F-16 vs F/A-18

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2193
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post06 Feb 2018, 15:17

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.
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2752
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post06 Feb 2018, 16:06

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1730
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post06 Feb 2018, 16:28

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1730
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post06 Feb 2018, 17:46

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
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 00:40

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?
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 00:57

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.
Last edited by hummingbird on 07 Feb 2018, 05:20, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 01:16

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.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 03:34

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.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 05:12

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.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 05:30

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.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 07:27

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1730
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 10:33

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1730
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 10:41

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.
Last edited by eloise on 07 Feb 2018, 11:09, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 90
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 10:56

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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1730
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Feb 2018, 11:33

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.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests