F-16 vs F/A-18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyvY3n9GDY

Instructors in a 9+ G cleared aircraft vs students in aircraft which they are not allowed to go past 6.5 G's in. I wonder how that will turn out

You're proving my point.

I already posted the 19,300lbs USAF T.O. chart for a USAF Block 50. Notice the punch holes on the sides. It's from an actual manual. Open your eyes.




There is no official USAF T.O. for Block 42 with the Pratt -229 IPE. Since only 2 squadrons fly it.


Do you seriously think the Block 40 weighs more than the Block 50? Another illogical deduction from you.


Hey look a Ohio ANG Block 42 from Toledo. I guess i'm lying and you are always right-

I feel like I may have hurt your feelings at some point f-16adf, otherwise I can't really understand why you're constantly calling me a liar like some disgruntled teenager...

Either way I don't recall calling the Blk 40 heavier than the Blk 50, so can you point me to where I said that please?

Also since you're not willing to provide the requested spec chart, how about you tell me where the weight difference came from?

And you know from that video, who is who ?

And you know from that video, who is who ?

Did you actually watch it all?

We can discuss this until the world ends, but in reality, the Tomcat was no match for the 15,16, etc, etc..sure, A good Tomcat driver may or may have gotten a few "bags", again it's pilot against pilot, Like you have said. Performance wise, it just didn't have it......and this from a person who flew against them in both. Good aircraft, absolutely.

We can discuss this until the world ends, but in reality, the Tomcat was no match for the 15,16, etc, etc..sure, A good Tomcat driver may or may have gotten a few "bags", again it's pilot against pilot, Like you have said. Performance wise, it just didn't have it......and this from a person who flew against them in both. Good aircraft, absolutely.

And that's your opinion based on your exercises against them, and I accept that whilst also knowing why you had that experience.

In short: During an exercise the F-14 is definitely at a distinct disadvantage due to significant G contraits, we completely agree on that. In a real combat situation it's a different deal however

What's funny Hummingbird, is you will not even believe Lt. Music Muczysnski who was actually in combat. Sorry, but he said he went into a 7G turn. The burden of proof is on you. It's your own word of mouth and your followers.

He says it at 2:23 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjDTGS4BDmU


So you know more about being in actual combat than a real life Tomcat pilot?
You know more about the jet than the guys that actually flew it? like CDR Chesire (flitetime.net, seems you're too scared to email him, because he is going to tell you something you will not like) CDR Nawrocki (Facebook F-14assoc), LCDR "Smokin" Joe Ruczika, Tbarn (F-14D pilot on youtube).

LCDR "Smokin" Joe Ruczika in his own words:
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/an-el ... 1610043625

Let me guess you know more about the Tomcat than him?




Here is a video of the supposed Invincible F-14D with its giant GE F110 engines getting killed by a Block 30 F-16N of VF-126. Seems like everything CDR Nawrocki said was true, it happens at 6:25 mark:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKLHr9WlJos


So let me guess Mr. Nawrocki is full of BS like all the other Tomcat aviatiors?


Even Fulcrumflyer (who is on this forum), he was a USAF exchange pilot with the German Air Force at Laage has 500+ hours in the Mig-29. He told me that the F-14D was not his toughest opponent against the Fulcrum (as you and your followers on Eagles.ru incorrectly state) he told me that it was the GE powered USAF Vipers that were his toughest opponents against the Mig-29 Fulcrum. He also authored this article. But let me guess, he is wrong too:

https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-t ... 1682723379




I earlier posted comments by 35_aoa (an actual active Naval aviator) who flies the F-18A/C/E and flew the Block 15 F-16A model out at Fallon, Nv. (NSAWC) aka TOPGUN, is he also wrong?

35_aoa comments on the subject:

He says that Viper is at an advantage (if flown properly) against the Hornet.

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=27709&start=60
"I''d submit that most of these comparison articles are written by USN folks, like myself, who only flew the F-16N, or in my case, the A/B a number of years later, in a very limited sense, compared to the multitude of mission sets the CAF flies them in.......and obviously neither the -N, nor the block 15 is/was representative of the block 50/52's that are currently on the front lines. We flew them exclusively as red air/adversary aircraft, and in roughly equal parts, dedicated BFM sorties. So while there is a lot of anecdotal info on how the Viper compares to the Hornet/Super in a dogfight (spoiler alert: the Viper is at an advantage if flown properly), I wouldn't say there is a lot out there about how the two compare, in current operational configurations, in the mission sets that are most relevant to a combat scenario. Granted, such a true comparison would be well beyond the scope of an unclassified internet discussion or open source article, so this is hardly surprising."

and here:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3477&start=15
"This would be a great topic of conversation at the club/vault, but obviously I can't really get into any meaningful detail here. Suffice to say the Viper and Hornet fight differently……both have strengths and weaknesses. I'd say that I would prefer to BFM in a Viper, but I have also seen that fight go both ways. A slick F/A-18E or big motor F/A-18C is pretty much on par, especially if flown well. In general, the Viper is a bit more forgiving of mistakes, aside from actually departing from controlled flight, in which case it is way scarier than an F/A-18. As for the other stuff, I'd just throw out that you have also probably seen a lot of junior Viper pilots make some dumb mistakes. I've seen AF guys completely fong it away as well, though I don't consider that to be the norm. SFO's are pretty fun though…….closest I will ever get to flying the space shuttle orbiter."







Oh, and show me (so as you say "I only go by official NATOPS documents") in the NATOPS Tomcat flight manual where it says 9G? Oh, that's right, it doesn't.




And draw in the -P lines in your suppose 9G EM chart. Which would be a total laugh-



And please provide me with official data (as you say that I must) about where the Tomcat actually lost weight? Please show me official NATOPS docs.



Even Quicksilver (a USMC pilot on this fourm) had this to say (and let me guess, you will not believe him): scroll down the page to read his statement:
viewtopic.php?f=30&t=28783&start=120


and here it is again:

"I am not a NFWS alum, but have fought Eagles and Tomcats many, many times. I learned BFM when it was G/H/P 'winders and exclusively LCOS gunsights. Lotsa maneuvering for envelope management that simply doesnt exist in the same context today.

'A' model Tomcat a much different BFM adversary than a B/D Tomcat, accepting for the moment an assumption of similar pilot proficiency (a big assumption...). The difference, of course, was the engines -- vastly different Ps and freedom to maneuver without fear of stalling the engine. TF-30 shortcomings in the 'A' are extensively documented in the public domain.

Eagle generally a tougher BFM opponent, but there were periods of time where pilots were getting less BFM exposure (cyclic budget stuff that affects everyone from time to time) and it was apparent in the apparent BFM proficiency of Eagle guys. You've got X number of sorties per month; do you spend it on BFM or BVR stuff? Always a delicate balance that COs/OpsOs/TrainingOs had/have to balance.

I know it's fun to compare the charts and the numbers but, in my experience, the quantifiable differences were always subordinate to pilot ability/experience -- always. That was then, this is now and things have changed."





I will admit, I do not have the official Block 40 manual, nor does any one else. It is classified as with the Block 30. But this diagram seems to get it right. The Block 42 Pratt -229 is lighter because: 1. it is equipped with the lighter NSI intake, not the "Big Mouth". 2. the Pratt F100-229 is lighter than the GE F110-100/129.

So the 180FW Captain of the Ohio ANG was correct. Have you ever even seen a Block 42 w/Pratt -229 fly. It's a total monster-

But let me guess, according to you, the 180th Captain is lying too.........

Hoser was an F-14 pilot who regularly over-g'd the Tomcat to gain advantages in mock combats which did not make him popular with maintenance crew. His idea was to aggressively gain position by violently bleeding speed down to corner velocity usually from a vertical loop then try and hold ITR there at full afterburner. He rarely lost mock combats against anyone including F-15s. You can see from the E-M diagram how steep the ITR rate for F-14 is if you are prepared to over-g and lose altitude and/or airspeed too to gain advantageous position. The F-14 had one more trick in that it could bleed speed and point the nose even further by going to high AoA at the end of the ITR bleed maneuver which is SOP for Iranian F-14s. The F-14 will not have a chance against an energy rate fighter like F-16 which can maintain high rate over a wide speed range for a long time unless it uses angles aggressively too. F-15s will also violently over-g in combat to obtain advantageous initial position which is how they didn't lose to the supposedly superior energy rate Mig-29. In combat when your life is on the line you will take your airframe to the max.

F16ADF,

I wouldn't waste my time arguing with HB or Zero. They obviously have no background in real application of the theory they are trying to espouse:

I've never flown anything weiging more than 50 grams so this is all just Nerd talk and theory.

and HB has admitted that he doesn't care what pilots say....he obviously knows better. But his own diagram belies his ignorance of how aerial combat happens and you made the mistake of accepting it and getting drawn into a GW argument about various blocks of the F-16. The reality is the F-16 dominates the F-14 regardless of block. Heavier blocks usually have more thrust so the Ps effect of the extra weight is somewhat negated. They may lose a little turn rate when the limiter kicks in (say 18.9 versus 19) The BLK42 (PW220 not 229) is the worst but all of the blocks have grown in weight over the years. Still, over a dynamic maneuvering environment, they will still dominate the F-14. All of them.

Lets just look at the diagram HB posted of turn rate and radius of the F-14, 15, and 16 where he asserts that the F-14 will be able to turn inside the F-15, 16 and keep a guns solution. Lets assume to begin that HB's absurd assumption that airplanes arrive at a merge with some specific airspeed that he seems to believe is their perfect AS. So the Tomcat shoots of the CAT and accelerates to .61 mach and flys into battle. The F-16 takes off and accelerates to .86 mach to enter the fray. Somehow magically the Tomcat arrives behind the F-16 at 10K feet. To follow his logic, the F-16 turns at just over 7G to sustain just over 14 degrees per second and the Tomcat turns inside and guns his brains out.......HMMMMM Nope. If I looked back over my shoulder at 10K and .86M at a Tomcat behind me at .61M and I was still alive (how did he get there and I'm not dead?) I would say, WOW it's my birthday! Right now as fast as I can write it I would be at 9G, 18 DPS rapidly increasing to 19 DPS as I slow down. In the next 10 seconds I have gone 180+ degrees of turn. If he stays at his Ps=0 and 14.1 DPS he's turned 140 degrees and is 40 degrees in lag. I can't translate the 800-1000 -Ps the F-16 has during that turn but I can tell you over 23 years of flying the F-16 that I would be around 330-350 KCAS (about .61+) still doing about the 14 DPS of the Tomcat at Ps=0, looking back over my shoulder at the top of his airplane (and my radius is now down around 2000). Lets assume he did, as HB seems to believe possible, pull to 9G also to try to stay with me. Assuming the aircraft is aerodynamically capable of 9G and the wings did not pull off, I would extrapolate his turn rate out to probably 20+ but it would be a very ITR (there is as reason why it's called INSTANTANEOUS turn rate) because his Ps would be so high that he would hit his lift limit line and go downhill in airspeed so fast that he would quickly be in trouble (notice the Ps=0 line never intersects the lift limit line on the F-14 EM chart). Now lets add in the real world he knows nothing about and that makes all the difference in the world. That break turn I do isn't level...its slightly descending so I preserve more of my energy than a purely level turn. So I am faster at the 180 still with the 40+ angular advantage. I also have a little more airspeed that I can use to translate into a slightly climbing turn where my radius reduces further, my rate drops off but I have 40 degrees of advantage to work with and my Ps is still better than his (I'm paying less for everything I do, thank you PW and GE). He's getting worried now because he started out looking at my AB can and now he's looking at the top of my airplane. So maybe he pulls even harder (well he's already sliding down that lift limit line towards 150 KCAS where he is still at negative Ps). I can go to 140 KCAS, level turn and Ps=0. I have had many defensive BFM engagements with F-14 and F-15. The result is always the same. 360-540 degrees later the F-14 is being gunned. The F-15 isn't yet but I'm becoming offensive and in USAF we call a KIO for role reversal so I never get there. So he can extrapolate all he wants but he can't give the F-14 warp drive and G-limits the jet isn't certified for and some how assert by cherry picking one data point from the EM chart of three airplanes that the F-14 is better. He'll say I'm another pilot who doesn't know what I'm talking about and I don't care.

And Zero can't take some pilot's assertion that the Hornet has better nose pointing capability and turn it into a hover craft that can pivot 360 spherical degrees in a furball and shoot its way out of a fight. How you going to argue with that?

So, let them have their "Nerd Talk" and let it go.

And Zero can't take some pilot's assertion that the Hornet has better nose pointing capability and turn it into a hover craft that can pivot 360 spherical degrees in a furball and shoot its way out of a fight. How you going to argue with that?

Okay, we get it you were a pilot, I have all the respect in the world for you guys, because you did what I only dreamed of. But please, try not to be emotional when you debate. Take it easy and just reply with your opinion.

Now having said that, I did say that after the hornet points its nose for a LOBS shot, it should dive down (cause really it has no choice) to regain lost E. then climb back up to rinse and repeat.

Whenever I ask pilots of "energy fighters" (F-15,16,22, EF, Rafale) they always say the Hornet is meat on the table because of its low thrust. Even Viper pilots who transferred to Hornets have the same opinion albeit a bit less harsh.

But when I ask pilots of high AOA aircraft about the hornet they say things like

There's no better performing fighter in the close-in, slow speed, knife-in-the-teeth dogfight than the F/A-18 Hornet, except maybe, of course, a Super Hornet. But that's another story. The Hornet flies very comfortably at AoAs of up to 50 degrees and has great pitch, roll and yaw authority between 25 degrees of AoA and the lift limit of 35 degrees of AoA. Most crowds are amazed when the Blue Angels perform the Hornet low-speed pass, which is around 120 knots and only 25 degrees of AoA. There are no nasty departures to worry about, and if the pilot happens to lose control, the best recovery procedure is to grab the towel racks (two handgrips on the canopy bow used during cat shots). On the other hand, a Viper has a 25-degree AoA limiter built into its software, and even fewer degrees of AoA are available if it's carrying air-to-ground goodies on the hard points. Up against the limiter, the nose stops tracking; in that case, it's time to drop the hammer and use the big motor to get the knots back, which by the way, happens in a hurry.

The Hornet, however, will stand on its tail, hold 100 knots and 35-degrees AoA and swap ends in a maneuver called "the Pirouette," which looks like a jet fighter doing a hammerhead with a quarter roll. To the spectator and the participant, it looks and feels impossible. The Hornet gets slower (high-energy bleed rate) quicker than anything I've flown, and it gets faster (low acceleration performance) slower than anything I've flown. In a Hornet, it's difficult not to get the first shot in a close-in dog-fight that starts from a perfectly neutral merge (going opposite directions at the same altitude). My Viper buddies tell me there is very little room for error when they fight the Hornet. The best way to handle the situation is to get the Hornet to slow down, while they maintain energy so the Viper's superior thrust-to-weight will out-zoom the Hornet and then they can shoot at it from above. As a Hornet driver, I have never lost to a Viper guy that I saw, but I have run into Viper drivers that said the same thing about their jet.

because of this, I have a theory.

I think guys who started of in Eagles or Vipers were trained to fight fast. Students of the whole E-M theory, they rely on power to beat down on their bandits. So when they transfer to Hornets, it sucks. old habits die hard.

The Raptor can do both but those who wrote the ACM book on the Raptor came from Eagle background which is probably why most tactics were Eagle like in nature.

Now when you start of in a Hornet, the story is reversed, these guys rely on slow speed and nose pointing maneuverability to get the job done. So when they transfer to Vipers, its the same story, they kinda hate the 26 degree AOA limiter.

Does this make sense.

P.S. I may not agree with F-16adf's rant about how the US is broke, to me it sounds like that rich kid throwing tantrums because her iPhone 7 is already 10 months old and daddy refuses to get her the new iPhone X. All while some kid in Africa don't even know what WiFi is.

But I totally agree on his points, the F-14 has the least advantages among all teen series aircraft when it comes to BFM. Sure there are places in the envelope where it can compete or maybe even surpass others, but generally, an F-14 is an interceptor with great BFM characteristics. The Eagle on the other hand is a dogfighter with great interceptor characteristics.

You're posting the manual operating limits diagram, hence the wording "maneuver flaps may be fully/partially extended"

No, i posted the operating envelope as a function of speed and altitude or dynamic pressure. They use the wording: "maneuver flaps may be fully/partially extended" to illustrate that just because something is possible doesn't mean it should/must be done. There are situations when you don't want the flaps extended, such as when you need to accelerate.
However, on the right side of the chart, you can see that the flaps must be retracted at these speed, hence the wording "maneuver flap fully retracted in this region" without any "may" or "could"

The slats (& flaps) do not deactivate before M ~0.85 irrespective of altitude (0.82-0.85 to be specific), you have the chart yourself (Note description below: "Maneuver slat/flap automatic schedule for CADC"):

CADC is schedule as a function of AoA and Mach number: at specific AoA, flaps/slats are retracted but it is still limited by dynamic pressure evelope mentioned.

Blatantly dishonest? Harsh words...
I suggest you check out the normal operation, i.e. automatic CADC schedule diagram:
Again, there's a 0.03 difference between the <14,000 ft & >20,000 ft programs.

Either you being dishonest or you don't care to read the manual, that chart diagram is for wing-flaps interlock operation: at certain wing swept, flaps must be locked so not to interfere with the wing

In short, there are 3 factors that can affect flaps operation: Wing swept, AoA, dynamic pressure. They use 3 charts to represent that, but you cherry picked charts to support your narrative.

because of this, I have a theory.

I think guys who started of in Eagles or Vipers were trained to fight fast. Students of the whole E-M theory, they rely on power to beat down on their bandits. So when they transfer to Hornets, it sucks. old habits die hard.

The Raptor can do both but those who wrote the ACM book on the Raptor came from Eagle background which is probably why most tactics were Eagle like in nature.

Now when you start of in a Hornet, the story is reversed, these guys rely on slow speed and nose pointing maneuverability to get the job done. So when they transfer to Vipers, its the same story, they kinda hate the 26 degree AOA limiter.

Different thinking, opinions some bias etc just part of life - e.g. i seem to remember words from 35_aoa something like Boyd really knew what he was doing it after flying the F-16A for a bit - and then apparently becomes the Navy BFM king - so not all as you suggest.

On the other hand there was USN pilot Ron McKeown who allegedly said "Never trust anyone who would rather kick your a$$ with a slide rule than with a jet." after meeting Boyd - so pride? didn't like being told what to do? didn't get what he was being told? etc etc don't know.

One thing is certain you cannot dismiss pilot opinions because they have seen the bigger picture - and over time the dots often start joining together anyway.

How many 'my dog is bigger than your dog' debates does it take to change a lightbulb? Give it a rest guys.

The vast majority of BFM engagements were/are decided long before the numbers matter; someone makes a mistake. That's why experience makes such a difference.

The first mistake was not being in an F-16 of course :p

boom boom


ill get me coat