty china that had to buy an old dilapidated Russian aircraft carrying cruiser and promise not to make it a Carrier but then had to break that promise (because thats what the Chinese gov does) and make it a carrier just to get into the carrier game. Oh a massive bulk of your Air force is also made up of 3rd generation Russian copies, nearly all your 4th gens are Russian copies and your only operational 5th gen is obviously a copy from your Rival across the Pacific.

But even then you're still not broke.

Let me tell you what broke looks like.

Switch air forces with the Philippines. Yup they have 12 light advance trainers with secondary fighter capabilities (F/A-50s) serving as their primary air superiority and attack platforms. they got 12...Missiles? yup Aim-9Bs that don't work. Oh but don't worry, from what I hear their fleet will soon sky rocket to 36 and Aim-9Ls are already on order.

The Gripen is being evaluated but cost is an issue. Becasue the Gripen is quite expensive, thats right kids, the Gripen is too expensive for them.

They are so pathetic, that their government has no choice but to cozy up with china who is building artificial military bases as close as 13km away from them. And from what I hear, the president in that country would often say. "Theres nothing we can do, lets just try to get along"

THATS WHAT BROKE IS

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 13:53
by pmi
Also, why do you think all the Defense Contractors (McAir, GD, NA, Republic, etc) are no longer? Because there is no money....


Apologies for interrupting the ranting but the above is because the Consolidation Curve is a thing.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 17:29
by f-16adf
They consolidated, because of the end of the Cold War. Resulting from the subsequent defense draw down. So technically their survival depended on a "fatter" defense budget. With the recession of 1991 (anybody remember that?) and the last few years of Bush 41 and later Bill Clinton (the guy who said "I didn't create a 4 trillion dollar national debt") everything contracted.


As far as the F-22 is concerned: Barack Obama said the 22 was an exorbitant waste of money-
It was cancelled under him (Gates). The US Senate (democrat controlled) voted 58-40 to cancel it.

"Not only is this (cancellation) a major victory for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who lobbied strenuously (something he rarely does) to kill this program, and for President Barack Obama, who pledged to veto the defense bill if it contained a nickel for more F-22s."


And once again, remember what Obama did spend on back in 2009? Hum, any body remember????

The so called 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009' (ARRA) aka THE STIMULUS.
He spent nearly $800 billion and it didn't do jack sh*t.


His signature so called ACA came one year later. So somebody tell me exactly where the money is going to come from for more of: jet, tank, bomber, ship X,Y,Z while the US is still deployed around the world (and with then candidate Hillary Clinton calling for regime change in Syria)?

The US government is more and more focusing on entitlement program spending. Why, because it's all about votes. Why do you think the democrats want to give amnesty to nearly 10 million undocs aka illegals? Because in them they see millions more potential democrat votes. Where is the money going to come from for these people (SNAP, disability)? From our tax dollars-

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 19:20
by eloise
hummingbird wrote: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. 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.

I don't have any comprehension problem but you clearly have a memory problem, because these are the same arguments you brought up last time and were proven to be wrong.
a) There is a slight decrease in CLmax even before the deactivate point of slats and flaps, however, it is a steady decline so you will only realize once you draw the line and put the number in.
b) Both wings swept and flaps deactivate points change with altitude, so you can't use the 35k ft lift chart for sea level.
c) Lift charts at lower altitude were limited due to G-limits, and with point b above, there is need to extrapolation. Using the lift charts with deactivated maneuver device doesn't work either because it applies when both slats and flaps are deactivated.
hummingbird wrote: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 can't understand how you could be so blatantly dishonest and try to draw a false narrative while the graph is still in the open.
flaps.png

@35k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.86 ; partially extended between Mach 0.86 and Mach 0.87, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.87
@14k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.665 ; partially extended between Mach 0.665 and Mach 0.753, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.753
@sea level => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.51 ; partially extended between Mach 0.51 and Mach 0.58, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.58

There is ≈ 0.3 Mach differences between deactivate points of flaps @sea level and @35k ft

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 19:22
by hummingbird
f-16adf wrote: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.


By all accounts the F-14 actually got lighter as the old bulky electronics were exhanged with lighter newer ones less susceptible to the vibrations of carrier take off & landings. Also the AA load out remained the same. In addition to this a DFCS was added which further enhanced maneuverability.

As for the F-16C, I quoted the basic aircraft weight with pilot of the GE 129 equipped version which is listed as 20,100 lbs for the Blk 50/52, i.e. ready to go only missing the fuel & ordnance.

Now if you have an official chart that lists a lower basic aircraft weight you're welcome to post it. Using the words of an "AF CAPT." can't really stand in for the actual specification sheets.

Anyway since you seemingly want to go to great lengths to make the comparison 100% "fair" right down to the most minute detail, how about we shave off a further 2,000 lbs in fuel and 390 lbs in 2x AIM-9's for the Tomcat so that we arrive at the same 3,550 lbs fuel load pr. engine and identical weapons loadout. That's a 2,390 lbs lighter & less draggy Tomcat, I'll let you guess what effect that will have on the F-14 chart.

In end though I hope you'll realize that under equal conditions there is no way that the F-16C can compete with the F-14 in the horizontal at around M 0.6. The speed needs to be noticably higher for the F-16C to even achieve a similar or slightly higher rate, and that results in a considerably larger radius which in itself can negate a sizeable advantage in rate.

In an all or nothing fight the F-16 pilot needs to go vertical whilst the F-14 pilot needs to take care not to spend too much energy during the first 180.

All in all I consider the F-16 the better dogfighter (the best in US inventory after the F-22) and always have, but it will have its work cut out for it against an F-14 under combat conditions, so much so that the margins between failure & success will be incredibly slim. The matter is entirely different in a mock fight as here the F-14 is seriously hampered by its Navy restriction.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 19:32
by eloise
hummingbird wrote: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)

Except that F-15 ITR is better than F-14 according to NASA test data
and min radius is min sustained radius, how can you calculate min radius with ITR when they are by definition not sustainable ?
STR, ITR of Superhornet at slow regime is better than all teen series if we go by pilots testimony.
Acceleration go to F-15 and F-16

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 19:51
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:I don't have any comprehension problem but you clearly have a memory problem, because these are the same arguments you brought up last time and were proven to be wrong.
a) There is a slight decrease in CLmax even before the deactivate point of slats and flaps, however, it is a steady decline so you will only realize once you draw the line and put the number in.
b) Both wings swept and flaps deactivate points change with altitude, so you can't use the 35k ft lift chart for sea level.
c) Lift charts at lower altitude were limited due to G-limits, and with point b above, there is need to extrapolation. Using the lift charts with deactivated maneuver device doesn't work either because it applies when both slats and flaps are deactivated.


The slats (& flaps) do not deactivate before M ~0.85 irrespective of altitude (0.82-0.85 to be specific), you have the chart yourself (Note description below: "Maneuver slat/flap automatic schedule for CADC"):
Image

As for the point of deactivation, this is where the biggest change to the lift curve occurs, but again it is clearly mapped and thus there is no need for guesswork when drawing the curve for lower altitude, the initially change with sweep is even there (and wouldn't you know it, the first onset is within 0.03 M there as well). In other words no change occurs that isn't already covered, and that is applied on the low altitude chart with the 9 G lift curve I presented as well.

I can't understand how you could be so blatantly dishonest and try to draw a false narrative while the graph is still in the open for everyone to see.
flaps.png

@35k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.86 ; partially extended between Mach 0.86 and Mach 0.87, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.87
@14k ft => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.665 ; partially extended between Mach 0.665 and Mach 0.753, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.753
@sea level => flaps fully extended at speed < Mach 0.51 ; partially extended between Mach 0.51 and Mach 0.58, fully retracted at speed > Mach 0.5

There is ≈ 0.3 Mach differences between deactivate points of flaps @sea level and @35k ft


Blatantly dishonest? Harsh words...

I suggest you check out the normal operation, i.e. automatic CADC schedule diagram:
Image

Again, there's a 0.03 difference between the <14,000 ft & >20,000 ft programs.

You're posting the manual operating limits diagram, hence the wording "maneuver flaps may be fully/partially extended".

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:09
by f-16adf
Hummingbird, nobody here is buying your lies.


Show me one EM comparison between a jet with 50% fuel to one with 60% or 70%. You are just making yourself look like a fool. That may work with your cadre of followers on Eagles, but it is't working here.


The Block 40 is 18,700lbs. Subtract a little over a hundred because the -229 is lighter, and subtract over 100lbs because the NSI is lighter than the MCID aka big mouth.




And on the ACM range Gums in his F-16 said he "ran the other teen series out of gas".


And look what CDR. Nawrocki had to say:

"we'd meet the F-14s at the Yuma range, run them out of gas and then fight one v one guns only until we ran out of gas"

and

And what does this Naval Aviator who also authored this article have to say, sound similar?
According to CDR Nawrocki:

"I have time in the F-14 (2 cruises in VF-114, Enterprise) and the F-16N (VF-126). We would fight the F-14's until they were out of gas and then we would typically fight each other, guns only until we were bingo. When we were in A-4's we would also fight each other, guns only as it was spectacular training for us...and fun! We most definitely trained to fight the F-16 as an F-16. We also provided adversary support to the fleet (F-14's and F-18's mostly...occasionally supporting F-15's) as all sorts of aircraft, including full up F-16's when they wanted to see what it could do. And it could do a lot. It had the most aft CG of the F-16's, no hard points, no Aux tanks, never carried anything but a TACTS pod and a captive AIM-9. Big GE motor... It was a rocket ship!"

CDR Nawrocki also authored this:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=53704



So I think that a Naval Aviator who flew the F-14A, F-16N, F-8, A-4 should know what he is talking about.


He also added:

"The A model had a slightly different leading edge slat program (also, as I recall...it was 30 years ago!) that resulted in slightly reduced bleed rates. The F-14A was a 6.5 G airplane (as was the "D" model, as I recall - I never flew it, but fought it once), so when you talk about "corner velocity" it is at that max G. The F-16N was a 9.3 G airplane so the corner velocity was at that G loading. The corner velocity of an F-14A at it's designed 6.5 G limit was 325 KIAS. The corner velocity of the F-16N at it's 9.3 G limit was 408 KIAS. All corner velocity is, is the lowest speed at which you can generate your designed maximum load limit. If you look at an energy diagram, the turn radius remains surprisingly constant as the speed degrades below corner and your available G load also degrades. As you go above corner, your turn radius suffers. So, in a one circle fight, where you are both following a single circle, being at or below corner is better. Issues such as the lowest speed at which you can generate a pure vertical maneuver and bleed rates at corner come into play. Below vertical speeds, roll rates come into play with bleed rates as the fight usually degenerates into a rolling scissors. In a slick F-14A, you were generally about 20 degrees nose low at corner and max G to maintain your airspeed. By virtue of your loss of altitude, your total energy state (kinetic or airspeed + potential or altitude) was reduced. The same could be said if you maintained altitude and bled airspeed. In a fight, energy state is critical. It's that energy differential, altitude or airspeed, which facilitates gaining a positional advantage, nose on, with weapons separation which is your goal. It is a complicated chess match. If you go into a 2 circle fight (think both of you making a left turn at the merge), the important consideration becomes turn RATE. A higher G-rated fighter will always have a rate advantage (as opposed to a radius advantage) in a 2 circle fight. Energy loss is still an issue, though and the critical speed is corner velocity. In the radius fight, you can get slow and still be close to min radius, in a rate fight if you go above OR below corner, you lose turn rate. Higher turn rates get you nose on first. In the F-16N, at 408 KIAS and 9.3 G's you were about 8-10 degrees nose low as compared to the F-14A at 20 degrees nose low. Obviously, you lost energy faster in the 14A. The main advantage to the A+ (B) or D was that the bigger GE engines reduced bleed rates. Rate, radius and bleed rates are hugely important, but an understanding of the 3 dimensional geometry involved is something that is more art than science. When I fought the 9G F-15 (when it was slick), I found it to be very close in performance to the F-16N. The big mouth on the C was an improvement as speed increased, as it allowed greater power...sort of like bigger intakes on a muscle car. I'm not sure if that sheds any light on your questions or not. Let me know if there's anything else."




Let me guess little old Hummingbird is right and CDR. Nawrocki is wrong, CDR. Chesire is wrong, Tbarn is wrong. LCDR Joe Ruczika is wrong.


Out of your desperation, you are just making yourself more of a fool-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:11
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:Except that F-15 ITR is better than F-14 according to NASA test data


Well exhaustive flight testing with real life combat loads proves this wrong, there's really nothing more to say to that.

and min radius is min sustained radius, how can you calculate min radius with ITR when they are by definition not sustainable ?


I didn't calculate absolute min radius, I presented the radius at max sustained rate.

The absolute min radius will be at min flying speed, now I'll let you take a guess at which plane of the two can remain aloft at the slowest speed. The answer should be pretty obvious.

STR, ITR of Superhornet at slow regime is better than all teen series if we go by pilots testimony.
Acceleration go to F-15 and F-16


I don't give much for pilot testimony, it has a very bad habbit of being extremely coloured and misleading, not to mention often completely wrong. However that being said the Super Hornet is no doubt a whole lot better than the F-15 & -16 in that regime, question is wether it's better than the F-14 and if so by how much and where does it reverse?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:14
by tailgate
I've loved reading all this but you can't put "charts" into real world performance, there are just two many factors involved.

Against any variant of the Tomcat, it was outclassed by most you have mentioned.

Against the Eagle, it simply could not match power and maneuverability.
Against the Viper, it was outclassed in every aspect. I could turn inside the Tomcat all day until it ran outta gas......

Against the 22, there is nothing I can say here that would be off any interest.

The Tom's shortcomings were really evident during exercises with Rafale and Typhoon. It was an excellent Interceptor with a very good weapons system. Naval aviators proved the Tom's prowess quite a few times. I like the Tom, but it's day had come, and there is a reason why it was retired. JMHO

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:18
by hummingbird
f-16adf wrote:Hummingbird, nobody here is buying your lies.


Show me one EM comparison between a jet with 50% fuel to one with 60% or 70%. You are just making yourself look like a fool. That may work with your cadre of followers on Eagles, but it is't working here.


The Block 40 is 18,700lbs. Subtract a little over a hundred because the -229 is lighter, and subtract over 100lbs because the NSI is lighter than the MCID aka big mouth.




And on the ACM range Gums in his F-16 said he "ran the other teen series out of gas".


And look what CDR. Nawrocki had to say:



Lies? So far I've only quoted & provided first hand source material, so where exactly is it that I "lie" ? What false data have I provided ?

Now in contrast I've asked you to provide your sources for the weight difference, yet you now refuse to post them?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:19
by tailgate

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:21
by hummingbird
tailgate wrote:I've loved reading all this but you can't put "charts" into real world performance, there are just two many factors involved.

Against any variant of the Tomcat, it was outclassed by most you have mentioned.

Against the Eagle, it simply could not match power and maneuverability.
Against the Viper, it was outclassed in every aspect. I could turn inside the Tomcat all day until it ran outta gas......

Against the 22, there is nothing I can say here that would be off any interest.

The Tom's shortcomings were really evident during exercises with Rafale and Typhoon. It was an excellent Interceptor with a very good weapons system. Naval aviators proved the Tom's prowess quite a few times. I like the Tom, but it's day had come, and there is a reason why it was retired. JMHO


I believe you tailgate, the very real & strict 6.5 G restriction made it a true thing.

Thing is though that we're talking about a real combat scenario here, and then said restriction goes right out the window.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:24
by hummingbird
tailgate wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyvY3n9GDY


Instructors in a 9+ G cleared aircraft vs students in aircraft which they are not allowed to go past 6.5 G's in. I wonder how that will turn out ;)

You're proving my point.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:36
by f-16adf
I already posted the 19,300lbs USAF T.O. chart for a USAF Block 50. Notice the punch holes on the sides. It's from an actual manual. Open your eyes.




There is no official USAF T.O. for Block 42 with the Pratt -229 IPE. Since only 2 squadrons fly it.


Do you seriously think the Block 40 weighs more than the Block 50? Another illogical deduction from you.


Hey look a Ohio ANG Block 42 from Toledo. I guess i'm lying and you are always right-

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:44
by hummingbird
I feel like I may have hurt your feelings at some point f-16adf, otherwise I can't really understand why you're constantly calling me a liar like some disgruntled teenager...

Either way I don't recall calling the Blk 40 heavier than the Blk 50, so can you point me to where I said that please?

Also since you're not willing to provide the requested spec chart, how about you tell me where the weight difference came from?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:56
by tailgate
And you know from that video, who is who ?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 20:57
by hummingbird
tailgate wrote:And you know from that video, who is who ?


Did you actually watch it all?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 21:36
by tailgate
We can discuss this until the world ends, but in reality, the Tomcat was no match for the 15,16, etc, etc..sure, A good Tomcat driver may or may have gotten a few "bags", again it's pilot against pilot, Like you have said. Performance wise, it just didn't have it......and this from a person who flew against them in both. Good aircraft, absolutely.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 21:46
by hummingbird
tailgate wrote:We can discuss this until the world ends, but in reality, the Tomcat was no match for the 15,16, etc, etc..sure, A good Tomcat driver may or may have gotten a few "bags", again it's pilot against pilot, Like you have said. Performance wise, it just didn't have it......and this from a person who flew against them in both. Good aircraft, absolutely.


And that's your opinion based on your exercises against them, and I accept that whilst also knowing why you had that experience.

In short: During an exercise the F-14 is definitely at a distinct disadvantage due to significant G contraits, we completely agree on that. In a real combat situation it's a different deal however :)

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2018, 21:58
by f-16adf
What's funny Hummingbird, is you will not even believe Lt. Music Muczysnski who was actually in combat. Sorry, but he said he went into a 7G turn. The burden of proof is on you. It's your own word of mouth and your followers.

He says it at 2:23 mark:

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


So you know more about being in actual combat than a real life Tomcat pilot?
You know more about the jet than the guys that actually flew it? like CDR Chesire (flitetime.net, seems you're too scared to email him, because he is going to tell you something you will not like) CDR Nawrocki (Facebook F-14assoc), LCDR "Smokin" Joe Ruczika, Tbarn (F-14D pilot on youtube).

LCDR "Smokin" Joe Ruczika in his own words:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-el ... 1610043625

Let me guess you know more about the Tomcat than him?




Here is a video of the supposed Invincible F-14D with its giant GE F110 engines getting killed by a Block 30 F-16N of VF-126. Seems like everything CDR Nawrocki said was true, it happens at 6:25 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKLHr9WlJos


So let me guess Mr. Nawrocki is full of BS like all the other Tomcat aviatiors?


Even Fulcrumflyer (who is on this forum), he was a USAF exchange pilot with the German Air Force at Laage has 500+ hours in the Mig-29. He told me that the F-14D was not his toughest opponent against the Fulcrum (as you and your followers on Eagles.ru incorrectly state) he told me that it was the GE powered USAF Vipers that were his toughest opponents against the Mig-29 Fulcrum. He also authored this article. But let me guess, he is wrong too:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-t ... 1682723379




I earlier posted comments by 35_aoa (an actual active Naval aviator) who flies the F-18A/C/E and flew the Block 15 F-16A model out at Fallon, Nv. (NSAWC) aka TOPGUN, is he also wrong?

35_aoa comments on the subject:

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."







Oh, and show me (so as you say "I only go by official NATOPS documents") in the NATOPS Tomcat flight manual where it says 9G? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.




And draw in the -P lines in your suppose 9G EM chart. Which would be a total laugh-



And please provide me with official data (as you say that I must) about where the Tomcat actually lost weight? Please show me official NATOPS docs.



Even Quicksilver (a USMC pilot on this fourm) had this to say (and let me guess, you will not believe him): scroll down the page to read his statement:
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=120


and here it is again:

"I am not a NFWS alum, but have fought Eagles and Tomcats many, many times. I learned BFM when it was G/H/P 'winders and exclusively LCOS gunsights. Lotsa maneuvering for envelope management that simply doesnt exist in the same context today.

'A' model Tomcat a much different BFM adversary than a B/D Tomcat, accepting for the moment an assumption of similar pilot proficiency (a big assumption...). The difference, of course, was the engines -- vastly different Ps and freedom to maneuver without fear of stalling the engine. TF-30 shortcomings in the 'A' are extensively documented in the public domain.

Eagle generally a tougher BFM opponent, but there were periods of time where pilots were getting less BFM exposure (cyclic budget stuff that affects everyone from time to time) and it was apparent in the apparent BFM proficiency of Eagle guys. You've got X number of sorties per month; do you spend it on BFM or BVR stuff? Always a delicate balance that COs/OpsOs/TrainingOs had/have to balance.

I know it's fun to compare the charts and the numbers but, in my experience, the quantifiable differences were always subordinate to pilot ability/experience -- always. That was then, this is now and things have changed."





I will admit, I do not have the official Block 40 manual, nor does any one else. It is classified as with the Block 30. But this diagram seems to get it right. The Block 42 Pratt -229 is lighter because: 1. it is equipped with the lighter NSI intake, not the "Big Mouth". 2. the Pratt F100-229 is lighter than the GE F110-100/129.

So the 180FW Captain of the Ohio ANG was correct. Have you ever even seen a Block 42 w/Pratt -229 fly. It's a total monster-

But let me guess, according to you, the 180th Captain is lying too.........

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 00:05
by marsavian
Hoser was an F-14 pilot who regularly over-g'd the Tomcat to gain advantages in mock combats which did not make him popular with maintenance crew. His idea was to aggressively gain position by violently bleeding speed down to corner velocity usually from a vertical loop then try and hold ITR there at full afterburner. He rarely lost mock combats against anyone including F-15s. You can see from the E-M diagram how steep the ITR rate for F-14 is if you are prepared to over-g and lose altitude and/or airspeed too to gain advantageous position. The F-14 had one more trick in that it could bleed speed and point the nose even further by going to high AoA at the end of the ITR bleed maneuver which is SOP for Iranian F-14s. The F-14 will not have a chance against an energy rate fighter like F-16 which can maintain high rate over a wide speed range for a long time unless it uses angles aggressively too. F-15s will also violently over-g in combat to obtain advantageous initial position which is how they didn't lose to the supposedly superior energy rate Mig-29. In combat when your life is on the line you will take your airframe to the max.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 01:31
by jbgator
F16ADF,

I wouldn't waste my time arguing with HB or Zero. They obviously have no background in real application of the theory they are trying to espouse:
I've never flown anything weiging more than 50 grams so this is all just Nerd talk and theory.
and HB has admitted that he doesn't care what pilots say....he obviously knows better. But his own diagram belies his ignorance of how aerial combat happens and you made the mistake of accepting it and getting drawn into a GW argument about various blocks of the F-16. The reality is the F-16 dominates the F-14 regardless of block. Heavier blocks usually have more thrust so the Ps effect of the extra weight is somewhat negated. They may lose a little turn rate when the limiter kicks in (say 18.9 versus 19) The BLK42 (PW220 not 229) is the worst but all of the blocks have grown in weight over the years. Still, over a dynamic maneuvering environment, they will still dominate the F-14. All of them.

Lets just look at the diagram HB posted of turn rate and radius of the F-14, 15, and 16 where he asserts that the F-14 will be able to turn inside the F-15, 16 and keep a guns solution. Lets assume to begin that HB's absurd assumption that airplanes arrive at a merge with some specific airspeed that he seems to believe is their perfect AS. So the Tomcat shoots of the CAT and accelerates to .61 mach and flys into battle. The F-16 takes off and accelerates to .86 mach to enter the fray. Somehow magically the Tomcat arrives behind the F-16 at 10K feet. To follow his logic, the F-16 turns at just over 7G to sustain just over 14 degrees per second and the Tomcat turns inside and guns his brains out.......HMMMMM Nope. If I looked back over my shoulder at 10K and .86M at a Tomcat behind me at .61M and I was still alive (how did he get there and I'm not dead?) I would say, WOW it's my birthday! Right now as fast as I can write it I would be at 9G, 18 DPS rapidly increasing to 19 DPS as I slow down. In the next 10 seconds I have gone 180+ degrees of turn. If he stays at his Ps=0 and 14.1 DPS he's turned 140 degrees and is 40 degrees in lag. I can't translate the 800-1000 -Ps the F-16 has during that turn but I can tell you over 23 years of flying the F-16 that I would be around 330-350 KCAS (about .61+) still doing about the 14 DPS of the Tomcat at Ps=0, looking back over my shoulder at the top of his airplane (and my radius is now down around 2000). Lets assume he did, as HB seems to believe possible, pull to 9G also to try to stay with me. Assuming the aircraft is aerodynamically capable of 9G and the wings did not pull off, I would extrapolate his turn rate out to probably 20+ but it would be a very ITR (there is as reason why it's called INSTANTANEOUS turn rate) because his Ps would be so high that he would hit his lift limit line and go downhill in airspeed so fast that he would quickly be in trouble (notice the Ps=0 line never intersects the lift limit line on the F-14 EM chart). Now lets add in the real world he knows nothing about and that makes all the difference in the world. That break turn I do isn't level...its slightly descending so I preserve more of my energy than a purely level turn. So I am faster at the 180 still with the 40+ angular advantage. I also have a little more airspeed that I can use to translate into a slightly climbing turn where my radius reduces further, my rate drops off but I have 40 degrees of advantage to work with and my Ps is still better than his (I'm paying less for everything I do, thank you PW and GE). He's getting worried now because he started out looking at my AB can and now he's looking at the top of my airplane. So maybe he pulls even harder (well he's already sliding down that lift limit line towards 150 KCAS where he is still at negative Ps). I can go to 140 KCAS, level turn and Ps=0. I have had many defensive BFM engagements with F-14 and F-15. The result is always the same. 360-540 degrees later the F-14 is being gunned. The F-15 isn't yet but I'm becoming offensive and in USAF we call a KIO for role reversal so I never get there. So he can extrapolate all he wants but he can't give the F-14 warp drive and G-limits the jet isn't certified for and some how assert by cherry picking one data point from the EM chart of three airplanes that the F-14 is better. He'll say I'm another pilot who doesn't know what I'm talking about and I don't care.

And Zero can't take some pilot's assertion that the Hornet has better nose pointing capability and turn it into a hover craft that can pivot 360 spherical degrees in a furball and shoot its way out of a fight. How you going to argue with that?

So, let them have their "Nerd Talk" and let it go.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 08:11
by zero-one
jbgator wrote:
And Zero can't take some pilot's assertion that the Hornet has better nose pointing capability and turn it into a hover craft that can pivot 360 spherical degrees in a furball and shoot its way out of a fight. How you going to argue with that?



Okay, we get it you were a pilot, I have all the respect in the world for you guys, because you did what I only dreamed of. But please, try not to be emotional when you debate. Take it easy and just reply with your opinion.

Now having said that, I did say that after the hornet points its nose for a LOBS shot, it should dive down (cause really it has no choice) to regain lost E. then climb back up to rinse and repeat.

Whenever I ask pilots of "energy fighters" (F-15,16,22, EF, Rafale) they always say the Hornet is meat on the table because of its low thrust. Even Viper pilots who transferred to Hornets have the same opinion albeit a bit less harsh.

But when I ask pilots of high AOA aircraft about the hornet they say things like

There's no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet. But that's another story. The Hornet flies very comfortably at AoAs of up to 50 degrees and has great pitch, roll and yaw authority between 25 degrees of AoA and the lift limit of 35 degrees of AoA. Most crowds are amazed when the Blue Angels perform the Hornet low-speed pass, which is around 120 knots and only 25 degrees of AoA. There are no nasty departures to worry about, and if the pilot happens to lose control, the best recovery procedure is to grab the towel racks (two handgrips on the canopy bow used during cat shots). On the other hand, a Viper has a 25-degree AoA limiter built into its software, and even fewer degrees of AoA are available if it's carrying air-to-ground goodies on the hard points. Up against the limiter, the nose stops tracking; in that case, it's time to drop the hammer and use the big motor to get the knots back, which by the way, happens in a hurry.

The Hornet, however, will stand on its tail, hold 100 knots and 35-degrees AoA and swap ends in a maneuver called "the Pirouette," which looks like a jet fighter doing a hammerhead with a quarter roll. To the spectator and the participant, it looks and feels impossible. The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown. In a Hornet, it's difficult not to get the first shot in a close-in dog-fight that starts from a perfectly neutral merge (going opposite directions at the same altitude). My Viper buddies tell me there is very little room for error when they fight the Hornet. The best way to handle the situation is to get the Hornet to slow down, while they maintain energy so the Viper's superior thrust-to-weight will out-zoom the Hornet and then they can shoot at it from above. As a Hornet driver, I have never lost to a Viper guy that I saw, but I have run into Viper drivers that said the same thing about their jet.


because of this, I have a theory.

I think guys who started of in Eagles or Vipers were trained to fight fast. Students of the whole E-M theory, they rely on power to beat down on their bandits. So when they transfer to Hornets, it sucks. old habits die hard.

The Raptor can do both but those who wrote the ACM book on the Raptor came from Eagle background which is probably why most tactics were Eagle like in nature.

Now when you start of in a Hornet, the story is reversed, these guys rely on slow speed and nose pointing maneuverability to get the job done. So when they transfer to Vipers, its the same story, they kinda hate the 26 degree AOA limiter.

Does this make sense.

P.S. I may not agree with F-16adf's rant about how the US is broke, to me it sounds like that rich kid throwing tantrums because her iPhone 7 is already 10 months old and daddy refuses to get her the new iPhone X. All while some kid in Africa don't even know what WiFi is.

But I totally agree on his points, the F-14 has the least advantages among all teen series aircraft when it comes to BFM. Sure there are places in the envelope where it can compete or maybe even surpass others, but generally, an F-14 is an interceptor with great BFM characteristics. The Eagle on the other hand is a dogfighter with great interceptor characteristics.

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 10:27
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:You're posting the manual operating limits diagram, hence the wording "maneuver flaps may be fully/partially extended"

No, i posted the operating envelope as a function of speed and altitude or dynamic pressure. They use the wording: "maneuver flaps may be fully/partially extended" to illustrate that just because something is possible doesn't mean it should/must be done. There are situations when you don't want the flaps extended, such as when you need to accelerate.
However, on the right side of the chart, you can see that the flaps must be retracted at these speed, hence the wording "maneuver flap fully retracted in this region" without any "may" or "could"

operating envelope.PNG

wing control surface.PNG


hummingbird wrote:The slats (& flaps) do not deactivate before M ~0.85 irrespective of altitude (0.82-0.85 to be specific), you have the chart yourself (Note description below: "Maneuver slat/flap automatic schedule for CADC"):
Image

CADC is schedule as a function of AoA and Mach number: at specific AoA, flaps/slats are retracted but it is still limited by dynamic pressure evelope mentioned.
Flaps- AoA.PNG


hummingbird wrote:Blatantly dishonest? Harsh words...
I suggest you check out the normal operation, i.e. automatic CADC schedule diagram:
Again, there's a 0.03 difference between the <14,000 ft & >20,000 ft programs.

Either you being dishonest or you don't care to read the manual, that chart diagram is for wing-flaps interlock operation: at certain wing swept, flaps must be locked so not to interfere with the wing
interlock.PNG

Falp wing interlock 2.PNG


In short, there are 3 factors that can affect flaps operation: Wing swept, AoA, dynamic pressure. They use 3 charts to represent that, but you cherry picked charts to support your narrative.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 11:15
by basher54321
zero-one wrote:because of this, I have a theory.

I think guys who started of in Eagles or Vipers were trained to fight fast. Students of the whole E-M theory, they rely on power to beat down on their bandits. So when they transfer to Hornets, it sucks. old habits die hard.

The Raptor can do both but those who wrote the ACM book on the Raptor came from Eagle background which is probably why most tactics were Eagle like in nature.

Now when you start of in a Hornet, the story is reversed, these guys rely on slow speed and nose pointing maneuverability to get the job done. So when they transfer to Vipers, its the same story, they kinda hate the 26 degree AOA limiter.



Different thinking, opinions some bias etc just part of life - e.g. i seem to remember words from 35_aoa something like Boyd really knew what he was doing it after flying the F-16A for a bit - and then apparently becomes the Navy BFM king - so not all as you suggest.

On the other hand there was USN pilot Ron McKeown who allegedly said "Never trust anyone who would rather kick your a$$ with a slide rule than with a jet." after meeting Boyd - so pride? didn't like being told what to do? didn't get what he was being told? etc etc don't know.

One thing is certain you cannot dismiss pilot opinions because they have seen the bigger picture - and over time the dots often start joining together anyway.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 13:22
by quicksilver
How many 'my dog is bigger than your dog' debates does it take to change a lightbulb? Give it a rest guys.

The vast majority of BFM engagements were/are decided long before the numbers matter; someone makes a mistake. That's why experience makes such a difference.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 13:51
by basher54321
The first mistake was not being in an F-16 of course :p

boom boom


ill get me coat

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 15:17
by zero-one
basher54321 wrote:The first mistake was not being in an F-16 of course :p

boom boom


ill get me coat


This is Gold
Thankyou for existing... :notworthy: :lmao: :lmao:

Anyway, why are some people so fed up with these discussions anyway, just let the guys talk and enjoy the show.
I've been holding my popcorn for days now.

Engineers spent years to get a few extra more Gs or a few more degrees per second in the turn rate. Its nice that people here actually appreciate that.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 16:06
by quicksilver
zero-one wrote:
basher54321 wrote:The first mistake was not being in an F-16 of course


As Ive said here before, Hornet most challenging BFM machine in my experience. Viper? Great machine as well, but its advantages diminished with advent of all aspect missiles because they altered the question of what one could or could not ignore situationally (i.e. nose position).

Whaddya get when you put a pig in a Cadillac?

...a pig in a Cadillac.

The pilot and/or experience of said pilot is the biggest difference maker.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 16:28
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:Well exhaustive flight testing with real life combat loads proves this wrong

No they don't. You haven't provide any evidence to counter NASA CLmax data. You talked about minimum turn radius which was calculated by STR and not related to ITR.

hummingbird wrote:I didn't calculate absolute min radius, I presented the radius at max sustained rate.

Which isn't the same as min radius even though they are both calculated through sustainable turn rate

hummingbird wrote:The absolute min radius will be at min flying speed, now I'll let you take a guess at which plane of the two can remain aloft at the slowest speed. The answer should be pretty obvious.

I already explained the same thing to you last time.
Instantaneous turn rate => unsustainable, achieve with CLmax.
Minimum flying speed (right above stall) => sustainable, most of the time achieve with CLmax but not always.

The key word is "sustainable". F-14 reach CLmax while its wing fully sweep forward, with slats and flaps deployed, typically at low AoA. So it can have very slow stall speed.
On the otherhand, F-15 reach CLmax at very high AoA, you can't expect it to have low stall speed because it won't be able to maintain AoA = 35-40° for a long time.
This behavior is clearly illustrated in F-15 manual when they used a separate line for CLmax
Image

hummingbird wrote:I don't give much for pilot testimony, it has a very bad habbit of being extremely coloured and misleading, not to mention often completely wrong. However that being said the Super Hornet is no doubt a whole lot better than the F-15 & -16 in that regime, question is wether it's better than the F-14 and if so by how much and where does it reverse?

At the beginning, you ditched Northrop Grumman stated G-limit from flight manual in favor of pilots testimony about F-14, but now you switch back saying pilots testimony are often completely wrong when it doesn't fit your narrative. Whether you choose to believe pilot testimony or not is both fine to me, but you need to be consistent, you can't just go back and forth like that to get your favorite conclusion.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2018, 17:46
by eloise
garrya wrote: HAVE DRILL/ HAVE FERRY evaluation in Vietnam war, Mig-17 is a beast at low speed.
Image

I think that too good to be true, compare that to F-5E flight manual:
f-5E 30k ft.PNG

f-5E 15k ft.PNG

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 00:40
by hummingbird
f-16adf wrote:What's funny Hummingbird, is you will not even believe Lt. Music Muczysnski who was actually in combat. Sorry, but he said he went into a 7G turn. The burden of proof is on you. It's your own word of mouth and your followers.

He says it at 2:23 mark:

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


Yes, he made a 7 G turn to get on the MiG's tail, what's so hard to understand? The 10.2 G pull was to avoid the debris after missile impact as also said/written by the man himself. Or are you seriously going to claim that the quote I provided is false?

Re: F16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 00:57
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:CADC is schedule as a function of AoA and Mach number: at specific AoA, flaps/slats are retracted but it is still limited by dynamic pressure evelope mentioned.
Flaps- AoA.PNG


Do you even read what you post? Guess what Fig 2.52 is... It's not 2.51 for starters.

Either you being dishonest or you don't care to read the manual, that chart diagram is for wing-flaps interlock operation: at certain wing swept, flaps must be locked so not to interfere with the wing
interlock.PNG

Falp wing interlock 2.PNG


In short, there are 3 factors that can affect flaps operation: Wing swept, AoA, dynamic pressure. They use 3 charts to represent that, but you cherry picked charts to support your narrative.


You are making some funny self interpretations of the manual I must say... Said chart shows interlocks yes, i.e. the envelope where main flaps are usable by the CADC, hence the < 14 kft and >20 kft program curves. There is no "must be locked", the CADC controls it all automatically.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 01:16
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:No they don't. You haven't provide any evidence to counter NASA CLmax data. You talked about minimum turn radius which was calculated by STR and not related to ITR.


You know saying the same things over and over again doesn't automatically make it true, right?

Which isn't the same as min radius even though they are both calculated through sustainable turn rate


I never said they were the same, and no min radius is definitely not calculated through sustainable turn rate, that's nonsense...

I can give you the min turn radius though, which is 1,500 ft for the F-14 and 1,935 ft for the F-16 @ 10,000 ft.

I already explained the same thing to you last time.
Instantaneous turn rate => unsustainable, achieve with CLmax.
Minimum flying speed (right above stall) => sustainable, most of the time achieve with CLmax but not always.


No, you're confusing pitch rate with turn rate, there'in lies your problem.

For the F-15 to achieve max pitch rate most of its lifting surfaces will already be stalled, i.e. beyond CLmax, at which point it won't actually be going in the direction its pointing. This is known as the nose pointing authority of the aircraft, and it is not connected with the actual turn rate.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 03:34
by f-16adf
I'm not a fighter pilot, so I cannot explain the tactics of a 3 dimensional fight as eloquently as JBGator.



All I can add concerning the 1981 Su-22 incident is that Lt. Muczynski's 7G pull had to be going downhill. Meaning he was dropping Ps very fast. I use to have the Debrief book, it says one thing; and the book where Lt. Muczynski did a first person interview about it says another (F-14A in Detail & Scale, by Bert Kinzy, 1982). So I really don't know which book is correct as far as the G amount to avoid the debris. All I know is that his jet was at 20,000ft and loaded with 1 Aim-9, 2 Aim-7, 2 Aim-54 and I'm assuming 2 280 gallon tanks (I don't know if he dropped them or not). But all I'm saying is that if you are going to attempt to draw out a 9G curve, you must include the negative Ps. I'm not an Aero Engineer, but I'm assuming they would be greater than 1600 (for the 10K chart, 15K and 25K a totally different story). So the jet would be falling like a rock. And you probably would NOT attempt this in the horizontal but in the near vertical as Hoser did in "Hoser Shoot" book. And then bleed down to 325 KIAS corner.

Most Tomcat pilots will tell you that the jet turns best at 325 give or take with altitude. If you notice on the 10K chart at .6 IMN STR is 14DPS and "sustained" turn radius is 2750ft. However, notice the Tomcat's max sustained G on the chart (6G) happens at .8IMN and 12.5DPS, and giving a turn radius of about 4,000ft (give or take). So technically that is a less "efficient" turn than the one at .6IMN. At .6 Mach the wings are forward, at .8 Mach they are probably 40 or 45degrees. The jet is starting to lose full trailing edge span. So I'm thinking that is why every Tomcat pilot will tell you that it turns best at the lower speed figure. I'm guessing it is just a more efficient turn, regardless of the lower sustained G loading.

As far as the whole 9G and aircraft loadings. Carrier jets take a terrible beating when landing, it's basically a controlled crash. It seem most Navy jets will give you about 20-25 years and then retired. And at times during the late 1970's the F-14 was restricted to just 4-5G. I think it had G restrictions in the mid 1980's and late 1990's. This is what I was told by Tomcat pilots who were there. So there is basically no point in saying that a jet is certified to (X)G loading if it is being restricted many times during its career, and it us unable to attain that figure and consequently further shorten its longevity. I'm mean, HAWK Monroe chided Hoser for his 11G (or what ever the exact number was) maneuver in the "Roger Ball" book. It just seems that it had issues and restrictions throughout its career as far as G figures are concerned. And there is no point in saying it was restricted to just 6.5G to increase it's air frame longevity. That's basically saying a limit is a limit. Why would the Navy want a 9G Tomcat if it could only last just 10 years? Many of these Tomcats were retired with barely 20 years on their air frames. We have a F-14A from VF-41 Black Aces at the air museum near my home. It came off the Grumman production line in late 1982(83), and was retired in 1999/2000. It only lasted about 18 years.

And I know about what it was tested to back in its infancy. I have the AirTime F-14 book and it says the same thing what you wrote. But initial aircraft testing is not always fixed. Remember Hoser pulled 8.5G in his VX-4 days (1973/74). But that was very early in the jets career and we must remember VX-4 is a "test and evaluation squadron". Not everything that comes out of there is sanctioned for everyday operational squadron service. And it just seems odd with HAWK Monroe asking him "how many G's did you pull" over and over again in the run up to AIM-ACE. If the Tomcat was set for a higher G loading than that whole incident would have been rendered superfluous and unnecessary.

And if a plane is less efficient (concerning -Ps) at a higher G loading than what's the point.



I like the Tomcat a lot and all the teen series. Heck, I grew up with these jets (and the F-4 and A-7) flying over my house on base to final on a near daily basis (everyday was basically an airshow for me). But their time has come. It's not 1990 anymore. All these jets are just too old. I like the F-16 a lot, but no matter how much I like it; I know that basically all Block are outperformed by jets like the Rafale, Typhoon, and F-22 as far as ACM. As I said earlier, technology just marches on.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 05:12
by hummingbird
f-16adf wrote:All I can add concerning the 1981 Su-22 incident is that Lt. Muczynski's 7G pull had to be going downhill. Meaning he was dropping Ps very fast. I use to have the Debrief book, it says one thing; and the book where Lt. Muczynski did a first person interview about it says another (F-14A in Detail & Scale, by Bert Kinzy, 1982). So I really don't know which book is correct as far as the G amount to avoid the debris. All I know is that his jet was at 20,000ft and loaded with 1 Aim-9, 2 Aim-7, 2 Aim-54 and I'm assuming 2 280 gallon tanks (I don't know if he dropped them or not). But all I'm saying is that if you are going to attempt to draw out a 9G curve, you must include the negative Ps. I'm not an Aero Engineer, but I'm assuming they would be greater than 1600 (for the 10K chart, 15K and 25K a totally different story). So the jet would be falling like a rock. And you probably would NOT attempt this in the horizontal but in the near vertical as Hoser did in "Hoser Shoot" book. And then bleed down to 325 KIAS corner.


The aircraft accelerometer recorded 10.2 G's, which was at the point of avoiding the debris as pr. Muczynski himself, I don't understand what's so hard to believe about that? Also why do you assume he "had" to be going downhill in the 7 G reversal turn? He could've held ~7 G's for a little while providing the entry speed was high enough, OR he could've been going slightly downhill. We simply don't know, and what does it matter anyway? The whole point of noting the high G incidents was to demonstrate that the airframe could easily take it, and that in combat G restrictions go right out the window the moment you realize you need to exceed them to survive.

As for the 9 G curve, why do you keep talking about negative Ps in relation with it? Ps is for sustained turns, the 9 G curve I carried over from the lift charts relates only to the ITR.

Most Tomcat pilots will tell you that the jet turns best at 325 give or take with altitude. If you notice on the 10K chart at .6 IMN STR is 14DPS and "sustained" turn radius is 2750ft. However, notice the Tomcat's max sustained G on the chart (6G) happens at .8IMN and 12.5DPS, and giving a turn radius of about 4,000ft (give or take). So technically that is a less "efficient" turn than the one at .6IMN. At .6 Mach the wings are forward, at .8 Mach they are probably 40 or 45degrees. The jet is starting to lose full trailing edge span. So I'm thinking that is why every Tomcat pilot will tell you that it turns best at the lower speed figure. I'm guessing it is just a more efficient turn, regardless of the lower sustained G loading.


Sustainable G by itself doesn't really matter, it's at what speed said G can be sustained which really matters. Why? Because it's speed in combination with G that determines rate & radius. Thus if you can sustain a higher G at a lower speed than your adversary then that also means you can afford to bleed speed/energy by riding the max rate curve for longer, reducing your radius, before you reach your max sustainable rate.

In other words an F-14 pilot entering a dogfight against a highly agile foe at Mach 1.0 won't limit himself by trying to remain at what'ever G or rate he can sustain at that speed, which at 10 kft would only be about 5.2 G's & ~8 deg/sec @ M 1.0. No instead he will trade speed/energy for rate by riding down the max ITR curve until he reaches ~M 0.62 where his max STR is.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 05:30
by f-16adf
Well, as far as the -Ps we are going to have to get an Aerospace Engineer to chime in. I can post that question, and see. But I believe that I'm right here.



Music was at 26-28,000ft, In my book (and in his words say "going down the hill"). -Ps means you are losing x amount of feet per second. Meaning you can't sustain the turn.


Now tomorrow i'll go on amazon and order it again. I remember seeing different figures in another book. Tomorrow i'll search for it and see if I have it.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 07:27
by hummingbird
f-16adf wrote:Music was at 26-28,000ft, In my book (and in his words say "going down the hill"). -Ps means you are losing x amount of feet per second. Meaning you can't sustain the turn.


Again why are you so interested in the Ps minus curves though? The Ps curves relate purely to sustained performance, and those are all there on the charts, all the way to -800 ft/s for the -14.

As for Muczynski's incident, having now read a more detailed report I can confirm that he did go downhill during his initial reversal (that he says ranged between 5-6 G's in the book I quoted, and not 7 G) which started at 28,000 ft. The two fitters were below climbing toward Kleeman at 20,000 ft, thus Music would've picked up a lot of speed during his descent, probably going well above 1.0 Mach at around the point where he pulled the trigger. Desperately trying to avoid the debris coming off the Fitter he then janked the stick back as hard as he could momentarily hitting 10.2 G's, resulting in neck pains for days after.

Here's a fun note:
At 35 kft the F-14 & F-16 will both be able to hit 7 G's at exactly the same 1.15 Mach, the F-14's wings having been fully swept for a long time at this point.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 10:33
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:Do you even read what you post? Guess what Fig 2.52 is... It's not 2.51 for starters.

I do, Fig 2.52 is CADC schedule according to AoA, and Mach number, at specific AoA the flaps are deployed and vice versa
Image
Image

But the CADC command is still restricted by dynamic pressure, and guess where is the chart for flaps envelope as the function of dynamic pressure... it is Fig 2.5.1
Image

hummingbird wrote:You are making some funny self interpretations of the manual I must say... Said chart shows interlocks yes, i.e. the envelope where main flaps are usable by the CADC, hence the < 14 kft and >20 kft program curves. There is no "must be locked", the CADC controls it all automatically.

No self interpretation needed as everything is written in simple English in the manual, and indicated in the chart. At certain wing swept, the flaps will be locked regardless of speed and AoA so as to not interfere with the wing. But wing sweep is not the only factor, that chart only illustrates the interlock point according to wing swept.
Image

In short, while wing swept, AoA, dynamic pressure all affect deployment of flaps, you don't consider the dynamic pressure factor illustrated in fig 2.5.1 That your problem.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 10:41
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:You know saying the same things over and over again doesn't automatically make it true, right?

Then that will apply to you because everything i said is supported by flight manual and NASA test data.

hummingbird wrote: no min radius is definitely not calculated through sustainable turn rate, that's nonsense...]I can give you the min turn radius though, which is 1,500 ft for the F-14 and 1,935 ft for the F-16 @ 10,000 ft.

Without sustainable rate, the speed and rate keep changing, therefore incomplete cirle
when did i ever say anything about the F-16?


hummingbird wrote:No, you're confusing pitch rate with turn rate, there'in lies your problem.For the F-15 to achieve max pitch rate most of its lifting surfaces will already be stalled, i.e. beyond CLmax, at which point it won't actually be going in the direction its pointing. This is known as the nose pointing authority of the aircraft, and it is not connected with the actual turn rate.

Except that i didn't, every calculations are within CL-max.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 10:56
by hummingbird
I don't intend to keep repeating myself anymore, you are free to believe your interpretation Eloise, it does not change anything. Although you must surely think it quite a coincidence that the sustained rate happens to top out at ~0.82 M at virtually all altitudes :roll:

eloise wrote:Without sustainable rate, the speed and rate keep changing, therefore incomplete cirle and when did i ever say anything about the F-16?


I can give it for a lighter F-15A as well at 15,000 ft = 2000 ft. At the same altitude it is 1,800 ft for the F-14D.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 11:33
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:I don't intend to keep repeating myself anymore, you are free to believe your interpretation Eloise

You can try to paint a false narrative of the thread if you want but you won't fool anyone since pages of the manual are still in the open and other can read.

hummingbird wrote:sustained rate happens to top out at ~0.82 M at virtually all altitudes :roll:

Except that they don't, for example:
Image

hummingbird wrote:I can give it for a lighter F-15A as well at 15,000 ft = 2000 ft. At the same altitude it is 1,800 ft for the F-14D.

Doesn't matter as minimum turn radius is not related to ITR.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 12:13
by hummingbird
A typo on my part, I meant max sustainable load factor, which remains at 0.82 Mach at virtually all altitudes. Hardly a coincidence :wink:

And ITR IS connected with the min radius, hence why it's listed as such in the manuals.

The min sustainable radius is larger, being 2,000 ft for the F-14D @ 10 kft for example, and 2,700 ft @ 15 kft, as opposed to the min of 1,500 & 1,800 ft at the same altitudes.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 07 Feb 2018, 16:01
by f-16adf
Here is another take on the 1981 Su-22 Fitter shootdown from "F-14 Tomcat" by Mike Spick. It says 6G, but as I said, there are now 3 books. And who is right, I don't know.


As far as the negative Ps, I suggest you read JB's post about it (what he posted earlier in this thread) AND this posting, on how to read an EM diagram properly:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=26829&p=296429#p296429

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 00:57
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:A typo on my part, I meant max sustainable load factor, which remains at 0.82 Mach at virtually all altitudes. Hardly a coincidence :wink:

What are you trying to imply?
hummingbird wrote:And ITR IS connected with the min radius, hence why it's listed as such in the manuals.can give it for a lighter F-15A as well at 15,000 ft = 2000 ft.

Alright i will bite, post the whole manual page for F-15A so we can put it to rest.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 19:38
by hummingbird
eloise wrote:What are you trying to imply?


It's the point where the notch in the lift curve happens on every lift curve chart, i.e. the point where the LE slats & TE flaps sieze to function, altnernating between 0.82 M at low alt and 0.85 M at high alt as seen on the sweep program chart.

eloise wrote:Alright i will bite, post the whole manual page for F-15A so we can put it to rest.


Bite? You know what ITR is right? It's the absolute max rate achieveable by riding the CLmax, which you to ride to achieve the absolute min radius. Min sustainable radius is quite different, being the point where the max lift & Ps=0 curve intersect.

F-15A chart, weight approx. 39,000 lbs.
Image

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 08 Feb 2018, 20:16
by sprstdlyscottsmn
hummingbird wrote:Min sustainable radius is quite different, being the point where the max lift & Ps=0 curve intersect.

F-15A chart, weight approx. 39,000 lbs.
Image

Your posted chart says otherwise.

It is GENERALLY where max lift and Ps=0 intersect assuming they do so at a speed reasonably higher than stall speed.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 01:19
by hummingbird
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Your posted chart says otherwise.

It is GENERALLY where max lift and Ps=0 intersect assuming they do so at a speed reasonably higher than stall speed.


Yes you're right, I missed typing the word "usually" at the end, it being the case most of the time with these modern jets (F-16 in particular). At 15,000 ft the min sustained radius of the F-15A is 3,000 ft at ~0.4 M (as seen on the chart) and 2,700 ft for the F-14D and also at ~0.4 M.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 02:35
by gta4
In fact, humminbird just proves that F15 has a Cl max of 1.6: look at the turn rate chart. A 39000lb F15 can reach 22deg/sec at 15000ft. This is enough to calculate the Cl max and It is 1.6.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 02:38
by gta4
I have a Russian estimation on F15's performance (byTsAGI). It shows a Cl max of 1.08 and a Climb rate of only 280m/sec. Russian always tend to underestimate westerners, you know.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 09 Feb 2018, 14:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
There is a paper out there that not only confirms CLmax of 1.6 but also shows that it occurs at 40 degrees AoA.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 02:59
by garrya
Quick maths,
Image

Speed of sound at 15000 ft = 322.2 m/s
Air density at 15000 ft = 0.774 kg/m3
Gravity = 0.9066

F-15 speed = 0.39M
F-15 Gload = 3G
Aircraft mass = 39000 lbs = 17690.1 kg
References wing area = 608 ft2 = 56.485 m2

Lift = g-load*mass*9.8066
Lift = 0.5* CL* Velocity^2*air density*reference wing area


CL=
Image


sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:There is a paper out there that not only confirms CLmax of 1.6 but also shows that it occurs at 40 degrees AoA.

Image
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf ... H-1243.pdf

gta4 has another report from MIT too but i don't have the link
Image

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 06:28
by gta4
This is Soviet's estimation on F-15's performance in 1980s.
The estimated Cl was only 1.08, and the estimated rate of climb was only 300m/s.
f15 soviet estimation.jpg

Soviet has the tendency to underestimate westerners. I have numerous examples on that.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2018, 06:30
by gta4
And we have an official document showing that F-22 can hit Cl_max = 1.9-2.1

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 04:45
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:max sustainable load factor, which remains at 0.82 Mach at virtually all altitudes. Hardly a coincidence. It's the point where the notch in the lift curve happens on every lift curve chart, i.e. the point where the LE slats & TE flaps sieze to function, altnernating between 0.82 M at low alt and 0.85 M at high alt as seen on the sweep program chart.

Sustainable load factor is also a function of thrust, and engine thrust change with speed so you can't deduce the flaps deactivate point from that. The Ps= 0 has a gradual trend too.
Furthermore, why do you keep invent your own flap deployment regime when both interlock point and envelope are illustrated very clear in the manual?.
Image
hummingbird wrote:F-15A chart, weight approx. 39,000 lbs.

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

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 13:26
by pmi
f-16adf wrote:They consolidated, because of the end of the Cold War. Resulting from the subsequent defense draw down. So technically their survival depended on a "fatter" defense budget. With the recession of 1991 (anybody remember that?) and the last few years of Bush 41 and later Bill Clinton (the guy who said "I didn't create a 4 trillion dollar national debt") everything contracted.


The 'peace dividend' accelerated the consolidation but it was a process that was well underway.

Republic, Convair, North American, Vought, the McDonnell-Douglas merger etc.

Jet aircraft had become a mature technology. How many fighter types was the USAF fielding in 1955, 1960, 1970, 1980 & 1990 (just before the fall of the Soviets)? Those numbers were dropping consistently & the length of service for front line types was consistently increasing.

The US was moving to a smaller number of individual platforms long before the end of the cold war & some of those companies were going away regardless of what happened post 1992. But you know...thanks Obama!

Oh and an appeal to authority based on a few classes you took as an undergrad? Seriously?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 13:57
by f-16adf
First, I never said "all".

Second, never blamed Obama, entirely for defense. I do blame him for telling us that the ACA would lower yearly premiums by $2,400, which turned out to be false. Same for "if you like your doctor you can keep him" another tall tale. I know it's hard to grasp, but Obama was never blessed with the charism of infallibility.


Defense per capita GDP, was going down in the 1990's:

"Defense spending stood at 6.8 percent of GDP at the height of the Reagan defense buildup. But, beginning even before the breakup of the Soviet Union it began a decline, reaching below 6 percent in 1990, below 4 percent in 1996 and bottoming out at 3.5 percent of GDP in 2001, about half the level of 1985."


Hmm, ....I never knew 4% is greater than 6.8% :D

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 14:51
by garrya
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)

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 18:27
by hummingbird
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2018, 18:28
by hummingbird
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?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 12 Feb 2018, 01:50
by gta4
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?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 13 Feb 2018, 05:12
by eloise
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 01:29
by hummingbird
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 01:31
by hummingbird
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 15:01
by mixelflick
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??

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 15:43
by zero-one
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

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 16:02
by gta4
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...

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 18:41
by garrya
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 20:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 23:00
by marsavian
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 14 Feb 2018, 23:26
by sprstdlyscottsmn
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

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 09:51
by gta4
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.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 14:30
by sprstdlyscottsmn
gta4 wrote:
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.


I was looking at a note I had written down years ago, so lets look at it fresh.

Basic aircraft DI = 7
AIM-9 non-wingtip = 5 (two for 10)
AIM-9 Launcher and adapter = 6 (two for 12)
So we are looking at DI = 29 (so for a "just for me" quick and dirty analysis I MAY have used DI 50 to save time last time)

Basic aircraft weight = 20,200lb
Internal usable fuel = 7,116lb (60% for 4,270lb)
AIM-120 = 341lb (two for 682lb)
AIM-9 = 195lb (two for 390lb)
Launcher and adapter = 98lb (two for 196lb)
Configured weight = 25,738lb

Sea Level: -229 motor
DI 50, 26klb weight, 18.2dps at 0.8M (weight corrected per chart for 25.75klb +.2dps for 18.4dps)
DI 0, 22klb weight, 21.4dps (weight corrected per chart for 25.75klb -3.6dps for 17.8dps at 0.7M, slope from .6 to .7 cover a .8dps increase, so lets bump 17.8 to 18.6dps)

DI = 29 expected result? 18.484

15k: -229 motor
DI 0, 22klb weight, 14.1dps at 0.9M (weight corrected -2dps for 12.1dps)

DI 50 10K, 13.6 corrected to 13.8
DI 50 20K, 9.7 corrected to 9.9
DI 50 15K, expected 11.85

DI 29 expected 11.955dps

So there we have it. Under a rigorous DI and Weight analysis of the -229 motored HAF Block 52 the -402 powered Hornet does indeed beat it. The best Hornet can, under certain circumstances, out Viper the worst Viper.

Out of curiosity DI-50 sea level with -129 reads just a hair over 18.5 and 10 reads 14.2 and 20k reads 10.2 which I would average to 12.2.

I see several ways now I could have arrived at 18.5 for my old estimate, but I don't see how I arrived at 12.63. Maybe I was doing a rigorous with the -129 motor?

Either way, please don't jump to conclusions about the methods I use. If you have a question, ask. I will generally be more than happy to re-run the numbers.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 15:18
by gta4
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I was looking at a note I had written down years ago, so lets look at it fresh.

Basic aircraft DI = 7
AIM-9 non-wingtip = 5 (two for 10)
AIM-9 Launcher and adapter = 6 (two for 12)
So we are looking at DI = 29 (so for a "just for me" quick and dirty analysis I MAY have used DI 50 to save time last time)


1) The DI in HAF manual refers to "payload drag index" not "total drag index", otherwise how come there are charts for DI=0?

2) The Basic aircraft already includes 2 launchers, so no need to count them twice.

So, the DI for 2 aim9s and 2 aim120 should be 2*0(tip sidewinders) + 2*5(amraams) + 2*6(launchers) = 22

I would agree that the best hornet is very close to the worst viper.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 15:34
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I didn't count the launchers twice and wing tip missiles have zero drag index. We can argue semantics over my 29 vs your 30 but either way my calculations stand.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 15:43
by gta4
tip missiles have no DI? So the total DI should be 22

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 16:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
it is unwise to ignore the fact that it lists a basic aircraft DI. It lists it for a reason.

This isn't even worth fighting over. I provided my methods and my math. If you have a disagreement over what you interpret the DI to be then you can use the numbers I already provided and interpolate your own answer.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 18:22
by marsavian
This begs a higher level question. If the up engined Hornet can beat a CFT shod Viper in sustained turning and the Indians found that the Super Hornet could do the same too and only just lose out to the Typhoon is Hornet's reputation for poor E-M characteristics undeserved ? Is it the fact that it can bleed more energy with a high instantaneous turn followed by high AoA maneouvering the real reason for this reputation, i.e. more tactics than capability ? Just posing the question ...

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 18:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
the report I got the Hornet data from implies the Super Hornet is behind the -402 Hornet. The E model is discussed as having STRs of 18.0 and 11.6, somewhat below the CFT-less HAF Block 52 (which SHOULD be the worst turning F-16 shy of adding CFTs to it) but the difference is fairly academic.

If India was looking at CFT equipped Vipers then I can see the SHornet out STRing them, but I would imagine the F-16 would have more range.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 15 Feb 2018, 23:32
by hummingbird
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.



This is basically identical to the 15,000 ft STR of the F-14D at 12.2 deg/sec @ M 0.67, but with 4x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-7's instead.

PS: F-14D's ITR is 19.2 deg/sec @ M 0.67 and 7.5 G's as well.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 01:44
by gta4
hummingbird wrote:
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.



This is basically identical to the 15,000 ft STR of the F-14D at 12.2 deg/sec @ M 0.67, but with 4x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-7's instead.

PS: F-14D's ITR is 19.2 deg/sec @ M 0.67 and 7.5 G's as well.


But that is not with 60% fuel.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 02:57
by gta4
I remember pretty clear that we compared the 'best tomcat' vs 'worst viper' a while ago.

With 4 aim9 and 4 aim7, Drag index = 48, F14D's peak STR is 14 deg/sec on 10000 feet.

with Drag index =50, F16C's peak STR is 14.2deg/sec at 10000ft.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 03:06
by hummingbird
gta4 wrote:
hummingbird wrote:
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.



This is basically identical to the 15,000 ft STR of the F-14D at 12.2 deg/sec @ M 0.67, but with 4x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-7's instead.

PS: F-14D's ITR is 19.2 deg/sec @ M 0.67 and 7.5 G's as well.


But that is not with 60% fuel.


No it's with 50% fuel, specifically 8,100 lbs pr. engine.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 03:18
by hummingbird
gta4 wrote:I remember pretty clear that we compared the 'best tomcat' vs 'worst viper' a while ago.

With 4 aim9 and 4 aim7, Drag index = 48, F14D's peak STR is 14 deg/sec on 10000 feet.

with Drag index =50, F16C's peak STR is 14.2deg/sec at 10000ft.


14.1 deg/sec at a considerably lower speed (M ~0.62), leading to a much smaller sustainable turn radius of 2,770 ft, allowing the F-14 to pull a comfortable lead throughout the turn.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 04:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Hummingbird, take that back to a Tomcat thread. I've love the F-14 but I'm tired of this argument. This thread is vipers vs hornets and there was a specific question that was answered.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 04:35
by eloise
hummingbird wrote:Decieve you??! Consider yourself completely ignored henceforth.

As if you have the moral high ground, laughable when a liar pretend like he is in the right.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 04:50
by garrya
gta4 wrote:I remember pretty clear that we compared the 'best tomcat' vs 'worst viper' a while ago.

With 4 aim9 and 4 aim7, Drag index = 48, F14D's peak STR is 14 deg/sec on 10000 feet.

with Drag index =50, F16C's peak STR is 14.2deg/sec at 10000ft.


F-16 has some serious advantage in roll rate and acceleration rate over tomcat and hornet
Image

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:the report I got the Hornet data from implies the Super Hornet is behind the -402 Hornet. The E model is discussed as having STRs of 18.0 and 11.6, somewhat below the CFT-less HAF Block 52 (which SHOULD be the worst turning F-16 shy of adding CFTs to it) but the difference is fairly academic.

Wait a second, does that mean F-16 block 60 actually turn better than F-16 Block 50+ ?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 05:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I don't recall anyone mentioning the Block 60, but if the question pertains to the "worst" Viper then I guess it is fair to bring it up. So we know the 60 has more thrust than the 52+, they should have similar weight. I see no reason for the 52+ to have better Sustained Turn than the 60.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 15:15
by tailgate
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I don't recall anyone mentioning the Block 60, but if the question pertains to the "worst" Viper then I guess it is fair to bring it up. So we know the 60 has more thrust than the 52+, they should have similar weight. I see no reason for the 52+ to have better Sustained Turn than the 60.


Forgive me....it’s been awhile.....only having flown the 40 (-100) and 50 (-129), my comparison is only from what I know. The -129 gave you a little more kick in the mil thrust area, especially in the high ranges. I know the -129 had overall higher thrust but to me, AB felt the same ( maybe just a load out, profile thing....lol)

My question Sprtdly, looks like the CFT’s are mounted in a way to keep the CG as advertised (?). Is there much of a difference in flight performance between “full” and “ empty” CFT,s. I’m no aircraft engineer, I ask this because of the strake vortices production.....looks like those things will negate some lift regions....am I wrong?

Jimbo

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 16:45
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Jimbo,

I'll check the HAF -1 when I get home. I'm pretty sure full CFTs are still CAT-I so any handling issues between empty and full are weight related. As to lift generation impact? I don't remember a striking difference between CFT vs non CFT lift generation, but it has been several years since I have last looked at that. Again, I look into it for you.

James

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 17:26
by tailgate
Thanks, I just remember that the blended wing body was considered a total lifting surface. Seems like any disturbance to that makeup would have effects. I even heard the "story" that went around that claimed some GD (back when it was GD !) engineer made the claim that even the canopy produced a little lift. Don't know if I believe that, but the jet did advance some pretty interesting concepts that made there way into other platforms

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 16 Feb 2018, 18:26
by basher54321
Block 60 is coming to get ya!

F-16E_22.jpg

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 01:02
by hummingbird
tailgate wrote:Thanks, I just remember that the blended wing body was considered a total lifting surface. Seems like any disturbance to that makeup would have effects. I even heard the "story" that went around that claimed some GD (back when it was GD !) engineer made the claim that even the canopy produced a little lift. Don't know if I believe that, but the jet did advance some pretty interesting concepts that made there way into other platforms


Yes, roughly half of the lift generated comes from the body:

Image

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 01:11
by rheonomic
CFTs were designed to maintain the same handling qualities as without them and to minimize the performance impact.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 06:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
22,000lb, seal level, DI=0

CFT
ITR peak 24.8@0.56M
STR peak 21.5@0.70M

Non CFT
ITR peak 24.8@0.54M
STR peak 21.4@0.70M

So it seems the CFTs had negligible effects of turning outside of added weight.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 06:43
by gc
rheonomic wrote:CFTs were designed to maintain the same handling qualities as without them and to minimize the performance impact.


I always take that claim with a pinch of salt. Every Mudhen driver I have spoken to says that their airframe is significantly draggier compared to a clean F-15C and there is not chance they can turn and burn with a Eagle. Or maybe this problem is only specific to the F-15 CFT.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 17 Feb 2018, 18:03
by tailgate
Thanks Sprty. Makes sense......darn those engineers, there purity smart

GC, greets, I have flown the Charlie version of the Eagle with CFT. I can’t say the performance suffered at all except for weight, but heck, even flying 3 bags, you get that. What most aviators do not like, is they are not jettison capable. In an IFE situation getting all the junk off and getting as light as possible could be key. It didn’t bother me with CFT except for that fact. A Strike can still turn and burn with the rest of em......just depends on the sit. Those -229 give quite a boost

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 08:41
by zero-one
Greetings Tailgate, without going into classified stuff, can you tell us what you do when you go up against Raptors in BFM?
I noticed that your Raptor tactics are very similar to your Eagle tactics (take the fight to the vertical). But what happens when they go up against each other. Do you out vertical an Eagle. Hard to believe anything can out Eagle an Eagle.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 09:57
by zero-one
gc wrote:I always take that claim with a pinch of salt. Every Mudhen driver I have spoken to says that their airframe is significantly draggier compared to a clean F-15C and there is not chance they can turn and burn with a Eagle. Or maybe this problem is only specific to the F-15 CFT.


If I remember Sprts...graph correctly, the CFTs are not fully to blame for this. The Mudhen's stability is not the same as the Eagle's. The E models were more positively stable than the C Eagles which may have accounted for the decrease in traditional dogfighting performance.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 14:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That is incorrect. I was misreading CG location as Static Margin. It clearly states in a paragraph that the CFTs reduce stability and increase pitch sensitivity. Weight is the Mudhens enemy, and it has a lot of it.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 17:23
by tailgate
Gotta remember that the Strike’s primary role is strike, with A/A being secondary, but that does not mean it isn’t capable. If a Strike “cleans” up before an engagement, you might be surprised at its capabilities. Just sayinn.........

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 20:24
by quicksilver
tailgate wrote:Gotta remember that the Strike’s primary role is strike, with A/A being secondary...


^^
This.

What that means is that the pilot and WSO spend most of their somewhat limited (compared to e.g. the 1980s) training opportunities training for their primary role. Not as a rule, but typically, that manifests itself in dissimilar training -- i.e. they're not as proficient in the A-A stuff.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2018, 20:38
by quicksilver
tailgate wrote:...you can't put "charts" into real world performance, there are just two many factors involved.


^^
This.

I am reminded of the movie 'Sully' and the moments in the story where he made his case for reality -- against an analysis and circumstantial modeling devoid of the human factors that determined 'outcome.'

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 01:10
by tailgate
I guess what i am saying.......is in the "real" fight, I am not worried about ITR,STR, and what charts say about when,where, and how and at what AoA is this and that......

I am going to get everything out of the jet that she will give me and I'm not worries about G meters and stress and that stuff......to get that first shot on the bad guy..............if I survive.......I'll read those charts and specifications in the stall.......just sayin

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 06:34
by gta4
To tailgate:
How do you describe a 229 powered F15e (no cft) in dogfight? both in It and against it.

I know It has pretty good performance on paper, but I would like To know How those theoretical number translates into real life combat. It would be appreciated if you can share us How It performs against non-us jets, such as flanker, fulcrum and typhoon.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 08:40
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That is incorrect. I was misreading CG location as Static Margin. It clearly states in a paragraph that the CFTs reduce stability and increase pitch sensitivity. Weight is the Mudhens enemy, and it has a lot of it.


does this mean that if weight and configuration between the C and E models are exactly the same, the E should be the better performer due to the 229 motors?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 11:30
by tailgate
gta4 wrote:To tailgate:
How do you describe a 229 powered F15e (no cft) in dogfight? both in It and against it.

I know It has pretty good performance on paper, but I would like To know How those theoretical number translates into real life combat. It would be appreciated if you can share us How It performs against non-us jets, such as flanker, fulcrum and typhoon.


First, I have never flown the Echo, only Charlie and Delta’s............ don’t forget it’s primary mission is Strike, so it will probably avoid close combat if it can. But it has the same caps in bvr.

Second, CFT’s come standard equip on Echos, you probably will very rarely see one without, except for maybe depot or checkout flight ( phase, QA, that kind of thing) so it’s always going to weight more than it’s brethren and the -229 offsets that growth I’m sure

Fighting against it will probably be the same bvr wise, up close not sure, I can say with some certainty that I’ve never flown against a Echo other than bvr.......so cant say to it’s performance. Logically, considering weight and aerodynamics, I’d say it gives a little in that respect.........but you still expect Eagle like numbers.........

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 12:46
by zero-one
Hi Tailgate, was wondering if you saw my post the other day. How do you fight an Eagle when you're in the Raptor?
Do you out Eagle an Eagle in its own game by going vertical?

Reason I ask is, I know pilots like to exploit the weakness of their opponents, so going vertical against an Eagle seems like a gamble, even if you're on a Raptor.

On the other hand, I know you don't like to go slow as that would be suicide by your books, so doing post stall and using TVC might be out of the question.

do you stay flat and fight like a Viper? Does the Raptor match the Viper in the horizontal fight?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 16:25
by mixelflick
I would guess the F-22 pilot has lots of options, including going vertical on an Eagle. There was one report here where and F-22 driver was accelerating going straight up and caught it just before breaking the sound barrier. So out Eagling an Eagle sounds plenty plausible.

With respect to the F-16 in the horizontal, not sure. What is clear is that there was an exercise where 3 or 4 aggressor F-16's with HOBS missiles went head to head with 1 F-22 and... got waxed. I would imagine in most scenarios the F-22 wouldn't engage in twisting and turning, classical dogfights. Just target them at the far end of WVR, shoot before being seen and boom - bye bye bandit..

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 16:46
by tailgate
I cannot go into some maneuvers.....oh well......but the energy fight is key here. I’m going bvr no doubt. But if it came to wvr, high energy fighting is the word here, high. I’ve got loads to burn here and the advantage goes to me. The inability to target is also key, but don’t bet on that card very long.........lol. And then hope to survive to tell another story........



Edit, it said “ high energy prices” .....lol

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 19 Feb 2018, 21:39
by zero-one
tailgate wrote:I cannot go into some maneuvers.....oh well......but the energy fight is key here. I’m going bvr no doubt. But if it came to wvr, high energy fighting is the word here, high. I’ve got loads to burn here and the advantage goes to me. The inability to target is also key, but don’t bet on that card very long.........lol. And then hope to survive to tell another story........



Edit, it said “ high energy prices” .....lol


Wow, the way I'm reading this, is you're basically out fighting the F-15 and F-16 in their own games. I didn't expect that. I always hear from Hornet pilots that they would force the Viper to go slow, i think you or another Eagle pilot also said that an Eagle would try to go slow against a Viper and turn it into a vertical fight where the Eagle holds the advantage.

But If I'm getting this correctly, the Raptor has so much energy that it can out Eagle and Eagle in the vertical and out Viper the Viper in the horizontal.

If you don't mind, which one was the tougher challange when you get to the merge?
The Eagle with its better ACM trained pilots and superior vertical performance, or the Viper which is harder to see and bounces around in the sky, not to mention has more energy than the Eagle.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 01:23
by tailgate
I think this has been said, but here goes.....no energy and no speed are a fighter pilots nightmare.....yes you might kill your target but his wingman going to thinks it’s his birthday......rarely if ever will you see a 1 vs 1. I fought allot of hornets in my time and they are not getting me slow.......

With the Viper, I don’t care what any book says, aside from DFLCS limits, you get in a phone booth fight with him and he will get inside your circle and get a heater up your butt or get a gun on you......period.

With the Eagle, you have to do vertical maneuvering to take advantage of your power and maybe a little TVC......

But after all this is all theoretical, because once the real fight starts it’s may the best man win......I hope every time it’s me.....lol

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Feb 2018, 09:22
by zero-one
tailgate wrote: I fought allot of hornets in my time and they are not getting me slow.......


I see, but If this is the case, how do Hornet pilots fight? (perhaps 35_AOA can shed some light on this). they certainly won't try to go vertical, a high energy fight makes them meat on the table for pure bread stallions like the Eagle, Viper, Mig-29 and Flanker

tailgate wrote:
With the Viper, I don’t care what any book says, aside from DFLCS limits, you get in a phone booth fight with him and he will get inside your circle and get a heater up your butt or get a gun on you......period.

How does the Raptor compare to an A-A or very lightly configured Viper, is it close or does the Viper still hold a commanding lead in this area.

tailgate wrote:With the Eagle, you have to do vertical maneuvering to take advantage of your power and maybe a little TVC......


Wouldn't this be playing to his strengths? but I guess if you can out play him in his game, it will be easier for you than to force him to play another game. I'm thinking going vertical with an Eagle is a good tactic because he is already going to do that. is this correct?

as ususal, great stuff tailgate, and thenkyou

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2018, 03:00
by rheonomic
gc wrote:
rheonomic wrote:CFTs were designed to maintain the same handling qualities as without them and to minimize the performance impact.


I always take that claim with a pinch of salt. Every Mudhen driver I have spoken to says that their airframe is significantly draggier compared to a clean F-15C and there is not chance they can turn and burn with a Eagle. Or maybe this problem is only specific to the F-15 CFT.


I'm only talking in regard to the Blk 60 Viper here, don't know about the Mudhen.

Regardless, "minimize the performance impact" does not mean there is no performance impact; only that the CFT OMLs were chosen as the OML that minimized the impact compared to space of possible OMLs. (See e.g. AIAA 2000-4522...)

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2018, 06:15
by 35_aoa
zero-one wrote:I see, but If this is the case, how do Hornet pilots fight? (perhaps 35_AOA can shed some light on this). they certainly won't try to go vertical, a high energy fight makes them meat on the table for pure bread stallions like the Eagle, Viper, Mig-29 and Flanker


You'd be surprised how quickly a couple mistakes from a higher TW fighter can shift a fight away from E-M diagram analyses and paper credentials. All the energy addition and ability in the vertical mean very little if you don't understand or can't execute the basics of BFM properly from the first merge. My point is that we fight BFM just like anyone else.....there is no magic formula for the Hornet, just like there is no such thing for the Eagle/Viper. If it makes sense for me to go 2 circle/energy, I will....if it makes sense for me to go into the vertical, I will. It's all about the man in the other "box", and what they allow (or prevent) you from doing.

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 21 Feb 2018, 06:25
by rheonomic
35_aoa wrote:You'd be surprised how quickly a couple mistakes from a higher TW fighter can shift a fight away from E-M diagram analyses and paper credentials.


"Never trust anyone who would rather kick your a$$ with a slide rule than with a jet."

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 23 Feb 2018, 23:53
by saberrider
hummingbird wrote:No, you're confusing pitch rate with turn rate, there'in lies your problem.

For the F-15 to achieve max pitch rate most of its lifting surfaces will already be stalled, i.e. beyond CLmax, at which point it won't actually be going in the direction its pointing. This is known as the nose pointing authority of the aircraft, and it is not connected with the actual turn rate.

So, pitch rate is when the nose is pointing inside the turn more, in level flight and the a/c skid and sink by inertia trying to turn sharply,right?

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 25 Feb 2018, 08:20
by garrya
saberrider wrote:So, pitch rate is when the nose is pointing inside the turn more, in level flight and the a/c skid and sink by inertia trying to turn sharply,right?

Pitch rate is the rate of change of the airplane's nose. An aircraft may point its nose very fast without changing direction of travel. An example is cobra maneuver.

Pitch rate mostly affected by horizontal stabs

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2018, 15:16
by mixelflick
garrya wrote:
saberrider wrote:So, pitch rate is when the nose is pointing inside the turn more, in level flight and the a/c skid and sink by inertia trying to turn sharply,right?

Pitch rate is the rate of change of the airplane's nose. An aircraft may point its nose very fast without changing direction of travel. An example is cobra maneuver.

Pitch rate mostly affected by horizontal stabs


That's a Mig-29 OVT... :)

EDIT: Ok, I see Flankers in the video..

Re: F-16 vs F/A-18

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2018, 23:44
by vilters
Do a Cobra during a fight, and hope your chute was well packed because you are dead within seconds.

Even the highest trust aircraft takes too long to regain the lost energy.