F-14, F15, F-16 radius at max sustained turn rate at 10k ft

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

dsc

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 9
  • Joined: 24 Jul 2017, 05:57

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 07:22

Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening everyone :)

Could someone please tell me and/or confirm how true, how correct all the data shown on this picture is?
https://www.instagram.com/p/BuVeXJZFEfw/

Thanks in advance
Offline

hkultala

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 30
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 08:02

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 08:11

At least most (almost all of) the comments are total bull, from people who don't understand that planes have different performance at different altitudes.

It seems the comparison has already been discussed here in previous thread. It seems to have the relevant charts.

viewtopic.php?t=28783
Offline

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1148
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 14:45

From memory I think these figures are broadly right for certain models. This has been discussed by Tomcat fans here in depth before many times. Remember though that F-16 turn/radius figures vary with model and that the most maneuverable F-16s can beat the most maneuverable F-14 in rate and radius. No doubt though the Tomcat was a unique bird combining fast speed and acceleration with good instantaneous/sustained/low speed maneuverability along with a radar/missile system 20-30 years ahead of its time as well as great range. However the F-16 was specifically designed to be a great dogfighter with great sustained turning/energy capability and it still does that as well as any of its 4th gen competitors.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1029
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 15:05

That pictures says nothing because who, what, where, engines?
Configurations, Fuel load, Weapons load, and the list of questions goes on and on..

Something that beats a clean F-16 in a sustained turn still has to be invented.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 15:23

This has already been discussed.


And for the 18,000 time, Someone tell me the loadout for the F-16C Block 50? Does it anywhere in the performance supplement give a specific loadout for the jet? NO IT DOES NOT. All it is saying is that it is how a 26,000lb jet with a DI of 50 will perform. There is not one bit of data as to specific loadout.



Do you know the empty weight of the Block 50? It is not 20,000lbs, it is 19,261lbs.


So once again

F-16C BLOCK 50 empty weight= 19,261lbs (it is not 20,000lbs)

50% internal fuel = 3,581lbs for JP-8 fuel
Gun ammo= 287lbs
2 LAU-129 launcher + adapter =226lbs
2 AIM-9 launcher + adapter (16S210+16S301) = 196lbs
2 AIM-9 195*2 = 390lbs
4 AIM-120 341*4= 1364lbs

total= 25,305lbs and a DI of 42
For a jet with JP-8, up until 1994/95 they used a lighter fuel, JP-4.



Finally it says the HAF chart is for 26,000lbs and a DI of 50 jet.




Also, that pic, is "cherrypicking" a specific data point. If you overlay the diagrams the F-16 Block 50 has the better overall Ps=0 line. And once again, that is for a Block 50 jet. The Block 42, Block 30, and possibly Block 10 are better performers than the 50.




Also, if we want to demonstrate another way how a Block 50 beats a F-14BD at Ps=0? The F-16 can decelerate horizontally across its -Ps lines.

In just one example (there are other ways), the F-16 can decelerate horizontally across the -400fps line from .88IMN to .51IMN (complete a full 360 degree turn in slightly under 23 seconds) and still out turn/out radius the Tomcat at Ps=0. And still using the raw numbers for a jet at 26,000lbs and 60% internal fuel.
Last edited by f-16adf on 01 Mar 2019, 15:43, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1029
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 15:31

And if you want to compare?
You have to "add" the same load to the others too.

Gun ammo= 287lbs
2 LAU-129 launcher + adapter =226lbs
2 AIM-9 launcher + adapter (16S210+16S301) = 196lbs
2 AIM-9 195*2 = 390lbs
4 AIM-120 341*4= 1364lbs

Nothing beats an F-16 in sustained turning with the same load out.

And if you have an early "A" model?
The pilot already finished his shower before you completed your turn.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post01 Mar 2019, 15:40

If you want to drop off 2 AIM-9's and their launchers from the F-14, it will only gain about .15dps (a small load-out such as that will not make that much of a performance difference on a huge jet like the Eagle or Tomcat).


I bet the Eagle will hardly gain anything from losing 2 AIM-9's too.



As F-16 pilots have said, they can decelerate from 9G, 8.5G, or 8G on down (across the above horizontal -Ps). If people would only listen-



If this is not making sense, listen to the words of GD test pilot/fighter pilot Neil Anderson at the 7:50 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fo74tX10JSQ

As he says "he starts at 350KIAS and comes out of the turn at 240-250KIAS"
And this is with a lazy Block 25 F-16C with the Pratt -200 or -220 engine.

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests