F-16C, F-16E vs F-14D

[garrya]

Some more charts about the hard wing behavior Spurt mentioned earlier

[garrya]

A good comparison on the ability of the "lifting body" of the F-14 is to compare the Mirage 2000 15K chart (remember to include 6AAM vs 2AAM loadout) against the 15K Tomcat chart. Even with 6AAM, the Mirage 2000 still has a superior ITR, smaller turn radius.

Do you have 15k ft chart of F-14 for comparison? I can only find Mirage chart

[F-16ADF]

I do not know the apparent field DA, but I thought I would show this to illustrate my point.



1986 Abbotsford demo, F-16A Block 10 small tail 360 degree turn starts at 2:41:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5IH04Qp2E

Completed in a little over 16 seconds.





Solo Turk's F-16C Block 40 360 degree turn starts at :34 second mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBlEU62e8c

Completed in around 15 seconds.

Funny thing is the Block 30 is around 700lbs lighter than the 40, so expect a slightly faster turn.





Here is a Block 30 from back in the old days. Turn starts at 4:06

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goluWOE3q74





Sorry, but I have never ever seen any F-14A/B/D or F-15A/C turn anywhere close to those numbers. And if anyone can find a video proving otherwise (even from our friends on that other site), feel free to prove me wrong.



And in the event people try and attempt to infer that the F-16A has a "large turn circle" lets listen very, very, very carefully to Mr. Randy Ball (the most high time Mig-17 pilot in the United States) at the 4:45 mark.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2-LprWf3NI



Yep, the F-16A can turn inside a Mig-17, of which the F-14A and F-15A were unable. He explicitly says that the Viper was the FIRST jet to turn inside the Fresco.

[madrat]

Surely FBW adds significantly to the Mirage 2k and F-16 figures. The F-14 would have benefit from FBW research across its entire flight envelope. FBW probably would have been a bigger leap in performance than adding F110's in the F-14D. Didn't the ADV from Panavia enjoy quite a bit of control freedom with its FCS in comparison to F-14?

[eloise]

The F-16 is always under the effects of the CAT-I limiter for A-A loads. Look at the chart f-16adf posted for 35kft with that same F-14D. It looks like my chart. The sweep system being different at higher altitude may be to blame. Maybe the high AR wing of the Tomcat is less effective at higher altitudes?

I can totally see the resemble between the two. But i don't understand why .
At the same velocity, the wing sweep at higher altitude is lower, so i expected the gap in ITR to be widened but it goes the opposite direction. Why do high AR wing become less effective at higher altitude?

It can, however, be empirically seen even within the official F-14D charts that at 35kft the Tomcat has poor turning ability with a decreasing Clmax as speed increases.

isn't the instantaneous turn rate of F-14 limited by it's airframe G limit?

[hummingbird]

F-14B, 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's, 15,000 ft:

[eloise]

F-14B 4AIM-7, 4AIM-9 can pull 3G at 0.4M
Mirage 2000 2R550 can pull 3.9G at 0.4M
I guess they have approximately the same or very similar instantaneous turn rate if both both equipped with 4 air to air missiles.
@sprstdlyscottsmn, what would be the ITR of F-22, F-35, F-18 in the same conditions? combat radius, AB time, 4 air to air missiles.

[hummingbird]

To illustrate the importance of G relative to speed >

F-14B/D, 4x AIM-7 + 4x AIM-9, 10,000 ft. Min turn radius = 1,525 ft:
http://i.imgur.com/InP8mkf.png

F-16C, 4x AIM-120 + 2x AIM-9, 10,000 ft. Min turn radius = 1,935 ft:
http://i.imgur.com/XXswnBj.png

Sustained load factors up to Mach 0.75:

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:
Mach = G-load
0.2 = 1.2
0.3 = 1.95
0.4 = 2.95
0.5 = 4.0
0.6 = 5.0
0.7 = 5.3
0.75 = 5.6

F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft:
Mach = G-load
0.2 = CAT limited
0.3 = 1.8
0.4 = 2.7
0.5 = 3.55
0.6 = 4.5
0.7 = 5.5
0.75 = 6.0

F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:
Mach = G-load
0.2 = 1.0
0.3 = 1.8
0.4 = 2.6
0.5 = 3.4
0.6 = 4.3
0.7 = 5.25
0.75 = 5.7

F-15C, 4x AIM-120 + 4x AIM-9 sustained load factor chart:
http://i.imgur.com/PqJTTl9.jpg

[F-16ADF]

Pretty funny, since I have proven the Big Mouth Block 30 kicks the **** out of any Tomcat or Eagle, we are now moving on to the Mirage 2000.

See you tomorrow children.

[garrya]

Pretty funny, since I have proven the Big Mouth Block 30 kicks the **** out of any Tomcat or Eagle, we are now moving on to the Mirage 2000.

See you tomorrow children.

Calm down F-16adf, Mirage always credited to have very good ITR even though, its STR is bad. More aircraft for comparison is always better

[garrya]

More charts guys:

[tailgate]

Pretty funny, since I have proven the Big Mouth Block 30 kicks the **** out of any Tomcat or Eagle, we are now moving on to the Mirage 2000.

See you tomorrow children.

Tangling with any F-16 tested one's ability to the max.....but I agree with F-16Aadf here......the block 30 F-16 just had that perfect blend going on and it was tough to defeat.......kinda made you happy that they were on your side......

Jim

[F-16ADF]

Once again, do you not understand that the Block 50/52 is not the best BFM version of the Viper? Yet you keep comparing it to the best fighter version of the Tomcat (in this case the F-14B).



Here is the DI chart for the F-14B, please add them up (for 4 Aim-7, 4 Aim-9, and NO fuel tank pylons are mentioned):

http://imgur.com/a/cBu3l


Here is a USAF T.O. DI for a USAF early 1990's Block 50 (note its weight compared to HAF -1-1):

http://imgur.com/a/FTzEK



Additionally, your numbers for the F-16 are incorrect, the 370 gallon fuel tank includes the pylon. So when the pilot jettisons the tanks, the pylons go with it.

T.O. DI's are broken down into 50's, they do not represent a specific load out. So go over your numbers for 2 Aim-9, 4 Aim-120, and no tanks (isn't it only fair if the Tomcats tank pylons are not included)?


Also, note that the Block 30 has a 1.6 degree advantage in sustained turn rate at .6 M against the Block 50. Now superimpose that to this from your DCS website (adjust it for 10K):


http://imgur.com/a/YvFt2



The Block 30 over shadows the F-15C, F-16C Block 50, and matches or exceeds the F-14B at its best STR of .6 M, and after that completely leaves it in the dust.


The Block 30 also has a 1.3 degree per second ITR advantage and smaller turn radius vs Block 50.


Hence the Viper pilot will sit comfortably in his Corner Plateau, not a Corner Spike like the Tomcat or Eagle.

[madrat]

And until just recently - and only a tiny fraction of them built - did the F-15 or F-14 enjoy FBW and a digitized flight control system that optimized your performance. I'm going to predict the F-15SA with a true FBW and all digital FCS improves the performance in comparison to previous variants even though the control surfaces did not fundamentally change.

[hummingbird]

F-16adf,

Why would I want to compare a 2006 F-14 with a 1980's F-16, where's the point in that ?

Also do you not understand this was never an aircraft pissing contest?

It seems to me that you think the comparison was set up to somehow prove either aircraft superior, something which was never the case. The comparison was to showcase relative performance and how the F-14 despite an "official" wing loading of 600+kg/sq.m. was still able to maneuver with the best of them. Furthermore things are what they are, all the information we need has already been exhaustively tested and charted out, so there's really no need to be making guesses or claims about anything.

Now wether or not the F-14 chart includes two tank pylons or not really is irrelevant to the chart figures, each pylon constituting a measly DI figure of 1. Instead consider the amount of fuel the aircraft can carry internally and wether or not the tanks are needed for a similar range mission between the two aircraft.

As for the comparison charts you've created, you're making the mistake of comparing rate figures instead of looking at the load factor measurements which are more accurate and what the rate figures are based on. Looking at the load factor figures you will find that the F-15C at no point until after M 0.75 has a higher STR than the F-14B/D:

F-15C measured load factors:


From the chart above =
F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:
Mach = G-load
0.2 = 1.0
0.3 = 1.8
0.4 = 2.6
0.5 = 3.4
0.6 = 4.3
0.7 = 5.25
0.75 = 5.7

Compared with the F-14B/D's sustained load factor chart:

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:
Mach = G-load
0.2 = 1.2
0.3 = 1.95
0.4 = 2.95
0.5 = 4.0
0.6 = 5.0
0.7 = 5.3
0.75 = 5.6

Finally I really don't understand the derogatory tone towards any discussion that takes place on Eagle.ru, as if they are automatically less valid than any that goes on in here. The notion that more can be "revealed" here because it isn't a Russian forum is chuckle worthy considering everyone and anyone has direct access to see exactly what is written here. Besides I'm sure there are several Russian members here too. So no need for the silver hats.