F-16V vs Gripen NG

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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 15:48

yes, but that is static instability, then there is dynamic instability, and both values will change based on deflection of control surfaces.

Both instabilities are accounted for in the FBW. The end result is that effectively all 9G FBW jets can hit 9G in 1-2 seconds.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 16:34

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Both instabilities are accounted for in the FBW. The end result is that effectively all 9G FBW jets can hit 9G in 1-2 seconds.


Interesting, I take it thats assuming the aircraft's lift limit and/or thrust limit will allow them to reach 9G in the first place.

I ask because there are upper limits in the EM chart, for example, If Aircraft A can reach 9G up to 15,000 feet at 400kcas. Does it mean it can reach 9Gs faster at 10,000 feet 450 KCAS.
Offline

F-16ADF

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 845
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 16:48

Nice paper, and I haven't had the time to read it comprehensively. But this part seems incorrect as attested to by Johnwil, and JBGator.

"A.2 F-15/F-16 EXPERIENCE
The F-15 and F-16 represent contrasting design solutions to the problem of air superiority.
The F-15 is stable in pitch, while the F-16 is unstable with a deep stall. Because of the
F-15's stability, pilots can maneuver it without regard for loss of control. However, the aircraft
is easy to 'over-g' and a voice warning system has been Installed to help prevent structural damage
due to vigorous maneuvering. The F-16, on the other hand, Is statically unstable with a deep stall
and weak directional stability at high angles of attack. Consequently, the F-16 is equipped with an
angle-of-attack limiter and a load factor limiter. The limiters, however, are functionally reliable
enough to allow rapid, full-deflection commands by the pilot, in contrast to the move tentative
commands required In the F-15. Paradoxically, this piloting experience has given the F-16, in spite
of its high-angle-of-attack aerodynamics problems, a reputation for desirable carefree handling
compared with the F-15. An interesting side effect of the F-16 absolute limiter in combination with
a small-amplitude force sidestick is that the incidence of g-induced loss of consciousness is higher
in the F-16 than in the F-15, which can actually produce theoretically much faster load factor onset
rates."

The F-16 AOA limiter was set before the discovery of the deep stall issue. Not the other way around. The AOA limiter in the F-16 is there, just as it is in the Saab Gripen, EF, and Rafale to provide the pilot with carefree handling and to preserve specific excess power. Another words, the pilot of these jets can pull full aft stick and not have to worry about departing the aircraft in heavy maneuvering (as opposed to traditional aircraft with buffet to stall). So they never reach their maximum lift. Maximum lift on the F-16 is near 35AOA, and the jet remains controllable at 30AOA. This is even proved by wind tunnel tests. They probably could have added a few more degrees of AOA before buffet, but for the sake of preserving Ps they did not. And that is the big trade off, more AOA means more drag and negative Ps, but it also means greater nose authority. The Rafale has a AOA limter to 29.9 degrees, the Gripen to 26 degrees, Typhoon is slightly less than F-16's. But they are bracketed differently; for example F-16 is 9G at 15.5AOA, Rafale I think is 9G at around 18-19AOA.



In Lavi testing, the Israeli's concluded that it was around half a second quicker than the F-16 in pitch . (I'm not sure if the source of this was Golan) But it basically matches the theme of the above paper, that canard jets generally are more unstable.



Getting back to that dailycaller chart. I'd be willing to bet the Rafale has the best Instantaneous turn rate out of the three eurocanards because of its compression wedge, wing lerx, and canard fuselage blending. It also has more AOA than EF or Gripen. But I'd say that the Raptor beats all of them because of TVC and total lift.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 17:21

zero-one wrote:Interesting, I take it thats assuming the aircraft's lift limit and/or thrust limit will allow them to reach 9G in the first place.

This goes without saying. A plane can't reach 9G if it can't reach 9G.
"Spurts"

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

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2566
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 19:37

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:This goes without saying. A plane can't reach 9G if it can't reach 9G.


Okay, so the follow up question to that is, is the double amplitude a fixed number for a particular aircraft or does it also depend on altitude, airspeed, load out, etc?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5334
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post12 Jul 2021, 20:54

zero-one wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:This goes without saying. A plane can't reach 9G if it can't reach 9G.


Okay, so the follow up question to that is, is the double amplitude a fixed number for a particular aircraft or does it also depend on altitude, airspeed, load out, etc?

It will definitely change with dynamic pressure, likely viscosity too, and absolutely loadout as that changes the moment of inertia.
"Spurts"

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

viperzerof-2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54

Unread post09 May 2022, 03:46

I think this is for a Gripen c, I’m unsure of the conditions for the turn rates but it is official information.
Attachments
24D41D62-FF87-4F2C-9392-150F91C3779A.jpeg
Offline

garrya

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 916
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2015, 12:43

Unread post10 May 2022, 03:20

viperzerof-2 wrote:I think this is for a Gripen c, I’m unsure of the conditions for the turn rates but it is official information.

Do you have the whole manual
Offline

viperzerof-2

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 15 May 2011, 18:54

Unread post10 May 2022, 03:38

I don’t have one it’s from a government document

https://www.justice.gov.za/comm-sdpp/he ... 66-341.pdf


I have the original air staff targets for the South African procurement of the Gripen [*]https://justice.gov.za/comm-sdpp/hearings/witness-statements/ws-Brigadier-General-John-William-Bayne.pdf
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 978
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post11 May 2022, 04:19

Slovakia evaluation on F-16 vs JAS-39C/D (translated from Google):
slovak_16V_39NG.png
Last edited by gta4 on 11 May 2022, 14:56, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4000
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 May 2022, 09:35

I find it very interesting and surprising that LM could provide F-16 Block 70/72 at the same price as Saab could provide C/D Gripens. It's really a no-brainer and I find it really surprising that Saab didn't (or couldn't) offer E-moderl Gripens there with similar price. Even then F-16 would have many advantages but avionics fit would've been a lot closer. I think F-16 would've most likely won due to still having more capable airframe overall.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4049
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 May 2022, 16:11

gta4 wrote:Slovakia evaluation on F-16 vs JAS-39C/D (translated from Google):
slovak_16V_39NG.png


The Gripen was found to not have significant improvement over the older Mig-29 despite being a new aircraft.

OUCH!!!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Previous

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 2 guests