Comparison by Spurts

New and old developments in aviation technology.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 533
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post17 Mar 2020, 23:57

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:"Okay, .67 to 1.83 happens pretty smoothly, 1.83 to 2.02 takes almost as long, doubles the fuel, and more than doubles the distance"


Probably old news and not very relevant, but one RNoAF F-16A pilot once told me that pushing Mach 1.6 was like "hitting a wall". It wen't slowly from there. Mostly due to the inlet, I was led to believe. Most RNoAF pilots I've talked to have barely had it much past Mach 1.9 in FCSs. As one said, to the effect of: "I couldn't bother trying Mach 2. Not enough fuel!" This was way before the -220E, so it might not be accurate today.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4749
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post18 Mar 2020, 00:03

energo wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:"Okay, .67 to 1.83 happens pretty smoothly, 1.83 to 2.02 takes almost as long, doubles the fuel, and more than doubles the distance"


Probably old news and not very relevant, but one RNoAF F-16A pilot once told me that pushing Mach 1.6 was like "hitting a wall". It wen't slowly from there. Mostly due to the inlet, I was led to believe. Most RNoAF pilots I've talked to have barely had it much past Mach 1.9 in FCSs. As one said, to the effect of: "I couldn't bother trying Mach 2. Not enough fuel!" This was way before the -220E, so it might not be accurate today.

I'm analyzing the -129
"Spurts"

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

energo

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 533
  • Joined: 09 Dec 2007, 14:06

Unread post18 Mar 2020, 00:21

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I'm analyzing the -129


Absolutely, keep up the good work! :mrgreen:
Offline
User avatar

rheonomic

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 681
  • Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 03:44

Unread post18 Mar 2020, 02:00

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Working on the thrust model for the F-16.

It's probably a shitty model but NASA TP-1538 (PDF) has a static engine model as a function of PLA, Mach, and altitude for an "F-16 like" aircraft. There's also an aero model that might be ok to ~M0.6 or so. There's a MATLAB version of the reduced model the Stevens & Lewis textbook has available here for non-commercial use.
"You could do that, but it would be wrong."
Previous

Return to Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests