Viper vs Raptor: Maneuverabilty

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Patriot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post29 Apr 2013, 11:03

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. ;)
Offline

titan1

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 12:41

Unread post29 Apr 2013, 12:46

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
Offline

Patriot

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 535
  • Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 17:48
  • Location: Poland / UK

Unread post29 Apr 2013, 14:12

titan1 wrote:Ive also never seen a viper go vertical after doing a minimum radius 360


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

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post29 Apr 2013, 23:52

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.
Offline

flyman2009

Banned

  • Posts: 38
  • Joined: 05 Jun 2013, 02:37
  • Location: california

Unread post17 Jun 2013, 03:31

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
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jun 2013, 00:06

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:
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3343
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post18 Jun 2013, 11:24

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post18 Jun 2013, 15:39

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.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2128
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post19 Jun 2013, 19:00

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.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post19 Jun 2013, 19:55

@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.
Offline

johnwill

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2128
  • Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
  • Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Unread post19 Jun 2013, 22:12

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.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post20 Jun 2013, 00:21

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.
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

geogen

Banned

  • Posts: 3123
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
  • Location: 45 km offshore, New England

Unread post20 Jun 2013, 00:43

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?
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
Offline

neurotech

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2346
  • Joined: 09 May 2012, 21:34

Unread post20 Jun 2013, 05:16

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.
Previous

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest