You know, all three of those graphs are pretty much laughable according to F-15/16/18 MiG-29 and Su-27 flight manuals?
For example it says F-16 has worst subsonic turn rate of those fighters. On the contrary, with 23 deg/s STR, F-16 blk30 has the greatest subsonic sustained turn rate of all 4th gen fighters. With 50% fuel load, Su-27 has 21,75 deg/s STR. and F-15 has 20,5 deg/s.
so basically the sustain turn rate of some fighter :
Mirage 2000 = ~19 deg/s
F-5E = ~13.1 deg/s
F-4E = 13.7 deg/s
MiG-21 = 12.9 deg/s
F-16 = 23 deg/s
Su-27 = 21.75 deg/s
F-15C = 20.5 deg/s
With all types at %50 fuel;
how about Gripen , rafale , EF-2000 , F-22 they sure have better sustain turn rate right ?
F-16 has LERX body which creates two powerful vortices that makes airflow remain attached to the wing. That both creates some vortex lift, and prevents wings from stalling at greater AOA. With higher AOA wings can make greater lift to make sharp instantenious turns.
if iam not wrong canard have the same purpose right ? :confused:
F-16 has negative stability, and small wings/high wing loading actually helps in energy efficient turns at low altitude, as small wings themselves cause less drag. However at higher altitudes (or at low altitude with larger payload), wing loading becomes a problem, as F-16 could not create enough lift -efficiently- from small wings, and its design allows 9G only below 15deg AOA. So at higher altitude F-16’s performance diminishes quickly, and F-15 actually becomes a slightly better dogfighter.
so to sum up higher wing loading + negative stability = better dogfight fighter at low altitude but worse at high altitude right ?
how about medium altitude ( like 10,000- 30,000 ft)
Only condition that F-15 can dictate the fight is where it can use its superior acceleration and fuel capacity to break-off and run away if something goes wrong.
At lower altitude F-16 is a way better “energy fighter” as it has higher specific excess power most of the time, it can make high yoyos to maintain same airspeed but at higher energy state, preventing F-15 from using its superior climb rate and acceleration, thus dictating the terms of engagement.
So with both pilots being equal, conditions of the merge would dictate which one will win. Merge at sea level, guns only, 50% fuel = F-15 has exactly zero chance of winning. Merge at 45k feet with 6 missiles and full fuel load, it would be just the opposite.
what if the f-15 dive down the f-16 from higher altitude like WW II boom-zoom tactic ( f-15 at 50,000 ft , F-16 fly at 500 ft )
and from what altitude F-15 start to have edge against F-16 if both have 50 % fuel and gun only ?
btw is the F-14 a good dogfighter ? , can Mig-31 be use as a dogfighter at high altitude
@moon_light, you are thinking too simple. MiG-21-93 has 304kg/m2 wing loading, and close to 1,4 T/W ratio in overboost mode. In theory it should far superior to anything out there, but its not even close to the performance of F-16. of the 4th gen fighters, most maneuverable F-16 and Su-27 has neither the highest T/W nor the lowest wing loading. Its all in the aerodynamics design.
i dont know much about aircraft maneuver :confused: but isn’t that energy fighter concentrated on T/W and wing loading rather than aerodynamics ?
BTW : what make the F-35 so horrible in WVR gun only ? ( low T/W and high wing loading ? bad aerodynamics? )
is the TVC really helpful to energy fighter
Sign In
