Page 1 of 4

How could you make the F-16 equal to Su-37 in agility?

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 16:56
by Normsta3
Yes, I've been posting a lot, my bad. Anyways, what do you think it would take to bring a standard F-16 (let's say a Block 50 / 52) up to par with a Su - 37 in terms of manueverability? Just a thought, because it has been proven beyond a doubt that the Su family of fighters is extremely agile, more so than many of America's fighters, including the F-16, :cry: But what could designers do to change that? Me, I'm thinkin' of adding a thrust - vectoring engine of some sort and getting rid / altering that command in the F-16's computer systems that limits the amounts of G's it can pull. What do ya'll think?

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 17:02
by DeepSpace
I think it needs to get a vectoring thurst, enlarged control surfaces (ailerons, rudder and elavetor) and as you said, get rid of that computer system :wink:

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 18:40
by Guest
All ready been done. Lockheed and General Electric fitted a vectored thrust nozzle to the VISTA F-16 in 1992...they called it MATV "multi axis thurst vectoring". It was capable of thrust vectoring in ALL 3 AXIS!!!!! They claimed it wsnt that big of a deal that it needed to be on the Acft. It cost over $2.5 mil a copy, why do it if there was a replacement aircraft on the horizon. I have a 5 min video of the F-16 flying with this....I need to get it digitized. LOL.....get rid of the computer system? It would fall out of the sky with out it. Aicraft designed around relaxed static stabilty need a computer to fly it.....nothing else would even come close. 9 g's are plenty....pilots cant take much more than that!!!!!

I didn't mean it literally

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 21:39
by Normsta3
1. I didn't suggest completely getting rid of the computer control systems, I simply suggested altering it to allow more radical movements.

2. Do you think the VISTA F-16 is equally as manueverable as the Su-37? I mean, we all know it's probably the most manueverable of the F-16 family, but we're talkin' one of, if not the most manueverable planes in all the world. Can the VISTA F-16 really stand up to that? I honestly don't know, but unfortunately, my first instinct / educated guess wouldn't be the VISTA F-16.

3. Are there any other suggestions save a thrust - vectoring engine and altering / modifying the computer control systems?

Unread postPosted: 15 Aug 2003, 23:57
by Guest
They used the VISTA F-16 to test the MATV concept, please read my post carefully. Deep space is the one that suggested that the computer go bye bye.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 02:01
by Commando
Well the F-16 may have more pick-up in speed, but overall I think the SU-37 is faster.

No offense to "Guest"

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 04:11
by Normsta3
Hey "Guest", no offense meant by me. Deep Space was just agreeing with what I said earlier. Neither he nor I literally meant get rid of the computer system, just that part of the flight control system that limits just how maneuverable the F-16 can be. But anyways, you think that the VISTA F-16 is just as agile as the Su-37 huh? That's very interesting. God knows I'd love to see a fly-off between to the two to see who truly is more maneuverable, wouldn't you?

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 04:44
by Guest
"rolls his eyes"..........Listen to what I am saying (so to speak) they used the VISTA F-16.........They put a F-110 jet engine in it that had been modified with a multi axis thrust vectoring nozzle in it that was linked to the flight control system. It was capable of 128 degrees AOA. It could have been installed in ANY F-16!!!!! Yes I think in this particular configuration it was just as capable as the 37. As I said earlier I have a video tape that was done by the AF and clearly showed the capabilities of the F-16 and the MATV engine. It really doesnt have anything to do with the VISTA....thats just the platform they chose to fly it in. What really was the point of the flying program was the vectored thrust!!!!!! The VISTA was designed to simulate many different aircraft and their flyng characteristics.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 04:52
by Sparticus
I know the test he is refering to. How about this. In 1992 the AF and General Electric tested a vectored thrust nozzle in a F-16 and they concluded that it was a remarkable success. Just as capable as any vectored thrust aircraft.
On the subject of the FC computer. It has been carefully factored in to the life of the airframe that 9 G's be the limitation of the jet. Name one combat aircraft that has a higher G loading. You ever pulled 9 G's? Trust me you dont want to do it all day long, a little goes a long way. It also decreases the lifespan of the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 05:36
by cmjohnson
It should be noted that the VISTA/MATV experiments were done in the 1980's. Quite some time ago. A bit scary, when you think about it.

The initial system was quoted by GE to cost about 1 million per plane to retrofit, if done in reasonable numbers. These days, that 1 million might well be 2.5 million per copy, but personally, I think it would be worth it.

Imagine if it'd been done to the whole fleet back in the 80's. Imagine the absolute superiority it would have established in our fighter's positions worldwide, and that is somebody that NOBODY would have questioned.

Incidentally, the MATV/VISTA system has also been successfully integerated with Pratt & Whitney F100 series engines.


Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 12:50
by s_ellebaut
I've posted a litlle movie showing the F-16 MATV making the cobra manouvre some time ago, it's in the photo gallery under movies.

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2003, 21:54
by Guest
Why would you want to build/modify an F-16 with the FLCS characteristics of an SU-37...considering that the former Soviet Union has only enough money to build a few of these aircraft? Lets see, we(the F-16CJ) already have an airframe that does 9 G inst and sustains a respectable amount of G in a turning fight. Yet has the ability to shoot BVR and not even worry about turning with an SU-37! If youve ever done 9G in a dogfight - its not fun and nothing you want to do more of. Kill them before the merge and get it over with. (KSSC)

A Response To Each Of The Last Few Posts

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 03:53
by Normsta3
To Sparticus & "Guest": Ok, I already knew about the thrust - vectoring nozzle employed on the VISTA F-16. The only reason I keep using the VISTA F-16 in my points is because it was the first F-16 that I know of to have the thrust - vectoring nozzle. I never even came close to stating that it was the ONLY F-16 capable of sporting that nozzle. On the contrary, as you mentioned, a great deal of F-16s can use that nozzle. Heck, if Israel or the UAE wants, they could put those nozzles on their latest F-16s.

Second, when talking about American vs. Soviet fighters, 2 topics are nearly inevitably turned up, maximum number of G's pulled and the cobra manuever. So far, every single thread I've looked at involving those types of fighters involves those 2 topics. Why, well you know why, because it says a lot about a fighter's agility. Maximum G's: enough said. The cobra manuever: one of the most complex manuevers known to man, one that CANNOT be reproduced with just any aircraft (heck, only Canadian F/A-18s can done it as far as I know, though I have a feeling that others such as the F-22 & JSF could as well). Now, the point I was trying to make earlier is one of comparisons. It takes an F-16 with a thrust - vectoring nozzle to replicate the cobra manuever, yet the Su-27 does it with ease, WITHOUT the assistance of thrust - vectoring. It stands to logic that thrust - vectoring increases agility, so if a thrust - vectored F-16 is possibly just even with a Su-27, then imagine what a Su-37 could do with thrust - vectoring engines. And I know, I know, people can't take more that 9 Gs for any length of time, but pulling more than 9 in certain circumstances could potentially end in a kill for the pilot. Potential is what I'm really talkin' about. Shoot, I don't expect every Soviet, or American pilot, for that matter, to go and pull 10+ Gs, that's crazy. But I'd say the ability to be able to do so is very useful indeed, cuz God knows that combat is a very fluid situation, one in which pulling more than 9 Gs may be necessary to save one's life. But anyways, the point is, a thrust - vectored Falcon may be equal to a Su-27, but a Su-37 kinda seems like a little bit of stretch.

To Another, or possibly same "Guest": Beyond Visual Kills are great and all, but it might not always turn out that way. Not to mention, Su-35s have the R-77 missile, which is often called the AMRAAM-ski. Seeing as how we're all intellgent individuals, I'll leave you to intelligently guess at what its performance is like. Most likely, Su-37s would be just as capable of carrying such a missile as the Su-35s. And once again, I know that doing 9 Gs or more obviously isn't good for one's health, but guess hey, if it could potentially save me from being shot down or killed, then I'd rather take a chance at living then just continue being shot at and possibly die in the process.

Well, I'm spent. I don't know if any of what I said had any value or revelance to anyone, but hey, whatever, that's what discussion boards are for, discussing. :wink: I'm tired, so I'll check ya'll later. Peace.

I apologize . . .

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 03:57
by Normsta3
Before I hit the hay for the night, I apologize for all the numerous grammatical errors in my post earlier, but frankly I'm just too dang tired to care. I just pray ya'll get the basic premise of what I'm tryin' to say. Anyways, good night.

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2003, 05:13
by Commando
I'm sure that the F-16 can pick up speed faster then the SU-30