Basher54321

Yes there is a direct quote somewhere from AirForceMag - seemed to imply it was due to amount getting damaged and sitting on the ramp - Smallwood also mentions this in "Warthog" IIRC.

A Max ITR 5.5Gs looks about right assuming the same 30 - 40k charts. Thing is though that load limit is still defined by the AOA limiter not L/W. Due to the lack of air at M1.0 (~350KCAS), 35,000 ft it doesn't take much to hit the limits.

Sorry should have been clearer - the difference is lifting in subsonic flight not supersonic flight (opposite of the F-15) so yes it does technically increase lift.

Not completely true. Unlike on a stable design - if you move the CG back far enough, you get a "lifting tail" in most flight conditions. The F-16/22/35 are examples of this.

Sorry should be more clear - was referring to some of these comments: What I was trying to say was that the F-16 charts do not show how much lift the actual F-16 airframe makes at slow speed because it is prevented from reaching its max lift by an AOA limiter. To get some idea the F-16 has demonstrated airshow tricks like the cobra etc without the limiter.

On this point - the F-16 is intentionally prevented from reaching its CL Max by limiters - has nothing to do with lift generation. The F-14 airframe obviously does generate more lift simply because it has to overcome more weight and drag - so what is important is actual lift to drag / weight which cannot be determined from wingloading.

The charts only show performance for a single weight / DI / altitude / engine type. The F-110-GE-100 is used by the Block 30 & Block 40 only - so if for example the Block 40 has an empty weight of 19,000 lbs, then once you add the fuel weight (~7000 lbs), pilot, ammo etc it's take off weight would be around 27,000 lbs.

Be careful there - note the 2,000 lbs weight difference between the charts - and look at GW effect in the chart.

Difficult to say how much it reduced thrust by - in actual flight the Small Inlet Block 30 only suffered in a few areas according to someone who flew both IIRC - it wasn't a lot less. The original Block 30s were around mid 17,000 lbs empty so probably not far off what Hummingbird stated. Yes would concur with the last bit.

What I mean by older suits is that newer suits like Combat Edge are potentially better and allow pilots to get to 9G easier than previously. Probably the wrong route to take - you can have all kinds of what ifs. If talking about aircraft performance and capability - surely in Red Flag today performance of aircraft sensors, information management and how they work with other Blue assets is more important IMO :thumbup:

Yes very good point - surprising how little they really show.

Or didn't want to spend money preventing it :) I can find out but are you aware of any other F-16 types that skipped initial structural testing for a mod like this? Previous post above was actually back OT - fancy that :)

If the F-14 was designed as a 9G sustained airframe then that margin doesn't seem to far off (F-16 is around 14G airframe limit). I would say though the issue is more down to the pilot, 9 positive Gs sustained was certainly the high end limit with the older G suits and the pilot has to train and condition to that - so e.g if a pilot has spent most of his flying life only sustaining 6.5Gs then suddenly sustaining 9Gs for any useful period of time doesn't seem realistic considering what is actually involved. In combat accounts many jets have pulled 12+ Gs in panicked situations (avoiding the ground etc ) the pilot might get away with a few seconds before blacking out (some did). I don't think this an area anyone would go to intentionally because pulling Gs within in your limit and not blacking out is better.

As far as I know the F-16N was a unique case - this is a good thread: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=2028&p=290989&hilit=titanium+crack#p290989 Long story there, I'll try to be as brief as possible. The design mission usage of the F-16A/B was 55% air to air, 45% air to ground, but the F-16N was used almost 100% air to air in aggressor training. Some parts of the airplane had an easier time of that (weapon hardpoints, for example), but some parts had a more severe experience of high g events. The N airplanes were delivered with titanium wing attach brackets in place of aluminum brackets on the A/B. The Navy would not pay for a full analysis and durability test of those parts, since they were easily inspected. Bad idea, as the brackets started cracking at a relative young age. But there is more to the story. USAF uses a structural technology called fracture mechanics to track crack growth and allows airplanes to keep flying with cracks so long as the cracks remain within specified lengths. The Navy, being old fashioned and ultra conservative still used fatigue crack rules which say that any crack is reason for grounding. Because fatigue analysis and test is much more primitive than fracture mechanics, it requires a more conservative approach. So if USAF had those same F-16N airplanes, they would not have grounded them.

Not quite what I meant but anyway - they also often show turn radius and energy loss/gain.

The premature cracking was partly to do with the use of different (Titanium) wing brackets. The original small Inlet Block 30s put out a bit less thrust (Less airflow)

Pretty sure you need to add LAU-129s - run through the example you will see.

50 seems good - though ideally half that or lower. Off the top of my head for what is being used - 2 x 370 tanks add DI of 54 (without stores on 4 & 6) You need to include the pylons for 4 of the AIM-120s

In the context of BFM the F-14A was an underpowered airbrake, nobody will deny that - the later versions were better with added thrust. EM charts might be good and might show some similarity with specific versions (and obviously will be tailored to the favour of the person comparing it :thumbup: ) - but they don't show the whole picture - even Boyd recognised that.

The point is, he is in no position to be saying anything - and setting up a blog site to try and make that total rubbish look legit is very suspicious. His somewhat ridiculous points seem very similar to the same misconceptions Sprey has intentionally been peddling for anti military groups such as POGO over the years. Picard has the same theme e.g. display total ignorance and totally Ignore ALL contradicting evidence - it just has to be good enough to fool a number of people

Picard is an amateur blogger - every article he has ever written shows total lack of understanding in even the basics. I would hope for his sake it is agenda - however judging by his ramblings on other forums he might just be totally clueless.

Its a good post - I would only say that if you want to compare WL & TW those simplistic figures are a tad useless because they don't account for everything and vary greatly on the usually unspecified numbers used. In the Jan 2015 Air International Vol.88 No.1 Arnaud Boxman & Kees van der Mark interviewed a few RNLAF pilots - one put this comparison of the F-35A / F-16AM with this: When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16 It was certainly tested to 50 degrees AOA I haven't seen anything yet to say that is the limit?

Found a list here with a few mentions. http://www.acig.info/CMS/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37&Itemid=47

I have not come across any information on type and number fired myself regarding that - any recommendations? If Syria could release its version of Red Baron in English that would be most helpful.

It was a reference to the limitations of the technology of the era actually. The only combat firing of similar type missiles would have been the R-27 in the 98/00 Eritrea conflict.