At 20000 feet the air-pressure is ~ 50% to that at s.l. and the dry thrust too, when the AB thrust did not drop to 50 %. With height a main advantage of AB thrust.

Sens, man, maybe you are only analysing the turbofan propieties, but not the AB performance, are well known the problems of ” ab switch” in high bypass turbofans at heigh and speed, the ab combustion at heigh is basicaly a very very low pressure combustion (bad efficiency),the fans at heigh have a bad performance, in low bypass turbofan the combustion have more pressure, but also depends of the AB design, the size, fuel feed, etc…, at heigh low bypass turbofans induce better performance in afterburners, remember that at the same engine diameter is basicaly the same air flow area (but in turbojets with more pressure and temperature), but also there are limits (near M3), in wich is better the use of ramjets (transforming speed kinetical energy flow in aparent pressure).

I wanted to say that F-16 had a relatively low LE allowed by the vortex lift on body and you said it too.

yes, yes, yes, but that wing isnt the best configuration for 5th generation plane (considering supercruiser), i said before in other threads the low efficiency of the f15s wing at supersonic

again,the GD team needs such angle to increase the wing area (even low) in such small plane , and also to increase the aspect ratio (for subsonic maneuvre), in bigger aircraft you will se always larger angles (yes,yes, but everybody knows the f18 performance-although it have low bypass turbofan-) thats also relative with the plane size

and again thats more complicated, you could reach an nice L/D factor, but if for that you need to induce vortex like crazy, you could increase drag, and you will have an poor range (specially at supersonic)

The F-16 has very good L/D at thoses speed, better than An F-15(yes!).

if youre right, the reason is simple, f15s are biger and the eagles curved leading edge dont help..

supersonic maneuverability is an airframe strenght problem, other thing is sustained lift in supersonic fly

soc, you know what i mean, “supersonic machine”=supercruiser

well ogami the f16 never was a supersonic machine, f16 supecriser concept wasnt the 16xl???, take a look of that.

what i mean is that 45° is relatively low for a delta that goes routinely at mach 1.5-mach 1.7

i had explained that in the other post, to sustain M1.5 you need lift, and wing area, the plane also needs maneuvre capacity

by me

trapezoid wing (f18) maybe have the best performance at transonic

sorry,sorry,sorry, i meant at subsonic (below M0.6), at transonic, low angled big trapezoidal wings dont works good in maneuvres and drag , but perform better than deltas under M.6 (but also suffer AoA-lift limits at such speed)

ogamy the 45º angled deltas is an standar configuration for speed and maneuverability