Kefa

Proton was winged in August 1993, see part 1 of his interview. He had yet to go through F/A-18 flight training. And the F-16N was gone from topgun by mid/late 1994 (wing crack issues). So he never flew the N. The N was a small mouth block 30 powered by the GE F110 engine. What he did fly some years later at topgun was the F-16A block 15 ocu, which was powered by the Pratt & Whitney F100-220. Those jets were destined for the Pakistan AF, but never delivered. In 2002 the US Navy acquired them for disimilar use at topgun.

The FLXTRM simulation mentions the G override, see pg 12: "With a G override capability, a slightly greater sustained turn rate is possible with full power." Note that it refers to the increase in sustained turn rate from the paddle as "slightly", and if one compares the PS=0 line at 7.5G to 8.2G (at 5,000ft), that is roughly only a .5dps increase. After 8.2G the line is on the way down. I would expect it similar to that for sea level.

Since turn data on the EPE -402 Hornet is scant, then again, as it is for the -400 A model or basically any Hornet. Check out this break turn of a F-18C. Granted it's at the end of the demo, so he is low on fuel; with probably only ~2000lbs in the tank. So the jet is technically lighter than normal. Notice the HUD has 7.5G at mach .59 in the turn with him easily maintaining (i.e. 'sustaining') 7.3-7.5G throughout nearly all 180 degrees of turn. Again, he is flying runway heading (upwind) and turning crosswind and then to downwind, so he turns about 180 degrees in his HUD. I am guessing if he had 50% internal fuel he would need a little more airspeed probably to mach .6 or .61 to maintain 7.5G as it seems he is hitting the limiter at that speed. That generates a turn rate of a little over 20dps, which is in line with the GAO document if you re-estimate the EPE Hornet's 19.2dps for 50% internal fuel and no stores. Another performance clue: the GAO paper gives 699fps of specific excess power at 10,000ft, 1G, mach .9 see pg 83. Very interesting for a comparison to the other teens.

Fast CF/A-18 Hornet turns and with a CL tank on, piloted by Bob Wade 1986 Abbotsford. same airshow, different perspective.

I've timed that turn a number of instances and between the roll in, and figuring where the roll out should be in space as the pilot obviously keeps his turn going past 360 degrees --- I've estimated time to be approximately 17.5 to less than 18 seconds for the entire 360. And that basically corresponds with 'public data' espousing the legacy Hornet -the very light early A models (of which this CF-18 from 1988 is) and the big motor 402 GAO's 19.2dps SL figure re-estimate for 50% internal fuel. And the best performing legacy Hornets probably have a peak SL sustained turn rate of somewhere around 20.5dps. That's just my guess. Now I don't know just the exact difference in performance between the later big motor C's and the early light A's. It might not be all that much regardless of the 3400lbs increase in engine thrust and that is because while no doubt the lot 15 and beyond received the 'big motors' vs the early lot A's. The early lot A's were lighter than any of the later lot C's. Here is a pretty impressive turn of a Turkish Block 40, seems to me at least to be a few ticks less than 15 seconds. This is a full aft stick limiter turn in the F-16. and a F-16 Block 50 from 1994.

Where is the documentation that specifically states that opening g limits past 7.5g, i.e. using the 'paddle' will increase maximum sustained turn rate? I am willing to bet that the real life Hornet natops em diagrams that nobody seems to have, including ED, only tested the jet up to 7.5g. For example, the F-14A natops has em diagrams at about 6.5g and also out to 7.5g., and all that shows is that P's (including Ps=0 line) are still on the decrease regardless of the expanded g limits. It is just my opinion, but I do not think that the paddle equates to a 'turbo' button on the jet at least for sustained turn rates. If anything the paddle will give you expanded instantaneous turn rate. Meaning that typical Hornet corner velocity of 7.5g at 310knots will now allow the pilot to pull to 9g with a bit more speed; all while at the cost of higher energy bleed rates.

Yes, I know the F-16 is not fully at 9G throughout the turn in the Hud. And I don't think I ever alluded to the point that it was. What I did mention is that General Dynamics F-16 program pilot Neil Anderson, a guy that had many hundreds of hours in the jet, said that pilots who fly the plane "could possibly" be experiencing and as he said "9G from 14-17 seconds. " In many of those airshow demo videos, the F-16 is not sustaining 9G. What the jet is doing is pulling 9G at around 400knots and basically riding its limiter down to about 5.5g. Hence it is a very quick decelerated turn; and giving a tighter turn radius than a full 9G sustained turn. Maybe the grey area in the fm is the area above the sustained turn rate line to max instantaneous turn rate or where it hits maximum instantaneous turn rate and back down the limiter. Meaning the negative Ps lines between the two. There are ways to convert it from feet per second to degrees completed vs time. But the question is how well is it reflected in simulators as to the real thing.

I don't know if this was posted before. But the narrator for this I believe is General Dynamics F-16 test/program pilot Neil Anderson. While the jet is not a Block 50, Anderson none the less talks about 9G's and the duration the pilot could possibly be experiencing them in a turn.

Steamer discussed flap behaviour at least in the real world.

Perhaps the Mig-29 and Su-27 Clmax figure is at where their limiter kicks in which I think is about 26degrees or slightly more. For example, F-16 has a Clmax of a little over 1.6 at 25AOA and 1g. And that is at the limiter, so you give up a few degrees to save airspeed, so to say. Limiters aside, according to Fred Clifton, Mig-29 and F-16 maximum lift occur around 35degrees. From Ray Whitford's book, lift loss due to trimming (for a stable aircraft) amounts to 10-15% of max lift.

I understand the F-14 Clmax is over 2. Point being we have its +/-specific excess power plots also. If you look at the F-14B (I haven't figured it for the A yet) at 5,000ft turn chart w/4 sparrow/4 sidewinder 55,620lbs. Attempting to "ride" its max lift curve level (in actuality we would be a few degrees slightly in front of it -or we depart the jet); From .5mach approx 303KCAS and 6.5G the estimated negative specific excess power is (my own estimate, since chart stops at -800) around -1200fps. If we "ride" the top of that max lift line all the way down to .2mach approx 120KCAS and 1.8G, the negative specific excess power is now at -100fps. In measuring from -1200fps/303KCAS/6.5G to -100fps/120KCAS/1.8G the F-14B can only complete 127 degrees of turn before basically stalling out or having to terminate its turn. Even if you extrapolate the curve to 7.5G and estimated -1500fps at .54mach the F-14B now only completes 142degrees of turn before basically stalling out and having to end turn. This certainly does not equate to having optimum turn performance. And I don't even know if the jet can actually fly that slow (down to 120KCAS in a turn), perhaps I should have stopped at just 150KCAS, but I decided to compute it even further down the max lift line. I would also expect the A to have completed less of a turn, while at a slightly smaller radius than the B. The point being is that jets with limiters while in essence never reach Clmax, they however will complete more degrees of turn at the cost of a slightly larger turn radius. Perfect example is Dassault Rafale, and early F-16A. Now problem here is the only charts that include all the negative specific excess power lines is the Hellenic F-16 manual. Both Tomcat manuals stop at -800fps, yet the A has a few chart that actually go beyond -800fps I think. The F-15 does not include them, and to my knowledge nor do the Flanker or Fulcrum. While the F-14A 1977 SAC has one chart, a VN diagram for 35,000ft. That measures peak specific excess power loss to -36kps at 1mach and 5.5G. If we convert that to fps it is about -1837 if I am not mistaken. Edit: stopping the turn to -200fps/at max lift or to basically .26mach, now the jet only completes 85 degrees of turn that is if you start turn at 6.5G and 303KCAS. If you start turn at 7.5G and .54mach Tomcat completes almost 100 degrees of turn, again, ending at .26mach.

@Top JockeyIt NAVAIR F-14AAA-1.1 Mig-29 I used this one Don't have Fulcrum or Flanker specific excess power lines though. While sustained rate turns matter too, so do turns above the PS-0 line. I mean, turning while at the expense of airspeed. And that is important.

@Top Jockey Look in the manual at Specific Excess Power diagrams. F-14A at 5G down to sea level translates to about 17.2degree per second, at 6.5G it is 16.8. So top of PS-0 slope is probably about 17.6dps. Lose the 8aams/ gun ammo/ all pylons and you are probably at about 19dps.

From the German air force Mig-29 diagram, it can sustain 9G at 460kias. You then convert from radians to degrees, then Mig-29 at 13,000kg can sustain a 21.2degree per second turn at sea level. You can do the same with F-14A specific excess power diagrams to sea level. And then basically add about 1.4 degree per second to the total because you subtracted the 8 air to air missiles and pylons. Anyways, the Fulcrum has a very good instantaneous turn. And it also has a better maximum performance turn than even the Mirage 2000 according to this Indian Air Force pilot. https://www.scribd.com/doc/21520658/Mirage-2000-Vs-MiG-29-Rivals-from-the-same-team Even though Mig-29 has less fuel, in certain cases shouldn't it need less afterburn usage in dogfights? While its other less powerful opponents like F-14,F-15, F-18, and most type of F-16 would need greater afterburn use to compensate. -just my thoughts here.