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

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

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 19:38

The F-14 manual is dated to 1990.

The HAF F-16 Block 50 manual is dated to 2003 I believe.


Why do you think I included an early 1990's USAF T.O. page for the early Block 50, to show you that it gained weight in 10 years.


My point is, it's disingenuous to compare an F-16 that is 100% multi-role (hence the additions to 2003) against a Tomcat from circa 1987-1990 that was at that time used strictly for Air to Air. Don't you think?


If anyone is initially guilty of making rough estimations and going contrary to charted info it is you, not I. I know the F-14 has no G limiter, yet I am not going to sit here and attempt to "extrapolate" the line out to 9G. Also, that is border line hypocrisy. You can make your "estimations" while I cannot make my own?

Finally, I do not understand why you are posting F-15 info? My whole argument centered around comparing what is generally considered the best BFM Viper version, the Block 30 against the best BFM Tomcat version, the F-14B. I really could care less about the Eagle v Tomcat, it is a tired and exhausted subject.


I will say this: against an F-15C the F-14B/D is a fairly even match (assuming equal pilots). Probably with some points going to the Tomcat (such as a smaller turn circle, better ITR at lower speeds)/ while the Eagle has a slightly better T/W ratio and higher STR at certain speeds (generally at the higher end of the spectrum)). Even the original F-14A was a good dog-fighter (regardless of problems from the TF-30). I have spoke with 4 A pilots and they infer that if flown correctly it in many circumstances beat F-15's (some saying thanks to the added SA of the RIO, reference VF-1 and VF-14 DACT exercises from the late 1970's).
Last edited by f-16adf on 21 Aug 2017, 20:11, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1813
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post21 Aug 2017, 20:06

magnum4469 wrote:Years ago flying the "A" blk 15 against F-14D doing BFM and ACM sorties. We were flying with centerline and 2 bag jets, the F-14s were clean. In fights with the 2 bag jets it was about an even match with slight advantage to F-14s. Centerline jets had huge advantage vs F-14. Clean vs clean jets the F-14 would be no match for the F-16. You can't just compare the turn rate you also have to look at the radius. The setups were all standard, 20k, 350kts, line abreast 1.5nm split, check away 30 degrees, at approx 2nm separation turn in and fights on. Meet 180 degrees out, the F-14 would go into horizontal break two circle turn, Vipers would pull vertical and roll and pull to 6 oclock. Employing either AIM-9 or gun. The F-14 provided a huge target compared to Viper for putting the pipper on. The tail stab of the F-14 (33' wide, compared to 32' wide of the F-16 wing) had almost the same area as the entire wing of the Viper. As soon as you saw the wings sweeping forward you knew he was out of energy and went in for the gun shot. Not to take anything away from the F-14, it was a great platform for what it was designed for, keeping Bear bombers away from carrier air group and shooting down cruise missiles but as far as a knife fighting dog fighter it came up short, even with the "D" model upgrades.



Nice Magnum - you've been here a while - were you flying in the 1980s & 90s? - and did you fly any other blocks outside the 15?
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 02:47

hummingbird wrote:F-15C measured load factors:
Image

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


For some strange reasons F-15A/C with F-100-PW100 has higher sustained G factor than F-15 with F-100-PW200.
Image
Mach = G-load
0.2 = 1.4
0.3 = 2.2
0.4 = 3
0.5 = 3.8
0.6 = 4.7
0.7 = 5.6
0.75 = 6.1
0.8 = 6.6
0.85 = 7.1
Image
Mach = G-load
0.2 = 1.2
0.3 = 2
0.4 = 2.8
0.5 = 3.6
0.6 = 4.4
0.7= 5.3
0.75 = 5.65
0.8 = 6.2
0.85 = 7
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2300
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 03:09

What advantage is the older A model if it cannot get into firing position before being fired upon? The A is at a serious technical disadvantage. By the time you gain those abilities in the A/C you become overweight and at a disadvantage to the E models. At best you might be able to use the ASRAAM without any surefire knowledge if the WVA seeker on its head acquired the target or a wingman.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 03:43

And the five percent weight difference.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 03:48

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And the five percent weight difference.

Spurt, just in case my earlier chart wasn't accurate, can you check this one out too
Image
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 04:32

garrya wrote:Spurt, just in case my earlier chart wasn't accurate, can you check this one out too

That one is far more precise. I was able to refine my sweep schedule, but it doesn't change MUCH.

Also, on those F-15 charts, I overlooked the content.

hummingbird posted a 41klb F-15C with 8 AAM and a CL pylon with a -220 motor. and gives some mostly correct data (I zoomed way in to try and fine tune the estimates a bit),

Then eloise quoted hummingbird and added two charts for -100 powered eagles, one in the same config but light, the other the same weight but in a draggier config. I weight corrected all of them to 41klb. and came up with the -100 bird having an edge at the low end of the envelope but the -220 bird taking the lead just before 0.8M. If anyone remembers the development of the -220, and IIRC, it was rated at less thrust STATIC but increased thrust at higher dynamic pressures over the -100. These charts seem to play that out.

eloise, do you have the full -1 for the old -100 powered F-15? I only have -220 and Strike Eagle when it comes to F-15s.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 05:39

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: eloise, do you have the full -1 for the old -100 powered F-15? I only have -220 and Strike Eagle when it comes to F-15s.

I sent it in your direct message.
What if the engine is at 100% trim with Vmax switches on?
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 828
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 07:27

f-16adf wrote: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

Are you sure the pylon went with the tanks? I thought only F-22 is like that
Anyway drag index of F-16 with 6 missiles + no fuel tank pylons
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.
P/s: you are correct indeed, the tank and pylon are a single unit.
Image
Image
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 13:10

Sferrin has a vid of a Strike Eagle demo with no CFT. And it sure seems like a beast. But it still is a few thousand Lbs heavier and draggier because of the 2 seat bigger canopy than the traditional F-15C w/220's.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuhPrxFFiA8


But even with more power, I still think it's at a disadvantage at slower speeds because of the hard wing (no variable camber) and the higher wing sweep. I have a book that says in the F-15 section (by an Eagle pilot) "We think we have the best dog-fighter in the world, but we do not get slow against the gents in the F-14's."

The F-15 pilot ( i'm sure some pilots of other jets would probably disagree with his statement) is meaning that at slower speeds he has to be very, very careful because he is at a disadvantage against a wing with LE slats and of less sweep like the F-14A's. And when Eagle pilots found themselves in a dangerous situation in a horizontal angles fight, they generally would go vertical. And in those days, not many jets could follow them up.

I think the original F-14A was a good dog-fighter. And it did at many times embarrass the Eagle community in ACM.
Last edited by f-16adf on 22 Aug 2017, 13:55, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 13:31

f-16adf wrote: I have a book that says in the F-15 section (by an Eagle pilot) "We think we have the best dog-fighter in the world, but we do not get slow against the gents in the F-14's."

I heard that quote years ago and have never been able to find a source for it. If you manage to come across that book could you look it up if it isn't too much trouble?
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 700
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 13:50

Spurts,

It's from "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes", Salamander Books, pg. 638 of the F-14 Performance and Handling section (by Mike Spick). I believe you can just buy the F-14 section on amazon, and not the whole book.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4484
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 14:55

f-16adf wrote:Spurts,

It's from "The Great Book of Modern Warplanes", Salamander Books, pg. 638 of the F-14 Performance and Handling section (by Mike Spick). I believe you can just buy the F-14 section on amazon, and not the whole book.

I KNEW IT!!! I have that book and scoured the F-15 section looking for it and just completely spaced checking the F-14 section. I need a new copy of the book though, the cover came off mine years ago. Amazon here I come. Thanks again!
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1725
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 15:04

f-16adf wrote: "We think we have the best dog-fighter in the world, but we do not get slow against the gents in the F-14's.

Sound like F-14 is very similar to F-18, Mig-29. I heard the gents in F-16 said they don't want to get slow with F-18 or Mig-29. From pilots testimony, F-35 also has this characteristic.
Offline

hummingbird

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2017, 04:54

Unread post22 Aug 2017, 15:11

f-16adf wrote:If anyone is initially guilty of making rough estimations and going contrary to charted info it is you, not I. I know the F-14 has no G limiter, yet I am not going to sit here and attempt to "extrapolate" the line out to 9G. Also, that is border line hypocrisy. You can make your "estimations" while I cannot make my own?


I didn't really make any estimations, and I certainly nowhere went contrary to charted info (!)

What I did do was provide the actual charted lift curve for the F-14, and from it can be observed that no real change occurs until Mach 0.85, which is where the high lift devices stop operating. Thus I could/can correctly state that the F-14 will be able to pull the 9 G's instantanuous at lower alts before the F-16, as the lift curve straight away lets us know this. Thus whilst I can't provide the exact G @ specific speed past 7.5 Gs I can instead positively state it would hit 9 G long before M 0.85 at for example 10 kft.

Finally, I do not understand why you are posting F-15 info? My whole argument centered around comparing what is generally considered the best BFM Viper version, the Block 30 against the best BFM Tomcat version, the F-14B. I really could care less about the Eagle v Tomcat, it is a tired and exhausted subject.


Because that's how the discussion garrya linked you guys started originally, as a comparison in performance between the "current" F-14, F-15 & F-16 in order to illustrate the typical expected performance of the aircraft as seen on duty. How you got that twisted into a "best version vs best version irrespective of time frame" debate I don't know..

I will say this: against an F-15C the F-14B/D is a fairly even match (assuming equal pilots). Probably with some points going to the Tomcat (such as a smaller turn circle, better ITR at lower speeds)/ while the Eagle has a slightly better T/W ratio and higher STR at certain speeds (generally at the higher end of the spectrum)). Even the original F-14A was a good dog-fighter (regardless of problems from the TF-30). I have spoke with 4 A pilots and they infer that if flown correctly it in many circumstances beat F-15's (some saying thanks to the added SA of the RIO, reference VF-1 and VF-14 DACT exercises from the late 1970's)


Sure, no disagreements there at all.
Last edited by hummingbird on 22 Aug 2017, 15:23, edited 2 times in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests