Balancing the F-14

Ok so I found some EM charts for the MiG-29S, and compared to the F-16C the ITR is pretty much identical with both pulling exactly 7.2 G's at Mach 0.5 @ SL. That having been said the MiG-29 does have the advantage of being able to pull more AoA at low speeds.

 

In terms of STR however the F-16C as expected pulls ahead being capable of 22 deg/sec @ SL whilst the MiG-29S is capable of 21.2 deg/sec.

 

 

PS: All the data is assuming both aircraft carry 2x IR missiles & 50% fuel, i.e. clean.

Hello again,

I believe it's somewhat different... and, Turn Rates (Instantaneous or Sustained) are not measured in G's... but in degrees/second.

From researches I've made from many sites around the web, magazines, books, etc. many time ago (didn't keep the sources as they were plenty, and not all matched the same data), I got roughly these numbers:

(Sea level performance; don't recall the exact payload configuration.)

F/A-18C

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 19.2

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 28

Max AoA (deg): 55

Mirage 2000-5

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 22

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 30

Max AoA (deg): 29

F-16C

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 24

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 26

Max AoA (deg): 26 (AoA limiter)

MiG-29C

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 24

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 28

Max AoA (deg): 45

They do make some sense for me, although I thought the Hornet should have a better Sustained Turn Rate...

Again, keep in mind the F-16 does have the AoA limiter, which therefore limits its Instantaneous Turn Rate considerably.

But like I said: these numbers were some of the most repeated (and less controverse) throughout the several places i've compared.

That said, I can in no way claim their absolute veracity.

Excellent post, Top Jockey! :)

An F-16 pilot who flew the Hornet made a comparison between them.

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

A good Hornet pilot will take the fight downhill, try to get slow, and use his superior maneuverability to bleed the Viper down into his wheelhouse – a close-in knife fight at slow speed. If he tries to take the fight uphill or flat, the F-16’s superior rate and thrust to weight ratio will prevail.

Excellent post, Top Jockey! :)

 

An F-16 pilot who flew the Hornet made a comparison between them.

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

Thank you, nice article also.

By the way, (not intending to keep on the off-topic), but in the article you posted the below quote really states what I mentioned to Hummingbird about the AoA limiter effects on things like: Instantaneous Turn Rate; nose authority; maximum AoA; etc.

" ...the F-16’s computer limits the angle of attack, keeping the aircraft from stalling. This makes it easier for a young lieutenant to reef back on the stick without falling out of the sky or losing nose authority, and regain energy when getting slow. "

Excellent post, Top Jockey! :)

 

An F-16 pilot who flew the Hornet made a comparison between them.

https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/

i read an article from an F/A-18 Pilot who flew the F-16, and he prefered the Hornet over the F-16. Saying "It's definitely more fun to fly the Viper, but the Hornet is the aircraft that I would want to take into combat. The primary deciding factors are the superior ergonomics in the Hornet's cockpit design, and its avionics controls and displays."

Thank you, nice article also.

 

By the way, (not intending to keep on the off-topic), but in the article you posted the below quote really states what I mentioned to Hummingbird about the AoA limiter effects on things like: Instantaneous Turn Rate; nose authority; maximum AoA; etc.

 

" ...the F-16’s computer limits the angle of attack, keeping the aircraft from stalling. This makes it easier for a young lieutenant to reef back on the stick without falling out of the sky or losing nose authority, and regain energy when getting slow. "

Just out of curiosity, do you have the data for the F-15C's sustained and instant turn rates? I know it differs compared to the E especially since those usually have CFT and -229 engines.

You can find the F-15's -1 'out there', including the F-15E's. IIRC most E mount the same -220's that the C do.

F/A-18C

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 19.2

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 28

Max AoA (deg): 55

 

Mirage 2000-5

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 22

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 30

Max AoA (deg): 29

 

F-16C

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 24

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 26

Max AoA (deg): 26 (AoA limiter)

 

MiG-29C

Max Sust. T/R (deg/sec): 24

Max Inst. T/R (deg/sec): 28

Max AoA (deg): 45

 

Highly doubted the source. Even with a powerful GE-129 F-16C Block50 with a clean configuration and 34% fuel at SL, it can only do a near 22 STR and 25 ITR, as shown in: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133922.

Also in a MIG-29, it does come with an AOA limiter which allows a maximum of 26 degs, at least in the G model:

A clean MIG-29G with 50% fuel at SL can be concluded from the performance chart of GAF T.O.1MIG-29:

Max Inst. G:

0.7Mach - 9G

0.6Mach - 9G

0.5Mach - 7.3G

0.4Mach - 4.7G

0.3Mach - 2.6G

Max Sust. G:

0.7Mach - 9G

0.6Mach - 7.6G

0.5Mach - 5.8G

0.4Mach - 4.2G

0.3Mach - 2.5G

One thing to mention is that in the 0.6-0.7 Mach region, Max Sust. performance of a 50% fuel MIG-29G is even on par with a 34% fuel F-16C Block50 (up to 22deg/s max), both clean and on SL.

PS: When reading or drawing an E-M chart for inst. / sust. performance, you basically should go for the G's, not the deg/sec, which is especially unreliable at low speeds.

Also in a MIG-29, it does come with an AOA limiter which allows a maximum of 26 degs, at least in the G model

The AOA limiter in the MiG-29 can be overwritten by applying a certain amount of pressure to the stick.

Hello again,

 

I believe it's somewhat different... and, Turn Rates (Instantaneous or Sustained) are not measured in G's... but in degrees/second.

It isn't different, it's official.

Also yes if you want to nitpick then turn rate is usually defined in deg/sec, however turn rate figures are based directly on the G's measured by an accelerometer at the specific speeds, that's how you arrive at the deg/sec, not the other way round. So if you want the most reliable turn rate figure (esp. at low speeds) then take the G's measured at the specific speed and do the conversion (EDIT: I see LJQCN101 already explained this). Finally the MiG-29's data is all provided in G acceleration.

Same period F-16C Block 40/42 for comparison (I was looking at Block 52 earlier):

The Block 40/42 with the GE-100 engine actually manages to pull 7.8 G's instantanous & 6.5 G's sustained at Mach 0.5, whilst topping out at 9 G's sustained at Mach 0.63.

Max ITR & STR are 26.2 deg/sec at Mach 0.5 and 23 deg/sec at Mach 0.63.

In short I don't know how anyone arrived at the figures you posted Top Jockey, but the above are the real world figures, i.e.:

F-16C

Max ITR ~ 26 deg/sec

Max STR ~ 23 deg/sec

MiG-29

Max ITR ~ 24 deg/sec

Max STR ~ 21 deg/sec

But mind you these figures are for two completely clean aircraft bar 2x IR missiles, a condition in which you would/will never see them entering combat. But since it's the only condition in which we have data for the MiG-29 it's our only way to compare atm. That having been said we really also should've been comparing at 10 kft and not SL.

Drop the fuel another 1000 lbs on the Block 30 and you can do a 24dps sustained turn while buzzing the tower before you land :)

The above is certainly a good example of how much a drop of 2000 lbs in weight can make - so clearly dropping the MiG-29G down 2000 lbs to a similar fuel state should obviously improve the figures - but on the other hand might put the MiG-29G on fuel emergency (Anyone have fuel flow charts for the MiG-29G from that manual?)

Drop the fuel another 1000 lbs on the Block 30 and you can do a 24dps sustained turn while buzzing the tower before you land :)

 

The above is certainly a good example of how much a drop of 2000 lbs in weight can make - so clearly dropping the MiG-29G down 2000 lbs to a similar fuel state should obviously improve the figures - but on the other hand might put the MiG-29G on fuel emergency (Anyone have fuel flow charts for the MiG-29G from that manual?)

Just out of curiosity, do you have the data for the F-15C's sustained and instant turn rates? I know it differs compared to the E especially since those usually have CFT and -229 engines.

Sorry, nothing about the F-15.

Just out of curiosity, do you have the data for the F-15C's sustained and instant turn rates? I know it differs compared to the E especially since those usually have CFT and -229 engines.

F-14D @ 55,620 lbs (50% fuel) w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9's @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.2

0.3 = 1.95

0.4 = 2.95

0.5 = 4.0

0.6 = 5.0

0.7 = 5.3

0.75 = 5.6

F-16C @ 26,000 lbs w/ 2x AIM-9 + 4x AIM-120's + 2x FT pylons @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = CAT limited

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.7

0.5 = 3.55

0.6 = 4.5

0.7 = 5.5

0.75 = 6.0

F-15C @ 41,000 lbs (50% fuel), w/ 4x AIM-7's + 4x AIM-9s @ 10,000 ft:

Mach = G-load

0.2 = 1.0

0.3 = 1.8

0.4 = 2.6

0.5 = 3.4

0.6 = 4.3

0.7 = 5.25

0.75 = 5.7

http://i.imgur.com/zoOO5z1.png

Thanks - rep inbound

I assume the dashed lines are the low power mode and this chart includes output from both engines?

...

 

Highly doubted the source.

PS: When reading or drawing an E-M chart for inst. / sust. performance, you basically should go for the G's, not the deg/sec, which is especially unreliable at low speeds.

Wasn't "the source", they were several "sources" at the time, and I emphasize I can not assure their absolute veracity.

I see, but with turn rates one can have roughly a better idea of which fighter is bringing his guns faster to bear on the other guy.

With the G's, it just doesn't seam to be so easy for me.

...

 

It isn't different, it's official.

 

...

 

...

 

The Block 40/42 with the GE-100 engine actually manages to pull 7.8 G's instantanous & 6.5 G's sustained at Mach 0.5, whilst topping out at 9 G's sustained at Mach 0.63.

 

Max ITR & STR are 26.2 deg/sec at Mach 0.5 and 23 deg/sec at Mach 0.63.

 

 

In short I don't know how anyone arrived at the figures you posted Top Jockey, but the above are the real world figures, i.e.:

 

F-16C

Max ITR ~ 26 deg/sec

Max STR ~ 23 deg/sec

 

MiG-29

Max ITR ~ 24 deg/sec

Max STR ~ 21 deg/sec

 

...

Hummingbird,

Help me with some questions if I may:

1.

" Official "... " The real world figures "... Why ? Because you like the F-16 the most ?

What's next - the F-16 also has better maximum AoA than the F/A-18 ?

How can you claim which E.M. charts throughout the web are "official", and which aren't ?

2.

Did you know that German MiG-29's had their engines de-tuned for service life longevity, therefore limiting the aircraft's absolute maximum performance ?

3.

In another post, you mentioned:

"...whilst at low speed I could well imagine that the MiG-29 was better..."

But how can the MiG be better, with the crucial inferior parameters you posted above for it ?

That's why I never claim that "my data is the real world figures" ...

As I'm not the owner of the truth - see the point ?

 

 

1.

" Official "... " The real world figures "... Why ? Because you like the F-16 the most ?

What's next - the F-16 also has better maximum AoA than the F/A-18 ?

How can you claim which E.M. charts throughout the web are "official", and which aren't ?

They are straight from the actual manual, are you seriously going to argue that they're not reliable? let alone less reliable than what some random person writes on an internet forum?? :huh:

2.

Did you know that German MiG-29's had their engines de-tuned for service life longevity, therefore limiting the aircraft's absolute maximum performance ?

Yeah cause that would make sense :music_whistling:

3.

In another post, you mentioned:

"...whilst at low speed I could well imagine that the MiG-29 was better..."

But how can the MiG be better, with the crucial inferior parameters you posted above for it ?

 

That's why I never claim that "my data is the real world figures" ...

As I'm not the owner of the truth - see the point ?

Did you not follow the conversation? I posted that before looking at the MiG-29's EM charts.

Now after looking at them my suspicisions regarding STR were confirmed, the F-16 holds a marked advantage there, and in addition to that we learned that the F-16 also has a higher ITR.

Now that having been said the MiG still has the advantage of being able to pull a higher AoA, but only at low enough speeds that it won't snap its wings off.

That's why I never claim that "my data is the real world figures" ...

As I'm not the owner of the truth - see the point ?

They are not "my" figures, they are the actual flight test figures, it doesn't get any more real worldly.

 

1.

" Official "... " The real world figures "... Why ? Because you like the F-16 the most ?

What's next - the F-16 also has better maximum AoA than the F/A-18 ?

How can you claim which E.M. charts throughout the web are "official", and which aren't ?

These are not random charts - Full up Technical Orders (Not all are free) have been available for years for various aircraft with their respective flight test data - so it's the best you will get - did you wonder where flight sims get a lot of data from?

Thanks - rep inbound

 

I assume the dashed lines are the low power mode and this chart includes output from both engines?

The consumption is indeed for both engines, the dashed line is simply for consumption at ICAO tempterature +10 deg C.

They are straight from the actual manual, are you seriously going to argue that they're not reliable? let alone less reliable than what some random person writes on an internet forum?? :huh:

They are probably reliable yes, but then Russian manuals might show superior Instantaneous Turn Rate of the MiG.

Not some random person, but several sources, including for example: AirForces Monthly magazines articles.

Where USAF pilots (not my biased opinion; or some random person) stated preciselly the superior nose authority of the MiG-29 amongst other factors, in an exercise with Bulgaria Air Force for instance.

And the examples go on.

Yeah cause that would make sense :music_whistling:

Are you seriously going to argue that it didn't happen ?

With those kind of mistakes, how do you want to be taken seriously ? :huh:

Did you not follow the conversation? I posted that before looking at the MiG-29's EM charts.

 

Now after looking at them my suspicisions regarding STR were confirmed, the F-16 holds a marked advantage there, and in addition to that we learned that the F-16 also has a higher ITR.

Unless you're comparing to the de-tuned German MiG-29, you're wrong again on the Instantaneous Turn Rate.

Now that having been said the MiG still has the advantage of being able to pull a higher AoA, but only at low enough speeds that it won't snap its wings off.

Yeah, but that need to bash the aircraft that rivals your favourite, sort of shows you're biased to one of the AC being discussed, which doesn't add much to credibility...

Ahh, level turn forum BFM...

Ahhhhh...

They are probably reliable yes, but then Russian manuals might show superior Instantaneous Turn Rate of the MiG.

 

Not some random person, but several sources, including for example: AirForces Monthly magazines articles.

Where USAF pilots (not my biased opinion; or some random person) stated preciselly the superior nose authority of the MiG-29 amongst other factors, in an exercise with Bulgaria Air Force for instance.

And the examples go on.

 

 

 

Are you seriously going to argue that it didn't happen ?

With those kind of mistakes, how do you want to be taken seriously ? :huh:

 

 

 

Unless you're comparing to the de-tuned German MiG-29, you're wrong again on the Instantaneous Turn Rate.

 

 

 

Yeah, but that need to bash the aircraft that rivals your favourite, sort of shows you're biased to one of the AC being discussed, which doesn't add much to credibility...

Yeah ok you go on and believe what'ever you want then, I'm done trying to help you.

PS: Engine performance doesn't affect the instantaneous turn rate of an aircraft ;)

PS: Engine performance doesn't affect the instantaneous turn rate of an aircraft ;)

And with that, I don't think there's enough left of the argument to pick up with a sponge.

I must say though- I like the part where governments are supposedly putting out faulty documents for their pilots. You know, because it's awesome to be expected to develop proficiency with one standard, then have another one to toss out on rainy days that will remain classified so they never get used in internet fights to restore the foundation of shattered egos.

Pilots live, fight, and die by those charts. And they are expected, for much of them, to retain substantial amounts of memory regarding the performance of their aircraft. Having bad data would not only make them ineffective in the learning and training process, but would have lethal effects within the confines of combat. But hey- it's a NATO manual rather than a VVS one; because it's not like NATO would want to show it's own pilots accurate numbers as to what a MiG-29 could do while they had them for use.

Everything is propaganda to somebody.

And with that, I don't think there's enough left of the argument to pick up with a sponge.

 

I must say though- I like the part where governments are supposedly putting out faulty documents for their pilots. You know, because it's awesome to be expected to develop proficiency with one standard, then have another one to toss out on rainy days that will remain classified so they never get used in internet fights to restore the foundation of shattered egos.

 

Pilots live, fight, and die by those charts. And they are expected, for much of them, to retain substantial amounts of memory regarding the performance of their aircraft. Having bad data would not only make them ineffective in the learning and training process, but would have lethal effects within the confines of combat. But hey- it's a NATO manual rather than a VVS one; because it's not like NATO would want to show it's own pilots accurate numbers as to what a MiG-29 could do while they had them for use.

 

Everything is propaganda to somebody.

Yeah I think it died the moment the official EM charts were questioned on the basis of what numbers random people most frequently post on forums around the internet :P

Yeah I think it died the moment the official EM charts were questioned on the basis of what numbers random people most frequently post on forums around the internet :P

@ Lunaticfringe,

As you know (regardless of "training efectiveness"), NATO / USA entities, are not exactly the most exempt when comparing their products with the ones from other nations.

@ Hummingbird,

Why would I or anyone else believe more the "word" of any NATO military entity, than the word of other foreign country military entity ?

Are German Air Force pilots who flew the MiG-29 and stated 28 deg/sec as ITR for it, random people for you ?

Are US Air Force pilots who specifically stated the MiG-29's superior nose authority, random people ?

Especially on a military product that rivals ocidental/NATO ones ?

(Even more when the F-16 is still on the international sales market... :lol:)

They also said " officially " there were Nuclear Arms in Iraq... see the point ?

West German Pilots themselves, repeatedly mentioned 28 deg/sec, why would NATO be more legitimate when emiting some different opinion on a rival AC ?

On the F-16:

I personally have it as one of my very favourites, expecially as it's the mainstay of my country's Air Force combat squadrons.

When it arrived here in 1994 it was something outstanding, both in technological capabilities, as in pride to military and enthusiasts...

Essentially, because along 14 years before the F-16, we only had the A-7 Corsair II to maintain our country's air space sovereignity... (completely inadequate to say the least, but that's another story).

So as you can see, even with the much pride and appreciation I have for the machine the F-16 is, I do not insist in it being "all parameters superior" to other AC, contrary to you - just because one likes it more being that way.