undefined | Better HN

0 pointscaycep12y ago0 comments

You need to add weight, and wing loading area, and what G's the plane is rated at. These are key variables.

The F-16's max speed is far greater than Mach 1.2, I thought, or at least it used to be before they added on weight to the thing.

It's also well known that the designers optimized the F-16's ability to quickly lose/gain kinetic energy, what they call "dump and pump". This is hard to quantify.

Some of the "nextgen" fighter capabilities widely touted are "supercruising" (i.e. supersonic flight without afterburner) and thrust vectoring, i.e. changing directions quickly by nozzling engine thrust off center. Amusing, the original YF-16A prototype could supercruise, and execute a "buttonhook turn" maneuver, without the fancy 21st century engines.

Imagine what the F-22's P&W F119 engine could do in a modernized F-16 airframe....

0 comments

3 comments · 2 top-level

antubbs12y ago· 1 in thread

The assumption with the F-35 seems to be that technology (better sensors & automation) will overcome performance & armament disparities. This is not a new assumption in the air superiority game, but I don't think history's been kind to it to this point.

protomyth12y ago

You're right, history hasn't been kind. The F-4 going into service with only missiles an no internal cannon is a pretty good example. After all, the new missiles would overcome and air combat maneuvering was a thing of the past.

Symmetry12y ago

Actually, Boyd's breakthrough in allowing designers to quantify a plane's ability to gain and lose energy is pretty much what led to the F16 and F15 being so good at it. It's true that it doesn't boil down easily to a single number, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy-Maneuverability_theory

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse