F-22 vs Rafale dogfight results - French souce

[F-16ADF]

According to the -100 chart (for SL): at .6 M, it has a STR of 22.7 or 22.75.

The -129 (for SL): at .6 M, is about 21.1.


Basically that's a 1.6 degree advantage. Jump up to 10k (and even with the DI factored in) a .75-.9 degree figure seems entirely possible. It may be more. However, going up to 10K should not negate that figure by more than half.

And most pilots have said that the Block 30 is the best performer of the F-16 family (it easily has the best STR), I presume they are including normal ACM altitudes and loadings.


According to Viper Force pg. 59 "Most Viper Drivers agree that the big mouth Block 30 has the best BFM performance... Lieutenant Colonel Malebranche says its the "best BFMing Viper..."

David "Spock" Youtsey (who has over 3200 F-16 hours) on pg. 20 states: "It's gotten heavier, and...it's harder to get to nine g's anymore when you yank on the stick." Implying the Block 50/52.

Here is an excerpt from a AFM article from the late 1990's:
"According to GE, the IPE (F110-GE-129) was aerodynamically identical to the original F110, but offered only a moderate increase in take-off thrust and about a 10 percent thrust increase in the Mach .8-1.2, 10.000-30,000ft. air combat zone."

Strap that on to a heavier beefed up air-frame (the Block 50), and its advantages generally start to decrease.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

the -100 chart you reference is a Block 30? What a hot rod. I was only taking the -129 chart and weight adjusting for being 1,500lb lighter when I said it would change by about .5. It may be more like .7, I don't have it in front of me right now.

BTW, I never tried to say the Blk 30 wasn't the best BFM beast.

[gta4]

I have to remind you one thing:

The difference in operational empty weights of block 30 and block 50 is only 1300 lb (17953 vs 19261),
but the difference in flying weight in Manual is 2000 lb (20000 vs 22000). That is not fair to compare without a conversion.

If you convert the performance of block 30 to 20700 lb, you need to scale the turn rate by a factor of about 0.966. And you will find that the block 50 is very very close to block 30.

[gta4]

In fact I don't know what you guys are arguing for. Is it a big deal if block 50 has a slightly lower turn rate than block 30? It still out-performs a fulcrum right? The figure below is a fulcrum with only 1500kg fuel.

[johnwill]

Look at the Tom at 10k at .85-.9 IMN, it's about 11-12 degrees a second. And it just keeps going downward. Yet, their respective DI's are not the same. The Vipers is at 50 (2 aim-9, 4 aim-120, 2 EFT pylons). The Tomcat's is actually smaller. Each of the 4 aim-7's mounted on the fuselage is a 2 (8), each aim-9 is an 8 (32), the stub pylon for 2 aim-9's is a 2 total. So we are at a DI of 42 total. Yet, the chart does not say if EFT pylons are on? Granted in the NATOPS some do factor in those pylons. And the DI for each of the EFT pylons is a 1 (2 total). So now the Tom's DI is a 44. Yet it is still 6 away from the HAF Viper which is 50.

Now as on that Tomcat fanboy site ....eagle.ru, they like to point out the fact that the Tomcat at slow speeds (.6 IMN) can out turn the HAF Block 50. Yet they forget that the Viper has a 6 to 8 higher DI. And most importantly of all there are other different Viper Blocks that are far lighter than the 50 Viper.

The Block 30 at .6 and 10K with a DI of 50 has a STR of 13.8. Equal to the Tom's, add more speed and the Block 30 leaves it in the dust. It will do the same to the Hornet, I believe.

I think there may be a misunderstanding of Drag Index and how it is properly used. First, what is DI? It is the drag coefficient increment of the external stores and suspension equipment only, not including the basic clean airplane, multiplied by 10,000. If the drag coefficient of the external stores and suspension equipment is .0050, the DI is 50. The intended use of DI is to help in estimating cruise range for various store loadings, based on drag coefficients at 0.8 mach. Being based on an aerodynamic coefficient, it is calculated using a reference wing area. That means a particular store will have a different DI, depending on what airplane is hauling it around. If a store has a DI of 50 on an F-16 (ref wing area 300 sqft) it will have a DI of only 27 on an F-14 (ref wing area 565 sqft) if it is in a similar mount. It should be obvious that you cannot estimate total drag on different airplanes by comparing their DI.

First, DI is for cruise drag at 0.8 mach only. Second, DI for different airplanes is based on different ref wing areas. Third, drag from DI does not include clean airplane drag. And I think everyone knows it does not include induced drag in the turn.

A comment about the Viper loading of 2 EFT pylons. Vipers don't fly 2 EFT pylons without tanks.

[F-16ADF]

Thanks Johnwill,

Then shouldn't both jets, if they are going to be compared fly with a similar load?
Example, 2 aim-9, 2 aim-120 for the F-16; and 2 aim-9, 2 aim-7 for the Tomcat. Or any jet?

I remember in a previous post you did in fact mention DI calculated with reference wing area.

One quick question: if it is calculated by ref wing area. Why does each aim-9 on a Tomcat have a DI of 8 (on the stub pylons), and on an F-16 it is a 5? Shouldn't the Tomcat's number be far lower?


Can you then break down the HAF Block 50 DI? From my impression, I thought I had the correct load out?

[F-16ADF]

gta4, i'm not arguing with anyone here. It's a simple friendly discussion. If I was wrong on anything, I surely do not mind being corrected. I am not a fighter pilot (bad right eye); all I do is rent a -172RG a couple times a month and fly around MI and the upper mid-west.


Usually, when I do try and ask fighter pilots technical questions on the F-16 or any jet, I usually get the same line: "It's Classified-" Or I get a rather "hazy" type response.

I would love if a F-16 pilot who has flown all Blocks could give his impression here.


Also, I am not arguing with Spurts, he knows FAR, FAR, FAR, more about Aeronautical Engineering issues than I ever will. He and Johnwill are 2 EXTREMELY VALUABLE individuals to this forum. Spurts has corrected me many times, and I thank him for that. I always want to be learning-



According to the HAF manual the Block 50 is 20,000lbs with pilot, oil, unusable fuel.

The Block 30 supplement is extremely hard to come by (-1-1).

Ballpark: Block 30 is nearly 18K, Block 50 is nearly 20K.

I think both SL charts are factoring in only 2,000lbs of fuel maybe not even, which is a rather small percentage. Any less and that's almost Joker fuel? I think?

Once again, if I am wrong someone please correct me.

[gta4]

To f-16adf,

I know there is a misunderstanding about F-16 block 50 and 52+, and I know a lot of people got confused about the empty weight of block 50 and 52+. Also in the flight manual there are approximate value and accurate values.

I believe you mistook the weight of 52+ for block 50. Please double check the HAF manual:

[F-16ADF]

gta4, yes, you are right. Sorry, I didn't see that.

Maybe a good mean approximation is the average between 19,300 and 19,800 (20,000- avg. weight of pilot-200lbs) to equal around 19,500-19,600lbs??


I don't have the Block 30 manual (nobody really does I think)?


Here's it for B 50:
http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3509


Says it's for a B 50 and 21,000lbs with pilot, 2 aim-120 aams, oil, and full 20mm ammo.

Could be 21,000, -200 for pilot, -341(2) for 2 aim-120 aams, -287 for 20mm ammo.???





But as for the B 30, I don't think GD or LM would flight test it with under 2,000lbs of fuel. So maybe that one is 20,000lbs- 2,000lbs.= 18,000lbs.

Some books say that the B 30 is 17,700-17,800lbs.

That B 30 2 page summary on Avialogs says it's 17,950lbs?

[gta4]

Says it's for a B 50 and 21,000lbs with pilot, 2 aim-120 aams, oil, and full 20mm ammo.

Could be 21,000, -200 for pilot, -341(2) for 2 aim-120 aams, -287 for 20mm ammo.???

Please take a closer look. There is a small paragraph saying: these figures are approximate and can not be used for calculating performance.

The figure used for performance calculation is 19261 lb.

ALso, 19261 lb already includes a pilot:

19261.png (24.51 KiB) Viewed 12780 times

there is only 3.9% deviation between 19261 and 20000. Its valid to use 20000 as an approximate figure, and 19261 as the accurate figure.

In year 2007, F-16 block50 still weights 19200 lbs empty:
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2007-7821

[basher54321]

There is not a set empty weight for the F-16 blocks - in operational squadrons the weights of individual aircraft vary significantly (ref jbGator)
The weight may have been accurate or approximate for the aircraft tested at the time but since then there could have been various structural changes that may have added weight, also things get added on the production line over the period of their manufacture - so potentially a 2000 lb weight difference or more could have been likely in some cases.

[F-16ADF]

Yes, I know about that one. I was saying subtract the 200lb pilot from 20,000lb. Or in the Avialogs from 21,000lbs, and then subtract the 2 aams and 20mm ammo.


I guess the 20,000lb figure is their "rough" estimation for added/subtracted equipment.


Even with my C-172RG that I rent, you always refer to serial numbered POH Weight and Balance, because of stuff that may be added or subtracted to that particular aircraft.

[johnwill]

Thanks Johnwill,

Then shouldn't both jets, if they are going to be compared fly with a similar load?
Example, 2 aim-9, 2 aim-120 for the F-16; and 2 aim-9, 2 aim-7 for the Tomcat. Or any jet?
I remember in a previous post you did in fact mention DI calculated with reference wing area.
One quick question: if it is calculated by ref wing area. Why does each aim-9 on a Tomcat have a DI of 8 (on the stub pylons), and on an F-16 it is a 5? Shouldn't the Tomcat's number be far lower?
Can you then break down the HAF Block 50 DI? From my impression, I thought I had the correct load out?

Sure, compare anything you want, just be sure your comparisons are valid. For example, using thrust/weight isn't really valid, because you don't know the thrust and you should compare (thrust - drag)/weight. You know the static sea level uninstalled thrust, but installed thrust at any flight condition will be quite different. It could be assumed mach, altitude, and inlet effects on different airplanes might affect sea level uninstalled thrust the same, but that's unlikely.

I agree you would think the Tomcat DI for AIM-9 should be lower, but the location of the missile on the airplane makes a difference. The AIM-9 on the Tomcat is located in an area of interference drag near where the wing glove and fuselage intersect, and on the F-16 it may be under the outer wing or on the tip. A tip missile has a low DI because the launcher is counted as part of the airplane drag since it is always there. Other than that, I cannot explain why.

If you are talking about the comment on EFT pylons, I haven't seen the HAF dash 1, so you may have it correct. It's not very important, is it?

These comparisons are interesting and fun academic exercises, and I enjoy reading them. Keep it up.

[gta4]

Since 20000 lb is an approximate value that could not be used for performance calculation, what is the point to continue using that in turn rate calculation?

Since there is no proof that the accurate value has raised significantly from 19261 lb, just use it.

[F-16ADF]

gta4, actually Johnwill could probably help explain this the best.