It does not matter if you install a J79 or a F100 engine, because the recovery behavior of the inlet does set the limit.
So does the engine own pressure recovery limits, they are not all the same, some engines are designed for high-speed/high-altitudes, some optimised for lower Machs and lower ceilings, this is a known fact.
was reached by 800 kt IAS or TAS at s.l. already and the inlet is not the limit.
The engine (F-100-PW200) limits were well know as well, as for the change of inlet pressure recovery limit it didn’t make a difference before IPE engines (F-100PW-229 and F-110GE-129) were used, regardless of the inlet.
The “big-mouth” inlets did come into play to cope with the higher air-flows of later F110s and F100s to make use from the thrust gains of that, but it did change nothing about max speed in general.
You said it yourself so the issue is with BOTH engines and inlets and these were still limited to 800 kt KCAS with the F100.
It seems that your are in need of some further selfeducation about propulsion systems.
The F110 provided 5,000 pounds more thrust than the F100, and required a larger amount of air. This in turn required that the area of the air intake be increased. However, this change was not made at first, and early F-16C/D Block 30’s are “small inlet” aircraft (e.g. the US Navy’s F-16N’s). The large inlet became the standard for F110-powered Fighting Falcons from F-16C Block 30D #86-0262 onward (the so-called “Big-mouths”). The large inlet is referred to as the “modular common air intake duct”. The Pratt&Whitney-equipped Block 32 aircraft all have the smaller inlet, called a “normal shock inlet”, the proverbial exception to the rule being the VISTA F-16. Unfortunately, air intake shapes could not be standardized on the production line because the lower-thrust F100 engine could not accommodate the additional air.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article6.html
Is that so?
From ‘military aircraft pilots reports’ it is learned that the max low level all-weather terrain mode does set a limit of 500 kt IAS/TAS for the Mirage 2000D and Rafale.
Mirage 2000 and M53 are designed and optimised for M 2.2 and 50.000 operational ceiling.
Rafale is limited in software for 750 kt/ M 1.8 Operational (combat configuration) 50.000 ft, the rest is not a question of inlet but external weapon loads.
Here early Dasssault-Aviation website, today, they give Operational datas not DASHES = 750 kt/ M 1.8, DASH is M 2.0.
The F-16 was optimised for the A2A role to have its best performance at heights of 30 kft or lower and ~ Mach 0,9 including an excellent transonic performance.
BEST lift and turning performances at 40.000 ft defines Combat ceiling…
Similar thing is seen for the F-35, hence the comparisons with the F-16C Block 50.
NO. F-35 combat ceilling is 20.000 ft lower.
In the meanwhile all have realized that the Mach 1,6 limit was set to prevent damage from the F-35.
What i have realised is that Maximum Designed Machs are structural and dynamic limits.
In the case of the F-35 it does not matter, what the frontline pilot will do, because it can be enforced as a hard limit by digital control similar to the hard 9 G limit of the F-16 to prevent overstressing of the aircraft and the pilot.
As OPIT was pointing out, we had Mirage III pilots flying their mouts at M 2.53 and Mirage 2000s at M 2.5.
It doesn’t mean these events are representative of the aircraft flight envelops or “domaine de vol as we say” it only mean they flew them out of these limits only because the inlet pressure recovery limits allowed for the engine to sustain these Machs.
In the 70s/80s several pilots were lost by G-lock and at lower level there was no time to recover from that. A loaden F-16 will not be operated behind Mach 1,5 at all, whatever it can be pushed above 30 kft.
The main reason is that F-16 is notoriously short in range on internal fuel only, it was designed for a mission profile which is no longer used by the USAF, the fact that 90% of the time is would be carrying external tanks doesn’t mean it is its combat performances.
So before going personal again you restrict yourself to a single point in question for the benefit of all. The case about mph is buried aready.
I think you should really be asking these things to yourself.
I am growing tired of being told that i am lacking in courtesy and constantly told stories about aircrafts performances and roles while having to correct the innacurate information you post on a permanent basis to make point which are counteredicted by pilot reports even those of F-22.
Sign In
