Basher54321

I am talking about the top of the canopy. I have accurate figures for most of the F-8 versions - however if you want to go to 1965-70 there is something even better than EM charts for a MiG-21F-13 v F-8E comparison - that being the once secret 1969 "Have Doughnut" report which was the physical evaluation of an acquired MiG-21F-13 - this was flown against a variety of USAF and USN aircraft. If only there was similar for the Lightning! In it the MiG-21F-13 was said to have overall turn performance very similar to the F-5E/N - one reason why the F-5 was the MiG-21 simulator. Here is some snips of info on F-8E v MiG-21F-13 performance.

1970 -75 I would probably go with: F-8J MiG-21MF Lightning F.6 Combat Record - Not aware the Lightning F.6 saw any combat service A-A - ( Saudi Lightning F.53s may have got some ground attack action.) MiG-21MFs were used by VPAF in 1972 over Nam - almost similar external look to the bis and had 4 missiles/internal gun. F-8J was the variant most deployed in Nam after 1970 - was an upgraded F-8E with more powerful engine and a few other bits. Didn't see much A-A because the F-4s were primary fighters by then - had one claimed MiG-17 kill. A-A Combat load: Lightning F.6 - 2 * Redtop / Firestreak / 2 * internal 30mm Aden cannon The F-8J - 4 * AIM-9 / 4 * internal 20 mm cannon MiG-21MF - 4 * AA-2 / 1* internal 23mm cannon (sometimes had centreline drop tank) Would need the performance charts to see the actual performance drop - but it won't be much with those loads if we forget the tank. Radar All 3 had tiny pulse radars in tiny nose cones - nothing to compare. MiG-21MF and F-8J were newer and had newer model radars (no idea on Lightning upgrades) Countermeasures RWR - MiG-21MF / F-8J ECM/Jammer - F-8J Expendables - F-8J Not aware of any countermeasures on the F.6 Cockpit Visibility MiG-21/F-8 both poor but look similar Lightning even worse - suffers due to the cage over the top of the canopy (similar to early F-102A) Performance The lightning you would think for acceleration and climb based on figures/stories I would go MiG-21MF or F-8J for BFM / WVR combat. Range (Internal fuel on A-A combat ) Would guess between MiG-21 & F-8 The 1969 F.6 manual describes it as a high alt interceptor - in 1970-75 the F-4M had started to replace the Lightnings and were equipped with Pulse doppler radars to carry out low level intercept over Germany. The F-8 was also being phased out for F-4s in front line units - whereas the MiG-21MF did see action for Iraq in the 80s for one. http://www.lightning.org.uk/julaug05sotm.html You asked for my impressions of the Mk.6. They were all good. I had flown F-86Ds, F-94B and Cs, F-89Js, F-104s, F-100s, F-86Fs, F-102s and F-106s. In the UK, I flew air-to-air against F-4s and F-104Gs. At no time did I lose a 1 v 1 or a 1 v 2. And I was not very good at air to air. Yes, short legs, but a great turning radius and excellent acceleration, especially when you can unload a little. There’s life in the old dog yet - two F-15s, an F-5 Aggressor and a Sea Harrier caught where they shouldn’t have been by the gun cameras of Lightning pilots of 11 Squadron.

A lot of the comparisons you see v F-35 use the US blocks - none of which use the CFTs and badly need avionics upgrades. The B61 was mentioned on an FMS document a while back - all I know is that this is likely Avionics upgrades (existing B60s also updgraded) - although whether these will be similar to the F-16V who knows. Any new F-16s outside of this would be to whatever LM terms as F-16V - you dont get a GE-132 with that from what I have seen. ( Taiwan was supposed to be launch customer upgrading its Block 20s)

They are on Advanced B50+/52+ and B60 only This was on a Code 1 article but now dead The most distinguishing external feature of an Advanced Block 50/52, when installed, is a set of conformal fuel tanks attached to the upper fuselage. All of these latest F-16s have structural, plumbing, and wiring provisions for the conformal tanks. The CFTs hold 450 Gals (compared to 740 Gals in wing tanks) - you may get some offset in consumption. It's not just down to conformal tanks - the B60 has a better T/D to counter the extra CFT drag / internal EWS/Sensor fusion AESA etc - but they still carry the Sniper pod.

Have had the manuals for years - thought he was comparing with other F-16 blocks for which the supplement data is harder to come by. Have done a ton of F-16 B50 comparisons with given F-35 data on specific parameters - however overall it becomes mute because the aero / fuel consumption etc goes to pot with pods / 370 tanks and A/G ordnance - and it still lacks the F-35 advertised avionics capability. B60 is the only type that comes close as far as I can tell.

Sorry I meant this quote from above: "According to the F-16C performance manuals the F110-GE-129 powered F-16's are the most agile and powerful."

People who look at the supplement manual wrongly assume the 370 tanks need separate pylons so include them and don't realise they get jettisoned with the tanks. The 600s on the other hand use a type of MAU-12 I believe so the pylons stay AFAIK Hummingbird - what other actual performance manuals (not from other sources) do you have to make that conclusion? (other than the B50/52+)

Didn't think that was implied - but as you have incorrectly assumed that is what I was getting at then I will inform you he is on a previous video stating the thrust rating was 43,000 lbs - which is why I have to assume it's the B version he is on about - have not seen a 35,000 lbs figure anywhere before. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/f35/f-35b-stovl-variant.html

Now it (F-35B?) flies like an F-15 and has a 35,000 lbs thrust engine ? Plus drones not future shock :)

Thanks for the link An ex F-16 pilot did post a while back on .net that he thought the F-16C B30 was a BFM monster - and that the B42 was a pig - though he thought the lighter B15 OCU with PW-220 was good.

No idea - in a 1v1 BFM exercise you might see this - did hint at a Navy Aggressor pilot recently converting to the F-16A B15 about getting some HUD footage when hes up against F-35s ha :)

The MiG-31 is on a different planet to the MiG-25 regarding avionics / weapons performance - and still has a cruise speed of around M2.4 and top end at M2.8. The MiG-25 Red Line is M2.8 at 60,000ft+ - great if intercepting high alt bomber - absolutely useless if the target is flying low and consider the P in the 70s had no look down capability. The MiG-25 G limit of 4.5/5 whatever is actually pretty good at 60,000 ft. A Vmax chart in a Russian MiG-25 manual puts the top end at M2.8 - but at 39000 ft top end falls to M1.8 and at sea level top end is M0.9 - which seems consistent with other sources (such as Yefim). If that's the case I would put this down to high drag, relatively low T/W and engines optimised for high altitude / speed. So in one case of Desert Storm the MiG-25 was trying to run at ground level from F-15s that were not only faster on the deck but could out accelerate it as well.

This is from a 1972 GD F-16 presentation by Harry Hillaker: Improved things for that F-16 configuration sure back then - however that is no basis for any real comparison with another airframe.

The generated lift is relative to how much weight/drag there is - so yes almost impossible to guess from looking at a frame. May I be allowed to bring this topic back for a comment? I was deeply involved in the development and flight testing of the F-16 for many years, so have first hand knowledge of this topic for that airplane. You may be surprised to know that the lift provided by the F-16 fuselage is a very significant portion of the total lift. Every flight condition is different, but at one critical condition, 0.95M 10,000 ft, the fuselage provides 45% of the total lift at 9g. The percentage is even higher at some other conditions. Considering the F-35 wide flat-bottom fuselage, I would guess it provides at least as much lift, probably more. Fuselage lift is extremely important in reducing the weight of an airplane. If the wing had to provide all the lift, its weight would be much greater. Similarly, the fuselage weight would be much greater if it did not have lift to help support it. The structural weight could easily double without fuselage lift. http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7491

The sides of the intakes have supposedly been shaped to induce vortex e.g. Don't make assumptions on that though because the amount of visible vortex generated depends on a few things.

The info is very limited regarding figures and can't be used to tell you much e.g. actual thrust curves, how the inlets affect the thrust , or how much drag there actually is in the variable flight circumstances etc etc. You can make guesses based on whats out there sure. Even if you did a 3D model and put it into a wind tunnel - turn performance can be affected by the programming of flight surfaces such as the LEFs/TEFs for example - how would you know what that is? Considering the known performance reductions you get with other aircraft (& other issues) its fair to say that with an internal loadout A-G only you do get benefits RE drag/fuel consumption/RCS (and a big deal over M1 concerning drag. ) Pilot quotes from USAF/USN etc might be better if you want to trust them.

Probably referring to wing loading only using the wing ref area and range of operating weights - in this case the F-16C B50 and F-35A do have a similar range. F-16 derives a lot of extra lift from body/vortex /tail lift that the above doesn't account for - however the F-35 also being an unstable lifting tail design uses some similar methods. Adding pylons to either complicates things much further - so a true comparison needs Lock Mart to send some EM charts over.........which I'm sure they will :)

There is no useful information for modern missile performance in the public domain - those simple figures are quite useless (even if they were accurate) because they don't even tell you if they are kinetic, NEZ for a given platform, or even for example the altitude of the target - you would need charts showing the flight profile for altitude vs launch speed. In any case what you should have taken from what I put above was that it doesnt matter if a radar missile has stated kinetic range of 4000000 miles for a given altitude and launch speed - if your radar cant lock the target till ten miles out then you cannot launch till then - ...thats before we go into the actual limitations of SARH type guidance.

Okay calm down - just trying to point you in the right direction. e.g. there are no range charts for the AIM-120 publicly available that I have seen.

hmmm see post above nope - it will fly just fine. The range you can fire at depends on a few things including the radars ability to go through any jamming and provide a firing solution because detecting and getting a firing solution are different things. He does actually explain some of the reasons why this was. Also one would hope he is writing in experience of actual practical weapons employment ranges.

The original writing was posted here http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread43337/pg14 fulcrumflyer is actually Fred "Spanky" Clifton on F-16.net - and if you see here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=155456 more of the same - guess someone could actually ask him. Its also the same guy that wrote: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379 Note: - Even in this one he had to change his mind regarding his speculation over the F-35 - but he hasn't flown that. Yes most of it appears spot on - some of it is being taken out of context on here and he does put praise on the MiG-29 where he can - it's a fair analysis. Also the article is a comparison between the Jets he actually flew - so its no point blabbing on about other comparisons because he only flew MiG-29A/Gs it seems.

And the award goes to...........good job they didn't stick a 'u' in there :thumbup:

Outside of a stall, departing it would likely get your desired result. What that pilot says about the limit being "a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability" is incorrect.

Sure you can guess what these are:

The East Germans had MiG-29As (later re-designated as MiG-29Gs) from around 1988 (Block 40s were also being delivered from 1988 ) - thus the comparison in the first post was made because the MiG-29Gs were used by NATO for actual DACT training in the early 90s. Afraid they didn't have any other MiGs to fly against. However they could at least put a valid comparison together without having to speculate!