Viper vs Raptor: Maneuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2007, 18:51
by Vtugimora
Now I know, with its stealthy, one look, one shot, one kill thing, the F-22 can decimate nearly anything it comes up against. But, can the F-22, with its thrust vectoring, turn like a Viper?

RE: Viper VS Raptor: Maneuverability

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2007, 23:05
by Roscoe
Good question. Since the wing won't shoulder the entire load, theoretically it can turn sharper than its structural limit would suggest. However, you probably won't get an answer here.

Note that the raptor maneuverability really shines at low speed, particularly near- and post-stall. There the Viper just can't hang with the big dog.

RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2007, 23:12
by Vtugimora
Why wouldn't I get an answer?

And does that mean the Viper has nothing over the Raptor? I mean, nothing?

See, the Eagle is faster than the Raptor, the Lightning (B-variant) has VTOL capability and (all versions) better air to ground capability. Is the Viper just TOTALLY outmached?

RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2007, 03:12
by johnwill
Let's talk about turning capability of a fighter airplane. Turning requires lift perpendicular to the flight path. That lift is provided by the combined wing / fuselage / tail (or canard) / and in some airplanes, thrust vectoring. Thrust vectoring does not provide lift. Quite the opposite, it provided a down force at the back of the airplane to rotate the nose up.

To develop significant turning lift the wing /fuselage / tail (or canard) must have an angle of attack and a significant airspeed. All this lift divided by the weight of the airplane is the load factor, sometimes called "g". At high airspeed the control power of the tail (or canard) is sufficient to push the airplane to the desired angle of attack, and obtain the desired lift, g, and turn rate. Note that thrust vectoring is not needed. At lower airspeeds, the tail (or canard) may not have sufficient power to rotate the airplane to the angle of attack needed. In this case, thrust vectoring is used to develop the angle of attack by pushing the aft end down. The wing /fuselage / tail (or canard) still provide all the lift for turning plus additional lift to overcome the down load from thrust vectoring.

To summarize, thrust vectoring adds to turning capability at low airspeeds but it does it with control power, not added lift. TV can point the airplane but cannot provide turning lift.

In comparing the Raptor and Viper, instantaneous turn capability at higher airspeeds is limited by load factor (g). If both airplanes are 9g, then their instantaneous turn capability is the same. With its higher thrust to weight and lower wing loading, the Raptor has higher sustained turn capability at most conditions. At lower airspeeds, the Raptor wins due to its higher angle of attack capability and TV. Remember, instantaneous turn means speed may drop during the turn and sustained turn means constant speed during the turn, with both turns at constant altitude.

The only way a Viper can beat a Raptor is in its air to ground weapon load capability. But the Raptor is not at this time intended to be a bomber anyway.

RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2007, 06:08
by Spartan-120
Well said. The F-22 also has a significant advantage in T/W ratio, acceleration (level, vertical, and unloaded) and climb rate, all due to the increased power of its twin F-119 engines. Also the F-22 has the further advantage that it will usually if not always enter the fight aerodynamically clean (no pylons or gas bags or anything to cause drag), even when carrying a full combat load of missiles.

RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 03 Oct 2007, 00:56
by avon1944
In one exercise the F-22A went up against three F-16C's with HMDS and HOB "-9X" class missiles, a WVR fight. The F-22 killed the first two F-16's and was in the process of killing the third when the last F-16 used its HOB missile and fired almost simultaneously at the F-22. So all four aircraft were shot down.
This also adds to the voices that want the Sidewinder-9X with HMDS increased in priority, so it will be included in the upgrade, sooner than currently scheduled.

Adrian

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2007, 05:19
by Scorpion1alpha
But, can the F-22, with its thrust vectoring, turn like a Viper?


Simple answer: significantly better.

Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2007, 09:55
by Pilotasso
avon1944 wrote:In one exercise the F-22A went up against three F-16C's with HMDS and HOB "-9X" class missiles, a WVR fight. The F-22 killed the first two F-16's and was in the process of killing the third when the last F-16 used its HOB missile and fired almost simultaneously at the F-22. So all four aircraft were shot down.
This also adds to the voices that want the Sidewinder-9X with HMDS increased in priority, so it will be included in the upgrade, sooner than currently scheduled.

Adrian


I thought the Raptor wasnt certified to have the Helmet mounted sights yet.

RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2007, 01:34
by avon1944
avon1944 wrote:In one exercise the F-22A went up against three F-16C's with HMDS and HOB "-9X" class missiles, a WVR fight. The F-22 killed the first two F-16's and was in the process of killing the third when the last F-16 used its HOB missile and fired almost simultaneously at the F-22. So all four aircraft were shot down.
This also adds to the voices that want the Sidewinder-9X with HMDS increased in priority, so it will be included in the upgrade, sooner than currently scheduled.

Pilotasso wrote:I thought the Raptor wasnt certified to have the Helmet mounted sights yet.

The F-22A does not currently have "-9X" / HMDS but, it is one of the many upgrades scheduled. Unfortunately, the priority on this addition is not high.

Adrian

Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 04:38
by Patriot
johnwill wrote:With its higher thrust to weight and lower wing loading, the Raptor has higher sustained turn capability at most conditions.

Well, raw performance between the aircrafts always thrilld me the most. I do respect all involved law of physics like conclusions arising therefrom. I also know well tahat in discussed (quoted) case are many many varriables But... sometimes even if the pattern says one, the reality seem to say one.something ;)

Looking at numerous youtube videos regarding F-22's and F-16's so called 'max turns' or '9 g turns' from over two years I simply noticed.. that the sustained rate of turn means dgree per second is quite a bit but clear higher for the Viper! It lasts 16-20 seconds for a Viper to complete the turn average 18, while in case of the Raptor it's at least 20 seconds up to 24 seconds with 22 average to make a full 360degree turn. Also it seems that Raptor turns not only slower, but a bit wider than Viper equals better means smaller Viper's turn radius .

I guess tahat's because F-22's aerodynamics wasn't as like the Viper optimized for all the way pure energy-dogfighting especially at lower alts. May b higher things are diffrent but low Viper just kicks everybody's @$$!


Love the Viper! Pure fighterpilot’s fighter! not to mention the sexiest :inlove:
Cheers
:D

RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 11:09
by exec
Nope, this means that F-22 turned at higher speed. When you pull 9g at lower speeds you will turn faster and radius will also be smaller, but this is still 9g.

RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 17 Nov 2010, 14:11
by sprstdlyscottsmn
either way, the Viper turns the FASTER and TIGHTER sustained turn. And remember than while the Raptor has a lower wing loading it also has a worse aspect ratio so induced drag goes up.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 04:33
by exorcet
Patriot wrote:
Looking at numerous youtube videos regarding F-22's and F-16's


Not thrust worthy. Video footage is hugely ambiguous.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:either way, the Viper turns the FASTER and TIGHTER sustained turn. And remember than while the Raptor has a lower wing loading it also has a worse aspect ratio so induced drag goes up.


The F-22 might actually have a better aspect ratio. When wings are swept/tapered, you can't just compare span to chord. You need to look at the half chord line to get the average sweep and aspect ratio. The F-22's trailing edge taper probably lets it get a much lower sweep angle.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 05:31
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Aspect ratio is defined as span squared (44.5^2=1980) divided by reference wing area (840, 1980/840 is 2.37), when compared to a Vipers 3.0 it means that for any given LIFT COEFFICIENT the raptor makes 27% higher INDUCED DRAG COEFFICIENT. The Vipers higher wing loading (73 lb/ft^2 vs 87 lb/ft^, 19% higher) means that at any given speed or maneuver the Viper needs a 19% higher LIFT COEFFICIENT, resulting in 42% higher INDUCED DRAG COEFFICIENT. These two things average to the Viper having a 11% higher I.D.C. Now consider that the Raptors higher sweep angle (which lowers its parasite drag and wave drag, essential for high speed flight) shift the lift curve such that to attain any given lift coefficient it requires a higher angle of attack and thus increases the parasite drag when maneuvering (something the CAT I limiter on the Viper mitigates). Now while the viper makes 11% more lift drag coefficient the Raptor has 180% more area, so the raptor makes 152% more induced drag and has 140+% more static uninstalled thrust. With the increase in Parasite drag coefficient from increased AoA it is easy to see how at seal level with full internal fuel the Viper can have a better sustained turn rate. Not saying it necessarily does, but the basic math supports the theory. This of course all assumes same speed and same G.

Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 05:36
by leumas
Vtugimora wrote:And does that mean the Viper has nothing over the Raptor? I mean, nothing?

The price.

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 06:50
by jimraynor
There's really no shame in being totally outmatched by the Raptor. Everything is. Even the F-15's top speed of Mach 2.5 is a paper value; it's not going anywhere close to that for a significant period of time while carrying a payload. Raptor is faster than it in practical, usable sustained speed.

"Price" is actually not a joke but a real consideration. You can't have a sizable air force made up of nothing but Raptors. Something needs to be the workhorse once the cruise missiles and stealth jets take out the enemy's air defense. The F-16 performs that role admirably.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 09:21
by exec
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:either way, the Viper turns the FASTER and TIGHTER sustained turn. And remember than while the Raptor has a lower wing loading it also has a worse aspect ratio so induced drag goes up.

Viper turned faster and tighter because it flew slower. If the Raptor flew slower the turn radius would also be smaller. You can’t judge sustained turn rates that way. Fighters often show max-g turn at airshows, but if a fighter can pull 9g at sea level when flying 700 to 900 km/h how can you judge its turn capabilities not knowing the actual speed? Doing 9g at 700km/h means much smaller radius and quicker turn than when flying 900km/h.

Second thing – do you really think that sea-level turn performance is really that important for the Raptor?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 14:02
by exorcet
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Aspect ratio is defined as span squared (44.5^2=1980) divided by reference wing area (840, 1980/840 is 2.37), when compared to a Vipers 3.0


Yes, but b^2/S doesn't tell you everything. If you had a square wing with the same span and area as the F-22's or F-16's wing, you would get the same aspect ratio, but not the same wing performance.

I was thinking about it terms of the "effective AR" produced by the shaping of the wings, but technically, you're right, that actual AR would be b^2/S. But note that for the lift slope, it's the half chord line that's important, not LE sweep. The F-22's taper would make the half chord sweep angle much less than the LE sweep, but it may or may not be less than the F-16's half chord sweep.

Also, you have to factor in the fuselage lift coefficient/area for turning maneuvers, so the F-16 may not actually require higher wing CL for a given turn.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 14:30
by sprstdlyscottsmn
when you have a wing as big as the raptor the fuselage is encompassed in the reference area, and I only ever state wing sweep, I am not nit picking about which angle. A square wing with same span and area would give GREAT lift dues to no taper or sweep, that is why an A-10 turns so well. besides, no one thing "tells you everything" that is why I covered three issues and came up with a result that I did not know.

Exec, at airshows they tend to show off BEST turn rate. They want to show what the jet is capable of and they often announce it as the "minimum radius turn". Believe me I know all about how speed changes the turn, but the first post of the thread was questioning if the Viper had a faster sustained turn, and based on demonstrated performance it does at sea level, but I already stated that the Raptor is designed for supercruise first.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 16:17
by Patriot
exorcet wrote:
Patriot wrote:
Looking at numerous youtube videos regarding F-22's and F-16's


Not thrust worthy. Video footage is hugely ambiguous.

Well, I don't think so, certainly not in this case.. There's clearly shown how much time takes to complete the full 360 degree turn. That's simple reference to the rate of turn. Isn't it? The faster you finish the higher your rate of turn is. Every time I checked it out and compared - every time the Viper was 2-3 seconds ahead of the Raptor.

And as sprstdlyscottsmn said, they shows the'd have best to show at air show conditions. Therefore and above I claim that Viper's sustained turn rate is better than Raptor's sustained turn rate.

Check out how Corner Velocity affects the turning capability:


Corner speed also affects the minimum turn radius. The size of the turn radius of an aircraft depends on the speed it is traveling. A faster aircraft requires a larger circle to turn in than a slower one. However, the turn redius isn't only a function of speed. It also depends on the number of Gs a pilot pulls during the turn. An aircraft at a constant speed will make a relatively wide circle at 1 G but will turn in a very tight circle at 7 or 8 Gs. The corner velocity is the speed that gives the optimum balance between turn rate and turn radius.


on the bottom http://www.voodoo-world.cz/falcon/agf.html[/code]

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Nov 2010, 23:43
by exorcet
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:when you have a wing as big as the raptor the fuselage is encompassed in the reference area, and I only ever state wing sweep, I am not nit picking about which angle. A square wing with same span and area would give GREAT lift dues to no taper or sweep, that is why an A-10 turns so well. besides, no one thing "tells you everything" that is why I covered three issues and came up with a result that I did not know.

I never meant to imply that you didn’t know that nothing tells you everything, sorry. Lack of taper is usually bad, it’s the lack of sweep that benefits the square wing. Anyway, in an attempt to wrap this up from my end without any more confusion:
Going by definition of aspect ratio, you’re correct that the F-16 has a better figure. However, at the speeds that fighters tend to fly at, and with the usual characteristics of fighter wings (sweep), your analysis loses a bit of accuracy.
The lift slope of a wing is proportional to cosine(half chord sweep angle) [approximated]. And the drag starts to go up sharply at a certain high subsonic mach number depending on LE sweep angle [among other things]. It’s because of this that I don’t really agree that the F-16 must have the edge. To be fair, you just ran the numbers and expanded on them. I’m just providing a counter point. When you posted the actual numbers, you did make me rethink my original post. I didn’t think the AR’s of the planes were that far apart, but actually looking at photos, it makes sense.


Exec, at airshows they tend to show off BEST turn rate. They want to show what the jet is capable of and they often announce it as the "minimum radius turn". Believe me I know all about how speed changes the turn, but the first post of the thread was questioning if the Viper had a faster sustained turn, and based on demonstrated performance it does at sea level, but I already stated that the Raptor is designed for supercruise first.


The problem there is that the F-22’s best anything is probably classified, and may or may not be shown. There is also weapons[probably not an air show issue]/fuel[certainly an air show issue] load to consider and atmospheric conditions.

I must admit though, that since the F-22 is designed for high speed/alt flight, they may not care about low speed sea level performance leaking, though they’ve never announced such information either.

Patriot wrote:There's clearly shown how much time takes to complete the full 360 degree turn.


I agree with that sentence, but still stand by my last post. They do a 360 turn, but is it the “best” one? You can’t tell. There is some supporting logic from sprstdlyscottsmn’s statement about showing off the best at airshows, but does it apply to something classified like the F-22?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabil

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2010, 10:44
by exec
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:.
Exec, at airshows they tend to show off BEST turn rate. They want to show what the jet is capable of and they often announce it as the "minimum radius turn".

But minimum radius turn doesn’t mean ‘best turn rate turn’! Actually tight turn might be quite slow.

I also think that they’re not showing us real minimum radius turn. Look at that ‘airshow turns’ – Raptor doing those ‘tight turns’ almost doesn’t lose speed(STR?). When you want to do the quickest turn you’ll lose a lot of speed(ITR). And if you have TVC you can make your aircraft turn almost instantaneously at low speeds.

So I really don’t think that you can judge aircraft performance by just looking at airshow tricks.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuver

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2010, 13:00
by sprstdlyscottsmn
When they do the 360 degree turns at an airshow it is minimum radius sustained or maximum rate sustained. If you noticeit takes 18-21 seconds for either plane to do a sustained, level, circle, but it takes the Raptor 11.5 seconds to do a TVC loop in which he sacrifices a couple hundred knots to increase pitch rate. Even the Viper demonstrates nearly 30 degrees per second in a pitch up to vertical climb, because they are not trying to sustain at that point.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuver

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2010, 09:24
by exec
I know, BUT: minimum radius turn doesn't mean max sustained turn rate! You often get bigger STR at higher speeds, but this often means larger radius of that turn.

For example: MiG-29 has best STR at ~750km/h and can do 360* in 18,5sec and turn radius ~600m.
But the MiG-29’s tightest turn is at ~500km/h - 360*, radius ~400m, but in 22,5sec.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuver

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2010, 00:03
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I know, I didnt say they were the same, I said it is one or the other at airshows.

Re: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 11 Dec 2010, 09:45
by avon1944
Back on 17, 2005 12:19 PM, an F-16C aggressor pilot "VprWz1" wrote this posting about his encounter with an F-22A, URL;
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... bc383fa95f

While I haven't been here long - it's not because I haven't been reading the links. I've enjoy red this discussion and I have to jump in and say that the Raptor is amazing.
I'm a Viper driver and I've had the opportunity to fight one (well, a couple really.) Without going where I can't go, I have to say that the Raptor beat up on me, my formation, the Eagles, and the other red air without me ever seeing him until he rolled in on my 6 and gunned the tar out of me. Wasn't much I could do about it! I have fought many other jets in the world - Eagles, Hornets, Hogs (for what that's worth), MiGs, Mirages (2000 & F1), and several other types & nationalities I'm forgetting about I'm sure - I have lost some, but won most fights. The Raptor changed the way I thought about fighting - I have never felt so defenseless before, I'm just glad I am on their side.
The earlier posts about it not being about the Raptor's maneuverability are right on -between how high, fast, and how amazing his technology was we (the many red air) were dead about as fast as the controller could pass the words. I am used to a rhythm in air-air engagements and they just destroyed the tempo - their tune was over before we had really even started.
The bottom line: I was a skeptic and thought it should be done away and replaced with new Bl #60 Vipers - now . . . well, to repeat myself, I'm just glad I'm on their side. Now can I have one too? If not, then I'd be happy to jump on the second line in a new Bl60 or F-35.
Oh yeah, it is a hell of a lot more maneuverable than a Viper. -Cheers

RE: Re: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2013, 15:46
by mx1
Do they do the F-22s 28 degree per second turn on Raptor demos? If not, does anyone have any links on an F-22 making a 28degree per second turn. Ive been puzzled for quite a while now on why the Raptors minimum radius turn seems to take longer and has a bigger circle than the F-16s MRT.

cheers

RE: Re: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2013, 22:53
by izardofwoz
Maybe I can help, Patriot & MX1 (if still reading this):

I've seen the F-22 do its thing at airshows twice now, and both times in the routine the jet did it's max performance (rate, radius, G, whatever) turn and went, immediately upon completion of the 360th degree, to the vertical. Then the jet does one of those stop-in-mid-air pauses after coming out of afterburner, floats there for a second, drops its nose and shoots away.
I assume that the Raptor was carrying a bit more energy through the turn than the F-16 does at a comparable place in its demo, because the F-22 pitches up right exactly where it stared the turn..no room at all to pick up any more speed. It's hugely impressive, by the way. All the more so as one gets the distinct impression that the Raptor still has plenty of smash after pointing vertical, and doesn't seem like it really needs to stop and do that tail slide thingy.
An F-16, good as it is conserving energy through turns, would almost certainly need quite a larger turning circle if it wanted to follow the F-22's routine. Conversely, of course, the F-22 mayhaps make a tighter-radius/faster turning circle at a lower airspeed, if it wanted to.

Cheers,

-N

RE: Re: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 15:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I've seen viper go into a vertical climb immediately after the 360 too.

RE: Re: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 28 Apr 2013, 21:34
by izardofwoz
Well, dammit. Never mind, then.

Cheers

Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2013, 11:03
by Patriot
exec wrote:Viper turned faster and tighter because it flew slower. If the Raptor flew slower the turn radius would also be smaller. You can’t judge sustained turn rates that way. Fighters often show max-g turn at airshows, but if a fighter can pull 9g at sea level when flying 700 to 900 km/h how can you judge its turn capabilities not knowing the actual speed? Doing 9g at 700km/h means much smaller radius and quicker turn than when flying 900km/h.

Second thing – do you really think that sea-level turn performance is really that important for the Raptor?


There's a term called "corner velocity" which refers to very certain amount (section) of speed at which every airplane reaches it's best turn capabilities means degrees per second a.k.a. turn rate. Usually airplanes with lower wing loading (F-22) has smaller corner speed than airplanes with relatively higher wing loading (F-16). And I think that as far as Raptor is considered as a F-ighter not a B-omber it's performances counts the same at any altitude. ;)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2013, 12:46
by titan1
Ive also never seen a viper go vertical after doing a minimum radius 360, but of the planes that do go vertical afterwards, (F-22, F-18, Su-27, Su-30, Su-35) can anyone here give an accurate comparison?

Which one has the smallest radius
Which one takes the shortest time
which one is traveling the fastest,
Which is the slowest

I know this might be alot to ask for, but you never know when some guy has been attending airshows and taking notes every now and then

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2013, 14:12
by Patriot
titan1 wrote:Ive also never seen a viper go vertical after doing a minimum radius 360


http://youtu.be/TVYUJX5SnrA?t=2m51s 8)

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 29 Apr 2013, 23:52
by neurotech
F/A-18s only go full vertical in airshow configuration with minimal fuel. In standard configuration the F/A-18 bleeds airspeed during vertical climb.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 17 Jun 2013, 03:31
by flyman2009
Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter :D

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabilty

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2013, 00:06
by discofishing
Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter Very Happy



And the French Rafale ate it for lunch :lol:

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabil

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2013, 11:24
by wrightwing
flyman2009 wrote:Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter :D


Mmmkay. I'm pretty sure that no Typhoon pilot stated that they ate F-22s for breakfast. In fact, as I recall, the only way the Typhoons had a chance, was to strip off all tanks/pylons, and start off WVR. Even then the results were hardly conclusive, when the anecdotes from both sides are taken into context.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabil

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2013, 15:39
by neurotech
flyman2009 wrote:Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter :D

Considering how expensive and hard the F-22 is to upgrade, and that it was built with 80s era avionics, do you really think the F-16C Block 50+ is that old?

Maybe johnwill or somebody will comment, but I thought the F-16C Block 40 and Block 50 jets are structurally and avionics wise a completely new aircraft, compared to the main production F-16A Block 15.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuver

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2013, 19:00
by johnwill
True enough. The weight gains from upgrades to blocks 15, 25, and 30 finally caught up with the structure in a block 25 static test (could have been 30, not certain). There was a massive structural failure of the left wing at 137% of limit load, with 150% being the requirement. The local area around the failure was beefed up for airplanes already built (concurrency??) and redesigned for for future production. Then the Lantirn system was added to Block 40 airplanes, resulting in added weight and a significant forward CG shift, which causes increased loads all over the airplane. So USAF decided a full redesign was justified. The Block 40 (and all following blocks) structure is substantially stronger, more durable, and heavier than all previous blocks.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuver

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2013, 19:55
by neurotech
@johnwill: Its interesting to note that when the airframe weight increases, the engine thrust might be increased with incremental engine upgrades, but that isn't the magic solution, as range is decreased, and if the structure is not upgraded, fatigue life is reduced with increased loads. I think the Block 40/42/50/52 aircraft are actually pretty good structural strength and fatigue life, considering the loaded combat profiles they fly. The F-16N Block 30s didn't do as well, as aggressors, because they flew clean, high-G profiles all the time.

If a hypothetical ~36,000lb thrust version of the F100 or F110 (same footprint) became available, with a significantly lower SFC (no range penalty) do you think the F-16C Block 50/52 or F-16V, would have a new sales surge? The ADVENT program is progressing, and I've heard another F110 version is on the cards, mainly for upgrade & export clients, or a low-risk option for a UCAV program on the horizon.

RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuver

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2013, 22:12
by johnwill
Can't begin to know anything about future sales prospects. The production rate is so low now, cost has escalated to where it's not much (if any) cheaper than a Super Hornet. So it would take a major increase in production to make the cost more affordable.

On the Navy Block 30s, reduced durability life was anticipated by GD and the Navy. The original design spectrum was 55% air to ground and 45% air to air, They realized the Navy airplanes were to be almost entirely air to air, so redesigned some parts for more durability. For example the aluminum fittings that provide wing to fuselage attachment were changed to titanium.

I'm just guessing here, but I suspect the Navy aggressor pilots were very enthusiastic with the new toy and flew them well beyond even the air to air design spectrum. That doesn't mean they exceeded any limits, but possibly went to the limits more often than the design spectrum.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabil

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2013, 00:21
by geogen
neurotech wrote:
flyman2009 wrote:Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter :D

Considering how expensive and hard the F-22 is to upgrade, and that it was built with 80s era avionics, do you really think the F-16C Block 50+ is that old?

Maybe johnwill or somebody will comment, but I thought the F-16C Block 40 and Block 50 jets are structurally and avionics wise a completely new aircraft, compared to the main production F-16A Block 15.


LOL, you beat me to it.

As crazy as it is to fathom... the F-16s being planned for production tomorrow (e.g., orders for additional block 60+) are even more modern than the F-22 of yesterday!

Does the F-22 have IRST, SNIPER, JHMCS II, AIM-9x II, towed jammer, or ability to launch JASSM-ER??

No, no, no, no, no, no and no...

And with respect to the original question regarding F-16 vs F-22 'Maneuverability' comparisons... well, if you can get an F-22 airshow pilot to pull off the exact air show envelope being flown today by Belgian, Greek, Dutch and Turkish F-16 airshow drivers (especially Belgian, imho), then that would be hugely impressive!

Has anyone else watched the latest Belgian F-16 airshow demo? :shock: (almost like a Eurofighter).

Cheers.

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabil

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2013, 00:43
by geogen
discofishing wrote:
Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter Very Happy



And the French Rafale ate it for lunch :lol:


And while we're at it... Growler for mid-night snack ;)

Seriously, who else would wish to observe a future 2018 DACT exercise @ 35k', comprising of an F-18E+ (type IV computer, updated APG-79 (w/ AEA), centerline IRST, towed jammer, CFT, EPE engine) and perhaps armed with wing-tip A-Darter + 2x air-launched Stunner + 2x MALD/J... vs F-22?

Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Viper VS Raptor: Manuverabil

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2013, 05:16
by neurotech
geogen wrote:
discofishing wrote:
Both good maneuverability. But the F-16 is a outdated plane and the F-22 is new. But F-22 is maneuverable, but got eaten for breakfeast buy the Eurofighter Very Happy



And the French Rafale ate it for lunch :lol:


And while we're at it... Growler for mid-night snack ;)

Seriously, who else would wish to observe a future 2018 DACT exercise @ 35k', comprising of an F-18E+ (type IV computer, updated APG-79 (w/ AEA), centerline IRST, towed jammer, CFT, EPE engine) and perhaps armed with wing-tip A-Darter + 2x air-launched Stunner + 2x MALD/J... vs F-22?

I'm being a smart##s, but you do realize that IF a F-22 pilot doesn't know how to fly their jet in close, and the F/A-18E/F gets on their six, using IRST slaved or manually cued AIM-9, could actually get a kill against the F-22. I haven't seen any released HUD tapes, but scuttlebutt has it the F-22 pilot lost track of the F/A-18, and broke ROE by not calling knock it off, and the F/A-18E did a 7G turn to get on his 6, high, while the F-22 rolled inverted and pitched down, so didn't see the F/A-18E, and the range was under 1 mile, so they were both close.

Ever wonder why most of the MiG-29 kills were at 5-8 miles, and not at 2 miles. Because in close, the T/W radio of the MiG-29 actually matters. The F-16 pilots didn't say "I'm bringing him in closer" so their RIO/WSO say... "God, your what!! " in response. The MiG-29A can't be underestimated in a close WVR dogfight.

Note: No documented MiG-29 kills occurred with a WSO in the back seat of a F-16. The F-16D kill on file, was with an empty back seat, against a MiG-25.

Note 2: There are unconfirmed reports a EA-18G "killed" a F-22 with a missile shot, presumably an AIM-120, as the EA-18G doesn't carry AIM-9s typically, and don't have guns.