F-16 FCS Question - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-09-2019, 01:32 PM   #21
deadpool
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by =Panther= View Post
Any aircraft can land on a carrier, although probably not in a good way. The Viper will not be able to take off from the carrier.

With either enough headwind or a very fast yet to be invented aircraft carrier, I suppose the F16 could also take off from it.

If this is even remotely realistic or would find it's way into any operational manual .. Nope.
deadpool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 02:20 AM   #22
bbrz
Member
 
bbrz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 984
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by deadpool View Post
With either enough headwind or a very fast yet to be invented aircraft carrier, I suppose the F16 could also take off from it.
A lightly loaded F-16 could easily takeoff from a carrier, even at 0 wind since the t/o distance at low weight is only 800ft. With a 20kts headwind this distance decreases to 500ft.
bbrz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2019, 04:15 AM   #23
SonofEil
Member
 
SonofEil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 679
Default

Used to do takeoffs and landings in the A-10C on the old carrier back in the day. Brutal headwind, no stores, and nearly empty fuel tanks were required but it was doable.
And in anticipation for F-18 release last year I practiced up with carrier touch and go's in the F-5 (NOT easy).

Simulators are fun.
__________________
i7 7700K @5.0, 1080Ti, 32GB DDR4, HMD Odyssey, TM WH, Crosswind Rudder...
SonofEil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 12:52 AM   #24
vanir
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 228
Default

USN did look at the YF16 for carrier ops, but modifications required would weigh it up a fair bit and the Northrop YF17 was the better choice for this, following redesign and license production under McDD as the carrier modded F/A-18. But the F16 definitely got Air Force contract because every test pilot couldn't stop raving about how awesome it was. The YF17 was forgotten about until the Navy resurrected it.
Interestingly the YF17 was basically an upmarket modernization of an F5, partially a dusting off of an FX competitor they were playing around with in 1968. Also interesting the F5E was selected for the Aggressor role by USN specifically because, with some easy systems modifications it actually performs identically at low altitudes to a MiG21, the MiG of course performed differently at high alt but at low alt where most aerial engagements wind up it's identical for handling and performance characteristics so was ideal for an Aggressor role.

I read something interesting about the F16 production blocks at the F16 website, which has air force sources and viper pilots associated with it, describing how different Block 30era FCS is from later vipers, describing it as analogue versus digital. Some of the viper pilots said they preferred the Block 30 because the pilot could override the alpha limiter, but in the DFCS they couldn't. What they were talking about is viper versus fulcrum engagements and were saying the Block 30 stood up better in pushing manoeuvring limits with the MiG, but the later ones are disadvantaged by user lock out whilst the MiG pilot can disable safeties and exceed alpha limiter by simply fighting a push bar with some arm force. But they did mention the Block 50 more than makes up for this with engine and updates and effectively can't be outdone by a fulcrum unless they climb to mid alt and let it get some speed under its wings. At low alt the Block 50/52 has too much acceleration and subsonic speed availability for the fulcrum to compete with until they both climb and get supersonic.
I can't say about comparisons but it was an interesting read, hope I paraphrased it fairly okay.

Sounded like the conclusions were Block 30 era essentially one for one with a MiG29, whilst the Block 50 era is superior in speed at low alt but cannot exceed safety limiters during manoeuvres; whilst the MiG is superior in speed characteristics to both at higher alt.
The Luftwaffe conclusion during wargames against Block 50 vipers during the 90s was that a good pilot in a Fulcrum simply cannot be beaten by Vipers if they're all using close range missile/gun engagements, I read the transcript, the words the Luftwaffe commander said were, "...cannot be beaten, period."

Personally I'm pretty fascinated by the F16 production blocks, being such different aircraft between them, and its obviously significant performance changes. And then the old school Russian MiG, with a rod that tries the push the stick out of your hand if you're going to crash the plane, what's next, a hammer that hits you on the head if you do it over population?
vanir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 12:19 PM   #25
bies
Junior Member
 
bies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 96
Default

DFCS gave the ability to fly at the very edge of performance when earlier FCS - up to Block 30 -had bigger margin of safety.
bies is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:41 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.