F-16A vs F-16C Maneuverability

[gta4]

Note: wing loading alone does not stand for any kind of maneuverability.
The parameter that determines maneuverability is lift curve slope / wing loading. However, those who has low wing loading (delta wing) also has low lift curve slope, and vice versa.

[boilermaker]

I’ve been trying to look for a post regarding the maneuvering characteristics of the F-16C block 50\52 against its earlier Block 15 A models.

Unfortunately I could’nt find one on F-16 vs XYZ. But if this has been created than please help me out.

I have been in a friendly discussion with a certain blogger who claims that the F-16C is compromised because of all the weight added to it.

In a turning fight against an F-4E, it would end up on the losing side.

He cites wing loading for this, he claims that the F-16A would be more agile than the F-4 but not the C because of all the weight added to it and the emphasis on ground attack.

This seems to go in line with Pierre Spray’s argument that the original Viper would whip the newer ones in a dogfight.

Is this true? And if anyone can post some links that can help me support my claims that the C is not inferior to the A then please help me out.

If I’m wrong then I would accept
Thank you all.

It would be marginally true for block 30-50, but the F-16 block 52 with the 229 engines has the best maneuverability of them all. It still is a bit lower than the A model in instantaneous, but sustained the 52 is bit better if I recall.

But all this goes out the window once you add weapons storage. Can the phantom handle better weapon storage than the F-16? With 2x2 loadout, the two aircrafts might be converging.

[boilermaker]

Note: wing loading alone does not stand for any kind of maneuverability.
The parameter that determines maneuverability is lift curve slope / wing loading. However, those who has low wing loading (delta wing) also has low lift curve slope, and vice versa.

Yes, induced drag is a big factor. Also, note that a better sustained turned rate sometimes means a bigger turn radius. So it depends which maneuverability we talk about, 1 circle or 2 circle?

The Gripen A has better sustained rate but much bigger turning radius than the F-16 at altitude. So the Grippen should be taken in a 1 circle fight by a F-16 above 15 000 feet. At low altitude the Grippen A starts dominating due to better induced drag management by the canards and a decent turning radius.

[gta4]

Note: wing loading alone does not stand for any kind of maneuverability.
The parameter that determines maneuverability is lift curve slope / wing loading. However, those who has low wing loading (delta wing) also has low lift curve slope, and vice versa.

Yes, induced drag is a big factor. Also, note that a better sustained turned rate sometimes means a bigger turn radius. So it depends which maneuverability we talk about, 1 circle or 2 circle?

The Gripen A has better sustained rate but much bigger turning radius than the F-16 at altitude. So the Grippen should be taken in a 1 circle fight by a F-16 above 15 000 feet. At low altitude the Grippen A starts dominating due to better induced drag management by the canards and a decent turning radius.

Nope. JAS39A sustains only 12deg/sec at 4500 m and is easily out-turned by all versions of F-16.

And it was out-maneuvered by F-16s

16 vs jas39.jpg (53.88 KiB) Viewed 3145 times

[gta4]

And it is inferior than F-16 in all aspects of flight performance and avionics (Slovakia evaluation)

[basher54321]

It would be marginally true for block 30-50, but the F-16 block 52 with the 229 engines has the best maneuverability of them all. It still is a bit lower than the A model in instantaneous, but sustained the 52 is bit better if I recall.

But all this goes out the window once you add weapons storage. Can the phantom handle better weapon storage than the F-16? With 2x2 loadout, the two aircrafts might be converging.

Block 52? - not sure that has ever been a contender - considering the Block 42 with PW-229 is probably lighter with the same power and the Block 30 GE-100 seems to have a similar dynamic thrust output to the PW-229 but was also considerably lighter.

Kind of covered already on page 1 of this thread but as one ex F-4E pilot put it - you turned with an F-16 you died, period.

Not seeing how the F-4 was even on the same planet in terms of acceleration, gaining energy or sustained turn performance. Merging in an F-4 was a bad idea in Vietnam and every day since. Was much harder to fly, probably lost sight of the tiny F-16 on turn one due to the poor cockpit visibility.

Unsurprising for a 3rd Gen design that started out as an attack aircraft (AH-1) that was then changed into a fleet defense missile interceptor. Turning especially below 450KCAS was never its forte!

Weight and drag will reduce performance relatively - load up an F-16C (any) with 4 x AIM-120 and an ECM pod - stick 3 x AIM-120 and an ECM pod on the F-4 and the overall result will be the same.

Load up a CFT F-16 with 2 x 600 gal drop tanks , 4 x AGM-154, ECM pod, TGP - and you get a significant performance degradation - but then most aircraft could jettison stores when they needed to thus regaining that lost performance.

A lot of the F-16 design was about fixing the problems with the F-4 in Nam.

[viperzerof-2]

Not liking the odds of the F-4

[outlaw162]

There was a limited range between about 300 KCAS and 400 KCAS where an F-4D could out turn a block 10 F-16A......

.....in Cat 3.

[basher54321]

LOL thanks outlaw - glad to see you still about!

[viperzerof-2]

https://books.google.com/books?id=Nwrua ... &q&f=false

My guess block 15 vs block 25?

[gta4]

Take a look at figure 4.7 in http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Basic-E ... -RoKAF.pdf

Block 15 vs Block 42.

[viperzerof-2]

Take a look at figure 4.7 in http://falcon.blu3wolf.com/Docs/Basic-E ... -RoKAF.pdf

Block 15 vs Block 42.

Considering one of the best and one of the worst not too different


Modern Jet Fighters
By International Defense Images (Firm) · 1989

Claims the Block 30 is “only” five percent less in turn rate.

[basher54321]

Considering one of the best and one of the worst not too different

Modern Jet Fighters
By International Defense Images (Firm) · 1989

Claims the Block 30 is “only” five percent less in turn rate.

Having flown Blk 5, 10, 15, 25, 32, and 30, I can tell you there is nothing about a block 30 in terms of performance that is "the same as" Block 25. The F110-GE100 produces a lot more thrust than an F100-PW200 or 220. The Big Inlet jets get the full benefit of that capability, in certain parts of the envelope, the small inlet jet does not. There is more weight and drag from the big inlet but the offset is significant. the BI Blk30 is a Horse and the next closest I have flown would be a PW220 A-model. (jbgator)

...

Without talking to a pilot that flies all these jets all at the same time you would have a hard time separating fact from fiction. I flew a Block 10 last in 1988 with a PW200. There is no way I can say I could compare it to a Block 15 PW220 which I flew later or any other block. I have flown Block 15 PW220 and Block 32 PW220 in the same day. If you want a BFM horse give me the Block 15 but if I'm going to war give me the Block 32 with the APG-68, TGP, and LGBs (not talking about MLU, never flew one). I flew Block 32 and Block 30 BI at the same time. No comparison. Block 30 BI is a monster.(jbgator)

So is real life misleading Vs charts ?
Probably not as looking at one chart cannot really convey a 3D dynamic environment and also assumes similar weights and trim levels.

If say basic BFM starts typically around 18Kft - 25Kft you have a place where nothing can really happen in the pure horizontal (lack of air density) so overall EM is more important than just looking at some peak horizontal turn rate figures - there is more going on.

Secondly the weight of the Block 15 is not given that I can see but ideally should simply be at the same fuel weight if you want a direct comparison. At 2000 to 3000 lbs lighter clean than a clean Block 42 (depending on mods etc) that is significant. Regarding turn rate only - on those charts the effect of weight is about double at sea level compared to 15,000 ft so if you were to see those there should be a bigger difference considering same engine (at the same fuel weight).

[gta4]

Well most US block42s are re-engined to PW229 and I guess that block is one of the best performing F-16 blocks so far.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2002-10 ... t-Schedule

https://www.nationalguard.mil/Leadershi ... xtlink%5D/

[viperzerof-2]

Well most US block42s are re-engined to PW229 and I guess that block is one of the best performing F-16 blocks so far.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2002-10 ... t-Schedule

https://www.nationalguard.mil/Leadershi ... xtlink%5D/

The chart says it’s a 220 block 42