Forum: F-16 Simulators

flighthawk wrote:

I had assumed (despite figures on this site) that the F-16AM MLU must be far heavier than the original F-16A Block 15 with the airframe and avionics upgrades to get it near the block40/50 standard.

Yes, you are correct; the MLUs did gain some weight during their upgrades.

Unlike the later blocks though, they do not have the larger structure (landing gear, bulkheads, and such) that are needed for the higher maximum takeoff weight.

You'll notice how the later engines are also heavier than their earlier variants.

The GEs have always weighed more than the PWs.

TEG

F-16.net Sponsor

Double-clutched the post button Doh

Sorry ~ TEG

exorcet wrote:

Most fighters today can accelerate vertically, there are just a lot of conditions that need to be met. .

Umm I don't think so. Name one. Maybe a Raptor lightweight. Maybe.

I used to think that too that it will go like rocket. so when i watched real f-16 videos on u tube i got convinced that the speed bleeds down...and falcon 4 AF realism is great. see some hid videos on you tube you will then know. even on tight turns the speed goes down.

you question is good, every sim pilot at first thinks that Smile

Too bad I can't just climb into a real one and check it out Very Happy

Last edited by mjoelner on Feb 05, 2011 - 01:50 PM; edited 3 times in total

I'm just a lowly engineer living in Europe, but I happen to know a thing or two about the european F16AM's. I'm sure you won't believe half of it, but here I go.

The empty weight of these Vipers was actually reduced as a result of the MLU update! The electronics they pulled out of the planes weighed almost 2 times of what they put back in! Most of the F16AM's also use an upgraded 25k F-100-PW-220E engine. The danish vipers use the old F-100-PW-200 engine, but instead they use semi-internal ECM and MAW's to keep the weight and drag down. The official figure for the dutch F-16AM single seater states an empty weight of 15586 lbs clean. They also claim a T/W ratio of 1:1.1 clean. With the old engine it would be 1:1.05.

Sadly Falcon 4.0 is just plain wrong concerning the F16AM. Here's a short list:
1. I have never seen a european F16 with a navigation pod. You can't use the pods radar terrain following feature anyway since there is no digital FLCS. In Falcon 4.0 its all there.
2. I have never seen one with HARM missiles.
3. I have never seen one with Python 4 missiles. They either use the Sidewinder X or Iris-T instead. And yes they have the HMCS.
4. Only the danish vipers use semi-internal ECM and MAW's. Look here for details: http://www.terma.dk/page.dsp?page=822

Remember that these planes were upgraded almost solely for the air to air role. The air to ground upgrades were just a bonus. Here in Europe MIG's and Suhkoi's are not something we read about. I have personally seen a MIG 25 flying some 100ft above my head with an F15 following a few seconds later! It happened so fast I could only tell the planes apart because the F15 have dog-tooth horisontal stabs! It was in the summertime and the air must have been turbulent so I know the russian pilot must have been scared!

flyboy22 wrote:

exorcet wrote:

Most fighters today can accelerate vertically, there are just a lot of conditions that need to be met. .

Umm I don't think so. Name one. Maybe a Raptor lightweight. Maybe.

Just about anything 4th gen or newer. Like I said, conditions. If you started them going vertical at sea level at a relatively low speed, they should be able to pull it off for a few seconds (plenty of thrust, low drag, no altitude wasted trying to get vertical).

exorcet wrote:

flyboy22 wrote:

exorcet wrote:

Most fighters today can accelerate vertically, there are just a lot of conditions that need to be met. .

Umm I don't think so. Name one. Maybe a Raptor lightweight. Maybe.

Just about anything 4th gen or newer. Like I said, conditions. If you started them going vertical at sea level at a relatively low speed, they should be able to pull it off for a few seconds (plenty of thrust, low drag, no altitude wasted trying to get vertical).

Well, come to Europe and see for yourself. It's rutine for F16AM's to finish airshows with a vertical zoom climb to high altitude. I don't know exactly how high they go but they are almost invisible to the naked eye before they level out. It's Very impressive. Especially when the plane do a minimum radius turn then use half the length of the runway to acellerate and then wosh! vanishes into the big blue sky like its a UFO. And that's a danish F16 with the old engine! The dutch F16AM's usually start their rutine by going straight into the vertical right from take-off. Even the women standing around go wow!

mjoelner wrote:

I'm just a lowly engineer living in Europe, but I happen to know a thing or two about the european F16AM's. I'm sure you won't believe half of it, but here I go.

The empty weight of these Vipers was actually reduced as a result of the MLU update! The electronics they pulled out of the planes weighed almost 2 times of what they put back in! Most of the F16AM's also use an upgraded 25k F-100-PW-220E engine. The danish vipers use the old F-100-PW-200 engine, but instead they use semi-internal ECM and MAW's to keep the weight and drag down. The official figure for the dutch F-16AM single seater states an empty weight of 15586 lbs clean. They also claim a T/W ratio of 1:1.1 clean. With the old engine it would be 1:1.05.

Sadly Falcon 4.0 is just plain wrong concerning the F16AM. Here's a short list:
1. I have never seen a european F16 with a navigation pod. You can't use the pods radar terrain following feature anyway since there is no digital FLCS. In Falcon 4.0 its all there.
2. I have never seen one with HARM missiles.
3. I have never seen one with Python 4 missiles. They either use the Sidewinder X or Iris-T instead. And yes they have the HMCS.
4. Only the danish vipers use semi-internal ECM and MAW's. Look here for details: http://www.terma.dk/page.dsp?page=822

Interesting - thats a shame - the devs for the AF version were obviously not too bothered about the AMs!

Where is that AM weight published?

Quote:

Interesting - thats a shame - the devs for the AF version were obviously not too bothered about the AMs!

Where is that AM weight published?

This number is shown on http://planken.org/rnlaf/f-16-fighting-falcon. The source is indicated as RNLAF, LMTAS, Janes, FAS.

Well I'm not too sure about this number anymore since it's apparently just the weight of the F16A. You find this figure lots of other places.

A crosscheck is that the danish airforce officially claims the empty weight of the F16AM airframe is 5443kg on www.flv.dk . Then you need to add an engine at some 1370kg and certain fluids to keep the machine running. Thats around 6813kg+. That should be 15140 lbs plus some. So basically it seems the MLU update doesn't touch the airframe and the new electronic equipment is lighter than the old.

You can read about the MLU update here: http://planken.org/rnlaf/f-16-mid-life- ... ed-systems

However the Falcon STAR modification might add some weight? But they are not trying to build an F16C with a stronger airframe, bigger engine and big mouth air intake. If that was possible I don't think the F16a would have been phased out in the USAF?

Besides I don't think many american F15C pilots fear the F16AM. They usually smile and pad the nose of their plane and say something like "with this radar we eat F16s for breakfast" Smile

. That will even be aired on tv over here. For a long time american pilots and their F15s protected our airspace and the european F16 squadrons were buddied up with them in teams. A danish figther pilot once said, that the USAFE F15s were the jab and the european F16s were the left hook.

I think thats why the F16C became more of a fighter-bomber in the USAF? But here in Europe we didn't have that choice. We couldn't afford that big bad Eagle, so the F16AM is therefore our F15C Wink

Well almost anyway. I think the MLU updated F16s have filled in the gap very well between the USAFE moving to other assignments after the end of the cold war and until the Eurofighter became operational. I believe russian pilots have had a lot of respect for the Viper for a long time. At least former Warsaw pact pilots mentions that the MiG-29 turns better than an F16, but alas they likely wont make it to the merge... Or even find that darned Viper Smile

By the way, I think in the end Russia heeded the old saying: "if you can't beat them - join them".

@sea0fgreen
falcon 4 af flight model is great. see various you tube videos of f-16. search "f-16 hud" u will see real video there. notice HUD how the speed goes down when aircraft goes up or tight turns.

mjoelner wrote:

But here in Europe we didn't have that choice. We couldn't afford that big bad Eagle, so the F16AM is therefore our F15C Wink

Well almost anyway. I think the MLU updated F16s have filled in the gap very well between the USAFE moving to other assignments after the end of the cold war and until the Eurofighter became operational.
.

Got it thanks

As for Europes F-15s hmm probably closest was the Tornado ADV....then um the F-4F/ICE (Germany), F-4E(Turkey & Greece), F-4C (Spain), F-4J(UK) - about the only heavy weights with comparable weapons loadout I can think of.

I found what I was doing wrong. Start at about 500 feet level flight and pull up 90 degrees, but maintain about 250 knots until your 90 degrees. Then go to full AB and you will definitely see acceleration all the way up to about 11,000 feet. I was starting out too fast before.

@exorcet; Pretty much exactly how you said to do it.

@Enthusiast: I would check out youtube but unfortunately my dial up connection won't load the vids. Too bad though, I would love to see some real footage of f-16s

Forum: F-16 Simulators

falcon 4.0af accelerate vertically?