Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

Last edited by Patriot on Nov 16, 2010 - 04:50 AM; edited 4 times in total

In other words.. simply can Viper supercruise? Considering all configuration from pure clean, a2a to a2g. Just out of curiosity, let's say we just took off flying at 4k ft MSL at full MIL power straight 'n' level*. Do we have a chance to hit (and sustain) Mach One (or greater)? I had heard some pilots' rumors that it's "no big deal". Anyway if that really is.. why then LM did not taking advantage of this cool feature promoting the Viper? Shouldn't they?

* As to mentioned.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzuwT7X3-Y4

It's a video showing two (one C, one D) Blocks 52+ polish Vipers going one by one on RTB after BFM play. Both aircrafts has centerline tanks and CFTs. I know straight from the pilot of the second plane that he set the throttle at full mil trying catch first one and you can see characteristic pre-shock waves arround the second plane. He had to put the throttle backwards at this point because like he said "making bang bang over half a million city is prohibited and might be painful after landing. However the aircraft still accelerated significantly.." ..he said.

F-16.net Sponsor

I clean Blk 50 can go above the mach at altitude using only MIL power. Other loadouts with a -129 motor require a decent but can be achieved. That being said, it was only slightly over the mach in level flight - say 1.03 mach or so. Now the BLK 42 is a totally different story. With 2 tanks and targeting pod I can't get that beast super in full AB and level flight at 20,000'.

Magnum wrote:

Now the BLK 42 is a totally different story. With 2 tanks and targeting pod I can't get that beast super in full AB and level flight at 20,000'.

Must not be one of the Block 42s with the PW-229? Shrug

HUGE difference between any PW-220 and PW-229 powered Viper.

TEG

@Magnum - next time make sure if the airbrake's switch is in off position Wink

All blocks ending in x2 (eg 42) are PW-equipped. The 42's were notorious pigs. Blocks 32 and 52 were fine jets however...

That's why some where upgraded from the original -220 engine to the -229. As TEG says above, HUGE difference.

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Magnum wrote:

Now the BLK 42 is a totally different story. With 2 tanks and targeting pod I can't get that beast super in full AB and level flight at 20,000'.

Must not be one of the Block 42s with the PW-229? Shrug

HUGE difference between any PW-220 and PW-229 powered Viper.

TEG

Nope. I wish we had the -229. I miss the -129 every sortie.

Under certain conditions, both the F-16 and f-18 can super cruise. This is where the USAF got the idea for super cruise for F-22....extremely low fuel conditions.

and which are these conditions mlk32170?
possible with CFTs?

Roscoe wrote:

All blocks ending in x2 (eg 42) are PW-equipped. The 42's were notorious pigs. Blocks 32 and 52 were fine jets however...

After block 30, they all were configured as "common engine bay". i.e. configured to accept either engine without mod.

Quote:

Roscoe wrote:
All blocks ending in x2 (eg 42) are PW-equipped. The 42's were notorious pigs. Blocks 32 and 52 were fine jets however...

After block 30, they all were configured as "common engine bay". i.e. configured to accept either engine without mod.

Not sure what your point is, mlk32170. Roscoe's statement is true for the operational world. Although there is a common engine bay, the block designations x2 and x0 still separate the PW and GE-equipped aircraft.

Realize though that while techinically holding M1.1 is supercrusing, to be tactically beneficial you need to get out of transonic drag, ie. above around 1.3. The F-22 is the only true supercruiser for now.

exfltsafety wrote:

Quote:

Roscoe wrote:
All blocks ending in x2 (eg 42) are PW-equipped. The 42's were notorious pigs. Blocks 32 and 52 were fine jets however...

After block 30, they all were configured as "common engine bay". i.e. configured to accept either engine without mod.

Not sure what your point is, mlk32170. Roscoe's statement is true for the operational world. Although there is a common engine bay, the block designations x2 and x0 still separate the PW and GE-equipped aircraft.

Besides the fact the 'common engine bay' is only that in name and size/shape. One can not pull a GE-129 from a Block 50 and simply install a PW-229 in it's place in the field to make it a Block 52. Connections are different and so is the 'doughnut seal' panel at the aft end of the engine-bay. (Not to mention they use different Removal/Installation trailers, supports, tooling etc.)

I've seen units in the field with spare PW engines sitting on a 'ready-line' unable to provide support to other units with GE engines that had Vipers without engines! (Congressionally mandated lack of planning; IMO)

Furthermore the different inlets would cause the GE's to loose thrust. The small-mouth inlets of the PW Vipers won't flow enough air for the GE's increased airflow requirements. (PWs on the other hand would still make the same thrust using GE big-mouth inlets, but aircraft would still suffer a drag penalty from the larger/wider inlet.)

In the field the largest 're-engine' project was modifying the PW-200 into the PW-220E (giving it the same attributes as a production PW-220) They were almost the exact same engine (form/fit/function/performance) and little was needed to be done. The USAF 'upgraded' all remaining PW-200s at the time to purge them from the fleet; actually taking the PW-200 out of service prior to the PW-100. The next Viper 're-engine' was when the ANG units with Block 42s installed the PW-229 in place of the PW-220. (Not sure how many aircraft that covers...) From what I've heard and read it was a 'field level' modification that consisted of a pallet of parts to be changed in the aircraft (mostly engine bay stuff) and the new $5M engines. (for EACH aircraft!)

Wouldn't that be a kick-in-the-pants for a Block 15 or 25!?!

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

exfltsafety wrote:

Quote:

Roscoe wrote:
All blocks ending in x2 (eg 42) are PW-equipped. The 42's were notorious pigs. Blocks 32 and 52 were fine jets however...

After block 30, they all were configured as "common engine bay". i.e. configured to accept either engine without mod.

Not sure what your point is, mlk32170. Roscoe's statement is true for the operational world. Although there is a common engine bay, the block designations x2 and x0 still separate the PW and GE-equipped aircraft.

Thrust was similar.

Hey TEG, would a PW229 or PW232 work in a Blk5? Super lightweight, maximum agility and massive thrust? I know it would be useless but I am just fantasizing?

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

How far beyond Mach 1 can F-16 go without AB?