F-35 vs F-16

[pyromaniac4002]

Excellent video - you cannot clearly see the performance difference at around 0:06, where all of three are pulling 9G. Then at 0:10 you can see that the G-load for the F-18 has decreased to 7.42G, while the Raptor continues at 9 and the F-16 has decreased just a little to 8.5G. But if you continue the video, at 0:17 the Raptor pilot turns off the thrust vectoring accidentally (you can clearly see, if you zoom in with a specialized software, that he was going to scratch his mustache but his hand knocks the TVC switch) so this gives the lead to the F-16.

 

lol I thought you were serious up until the mustache scratch and I realized, "Oh.. Sarcasm. hah."

 

Well played. That video is a joke.

[Hummingbird]

Thought it was good of him to give you some understanding of the issue.

 

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

That the F-15's fuselage generates lift is obvious, and no small amount either, but so does the F-16's, and more efficiently at that. That is the whole point. That some of you try to make it look like I was saying that the F-15's body (or the F-35's for that matter) didn't produce any lift is a poor attempt at countering the argument being brought forth, because nowhere did I even as much as insinuate this.

[Hummingbird]

I think you need to take another look at that whole IAF F-15 wing-off incident. You don't think the instant they collided and took the wing off it spun out of control? Well, it did. The pilot recovered it. CAS had nothing to do with it. CAS would probably be more of an impediment to recovery rather than an aid. Electronic flight aids aren't some kind of witchcraft that can just fix all your airflow woes, they only act according to predetermined situations. Flying without one of your wings is hardly an anticipated mode of flight.

 

Besides that, you can have as much fancy computer flying as you like, it doesn't make lift appear out of nowhere. The point of involving this story in this discussion is to illustrate that body lift can account for a lot more than you think. It's not unreasonable to think it plays a significant part in the F-35's case. Pointing to high wing loading or the combination of flaps, slats, or leading-edge root extensions as the end-all, be-all of maneuverability is ridiculous.

 

You just don't want to get it. I've never even as much as insinuated that the F-15's fuselage doesn't generate lift, only that it doesn't do it as efficiently as the F-16's, which is a factor that plays a role in how the two compare in a WVR dogfight. The F-16's blended wing body design quite simply generates lift with a smaller penalty in drag, i.e. increasing the L/D ratio, which is the longer version of it being more efficient.

[mvsgas]

The video shows no information usable to determine max aircraft performance.

This pdf show what the USAF allows/recommends/advises/etc. the pilots do to during the demonstrations

http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a3_5/publication/afi11-246v1/afi11-246v1.pdf

Max allowed/targeted/recommended/etc. g for the 22 and the 16 is 7.5G. Not the maximum the aircraft can do. Some pilots might pull more, some might do just 7.5

Fuel can vary depending on circumstances

There is no thrust vectoring control for the pilot in the F-22 AFAIK, all automatic, control by flight and engine computer.

Until we see what the F-35 is capable or not capable of doing, does it related or does it matter? Don't we get into speculations?

Edited October 26, 2014 by mvsgas

[pyromaniac4002]

You just don't want to get it. I've never even as much as insinuated that the F-15's fuselage doesn't generate lift, only that it doesn't do it as efficiently as the F-16's, which is a factor that plays a role in how the two compare in a WVR dogfight. The F-16's blended wing body design quite simply generates lift with a smaller penalty in drag, i.e. increasing the L/D ratio, which is the longer version of it being more efficient.

 

lol, stop telling people they're deliberately avoiding coming to this conclusion you want them to have. And if you want to convince anyone, it might help if you stopped jumping around from one thing to another. Now that I've gone back further in the conversation before where I saw it, I see a lot more of this inconsistent argument. You explicitly said the F-15 being able to fly on one wing was due to CAS and that's what I was replying to.

 

the F-15 that was capable of flying without its left wing, again that was solely because of its electronic flight control system, without that it would've spun into the ground.

 

#1: That's completely false, see my earlier post as to why.

#2: It has nothing to do with what you've now chosen as your main point.

 

Flight characteristics are a cumulative effect. You can't just point to "blended wing body" and say it's automatically best. It doesn't matter that the F-15 has more drag on its body (hardly a shocker, the thing is like 3 or 4 times the size of an F-16), taken as a whole the design is more effective. An F-16 would certainly never be able to fly, much less land, after losing a similar degree of its flight surfaces. I don't know what your original point was as it relates to the F-35, but approaching it from the same aspect of "it doesn't have LERX, but so-and-so does" isn't giving you a valid qualitative comparison. You just don't know how it fits together. They say it flies better than the F-16 and we might take their word for it. They're the ones that fly the damn thing.

[pyromaniac4002]

I made it to show three current fighters turning tight 360s on the same day/weather. That's all it is intended to be. Of course there are a million variables but at a basic level each pilot is showing off his jets capabilities at an International trade Airshow, so they are pulling some G. I believe the F-22 demos are at full internal fuel as well which is really impressive.

 

But at the end of the day, and I don't wish to side with Hummingbird on F-35s, you gotta admit that old F-16 can still really crank a turn.

 

I'm really proud of the video.

Anyone got any better videos that visually demonstrate modern fast jet comparative performance?

 

There's certainly no harm in trying, I like any video related to an F-16 or F-22 and this has both of them, but there's no reference point to compare each of them to one another. We have no way of determining their speed, altitude, or loadout and we have no way of knowing how much of the performance envelope they're showing us. The video is fine, using it in the context of "proof" in this thread's discussion is the joke.

[Basher54321]

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

Quite.

 

 

The reply was in regards to this as you know:

 

As for the F-15 that was capable of flying without its left wing, again that was solely because of its electronic flight control system, without that it would've spun into the ground.

 

 

If you are surprised people have misinterpreted your quote then you need need to come across better.

[Basher54321]

That the F-15's fuselage generates lift is obvious, and no small amount either, but so does the F-16's, and more efficiently at that. That is the whole point. That some of you try to make it look like I was saying that the F-15's body (or the F-35's for that matter) didn't produce any lift is a poor attempt at countering the argument being brought forth, because nowhere did I even as much as insinuate this.

 

 

 

The F-16 fuselage can account for up to 40% of the total lift in certain situations if you must know - but its no basis for performance comparison really - the F-35 could produce more or less depending on the part of the flight regime it is in - no one knows.

[Hummingbird]

lol, stop telling people they're deliberately avoiding coming to this conclusion you want them to have. And if you want to convince anyone, it might help if you stopped jumping around from one thing to another. Now that I've gone back further in the conversation before where I saw it, I see a lot more of this inconsistent argument. You explicitly said the F-15 being able to fly on one wing was due to CAS and that's what I was replying to.

 

#1: That's completely false, see my earlier post as to why.

 

No, I haven't changed my mind on this, I still say that without CAS that F-15 would've turned into a lawn dart.

 

#2: It has nothing to do with what you've now chosen as your main point.

 

I have not chosen any main point, and I didn't bring up the issue of body lift either, that was brought up by someone else to defend the F-35's performance claims.

 

Flight characteristics are a cumulative effect. You can't just point to "blended wing body" and say it's automatically best.

 

It's funny that you're talking about flight characteristics being a cumulative effect when my argument for why the F-35 will not be able to compete with the F-16 in a turn fight is for exactly that reason. I listed several reasons as to why the F-35 will not be capable of matching the F-16 in a VWR fight, not just one "main point" as you like to claim.

 

The F-16 is quite simply overall an aerodynamically more efficient design, thanks mainly to not having to sacrifice optimal aerodynamic shape for improved stealth.

 

4:00 min forward for an experienced test pilots opinion:

 

It doesn't matter that the F-15 has more drag on its body (hardly a shocker, the thing is like 3 or 4 times the size of an F-16), taken as a whole the design is more effective. An F-16 would certainly never be able to fly, much less land, after losing a similar degree of its flight surfaces.

 

Nope, the F-16's better wing to body blending leads to a higher L/D ratio, in short it produces lift more efficiently.

 

I don't know what your original point was as it relates to the F-35, but approaching it from the same aspect of "it doesn't have LERX, but so-and-so does" isn't giving you a valid qualitative comparison. You just don't know how it fits together.

 

So now it's LERX that's my main point? Can you make up your mind?

 

They say it flies better than the F-16 and we might take their word for it. They're the ones that fly the damn thing.

 

You believe anything the Lockheed Martin press tells you, I get it.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hummingbird

[GGTharos]

4:00 min forward for an experienced test pilots opinion:

 

... the Boeing test pilot? His word's worth about as much as the Lockheed test pilot's. If you want to see a real opinion, wait for the USAF/USN to say something.

 

You're leveling a pretty funny accusation after posting a link to a video with an opinion that's contains outright lies. :)

[Hummingbird]

... the Boeing test pilot? His word's worth about as much as the Lockheed test pilot's. If you want to see a real opinion, wait for the USAF/USN to say something.

 

You're leveling a pretty funny accusation after posting a link to a video with an opinion that's contains outright lies. :)

 

What it shows is that the opinions are not agreed upon even within the community of actual experts. Pierre Sprey's negative opinions on the F-35 are but another example.

 

Once the F-35 begins actual trials against current types in foreign airforces we'll have an honest opinion.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hummingbird

[GGTharos]

Pierre Sprey's only claim to fame is that he was there when the A-10 and F-16 were designed. He didn't design anything and he's not in touch with AF philosophies.

 

Lots of people who don't know better like to mention his opinion though.

[Hummingbird]

Pierre Sprey's only claim to fame is that he was there when the A-10 and F-16 were designed. He didn't design anything and he's not in touch with AF philosophies.

 

Lots of people who don't know better like to mention his opinion though.

 

Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, defense analyst, and record producer. Working with John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie, analyst Tom Christie and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni as well as aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker, they formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia", advocating the use of Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory in fighter design.

 

I'd say that an aircraft designer has more credentials than any of us in here to speak on this matter with any form of authority. Not to say that he's right ofcourse, seeing as I believe his critique of the F-35 is way over the top.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hummingbird

[mvsgas]

4:00 min forward for an experienced test pilots opinion:

 

So, following this way of thinking, if we go to rival companies to talk about it's rival product they will give us a straight answer? So, if I go to Sony and ask them about the Xbox, I will get all the accurate information from them? And the Same could be said about any other rival companies about their competition?

 

I liked when we started the thread and we all talk about money or cost, at least there was viable information, things to compare, actual information. Now we are comparing speculations and arguing about it. We are arguing about our opinions, since there is no available data of the F-35 turn performance, or lift generation, etc. Hell, how many people got the F-15 aerodynamic information? The F-16 aerodynamic papers are out there but I haven't see one person mention them.

 

Oh well

[mvsgas]

Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, defense analyst, and record producer. Working with John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie, analyst Tom Christie and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni as well as aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker, they formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia", advocating the use of Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory in fighter design.

 

I'd say that an aircraft designer has more credentials than any of us in here to speak on this matter with any form of authority. Not to say that he's right ofcourse, seeing as I believe his critique of the F-35 is way over the top.

What aircraft he design? He put down the requirement for the A-10, but did not design it. If you read the book Boyd, you know he did not design any aircraft.

Edited October 27, 2014 by mvsgas

[USARStarkey]

Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, defense analyst, and record producer. Working with John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie, analyst Tom Christie and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni as well as aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker, they formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia", advocating the use of Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory in fighter design.

 

I'd say that an aircraft designer has more credentials than any of us in here to speak on this matter with any form of authority. Not to say that he's right ofcourse, seeing as I believe his critique of the F-35 is way over the top.

 

Watching you backpedal in increasingly contradictory monologues since you tried to use that boing test pilots claims is going from amusing to irritating.

 

 

Pierre Sprey is a lunatic whose opinion is so far out of touch with anything that it is ludicrous that it would be brought up here at all. He believes that everything that isnt the F-16 is a "turkey" and that includes the F-15 and F-22! His being a "designer" means absolutely nothing.

 

So lets look at the last few posts:

 

1. You post a non-nonsensical video of a bought and paid for test pilot who talks complete bullshit the entire video and claim that it reflects on how the F-35 is a worse design to the F-16 because of compromises due to stealth. This is despite the fact that everything that pilot says in the video has nothing at all to do with facts what so ever. Flap sizes....please....the F-35 has quite large flaps.

 

2. GG calls you on your nonsense and you immediately backpedal, now claiming that the guy was over the top and that it was only posted to demonstrate how the whole issue is completely ambiguous because the designers are clearly all juxtaposed in opinion.

 

3. You then start arguing about Spreys credibility, well known to be exactly nil, yet another example of a BS source of information. You list this as another example of supposed ambiguity among "experts"

 

 

In short, you started by posting a video you clearly thought was a legit source on the aerodynamic compromise of the F-35 and then did a U-turn when called on it to make it sound like you were just pontificating on this supposed ambiguity issue. It is clear from the context of your first post on this page that idea wasnt even part of this discussion yet, much less within your scope of intent.

Edited October 27, 2014 by USARStarkey

[OutOnTheOP]

You just don't want to get it. I've never even as much as insinuated that the F-15's fuselage doesn't generate lift, only that it doesn't do it as efficiently as the F-16's, which is a factor that plays a role in how the two compare in a WVR dogfight. The F-16's blended wing body design quite simply generates lift with a smaller penalty in drag, i.e. increasing the L/D ratio, which is the longer version of it being more efficient.

 

And the F-15 fuselage wasn't even *designed* to produce large fuselage lift. Not in the way the F-35 appears to.

 

Ok, F-16 produces perhaps 30-40% of it's lift from the fuselage chines/ LERX.

 

It has been shown that there are aircraft that produce 100% of their lift from fuselage lift. Old tube-with-wings designs generate maybe 5%. Where in that spectrum does the F-35 fit?

 

The answer is that you don't know. So you're just throwing meaningless numbers about wing loading, without full context and data, but trying to backpedal and exceptionalize when someone takes issue with your statement that the F-16 has better wing loading than the F-35. Plain and simple, you cannot back up your assertion that the F-16 turns better.

[pyromaniac4002]

No, I haven't changed my mind on this, I still say that without CAS that F-15 would've turned into a lawn dart.

 

THAT IS WRONG. CAS is not some mystical force that returns your half-winged F-15 to aerodynamic oneness with the universe! Why do you think they have switches to override electronic flight aids for when a pilot needs to recover from a spin?! If you could spend at least 5 minutes on the same subject, you might actually get somewhere.

 

Nope, the F-16's better wing to body blending leads to a higher L/D ratio, in short it produces lift more efficiently.

 

It doesn't matter that it "produces lift more efficiently" (which you really have no basis for saying that, it's far more complicated than you'll ever acknowledge, but I'll just let you have it) the F-15 has other things like two fricken huge F100 engines. Who cares that the F-16 could have less drag in a certain scenario when the F-15 will simply power through it? In much the same way, it doesn't matter that the F-35 has higher wing loading because it's obvious that it makes an unknown but substantial portion of its lift from its fuselage. And you can't just say "but it's less efficient than blended-wing-body!" You have no idea what the actual values of lift, drag, etc. are in different flight regimes and you're even further from being able to quantify those point values into a unified idea of performance and make a comparison to another aircraft.

 

Thanks for reminding us what the Boeing corporation has to say on the matter. If their X-32 had won the JSF program, you'd be linking us to a video singing its praises from the mountaintops. That should illustrate to you how much that video is really worth in this discussion. And Pierre Sprey.. Always great to hear how terrible modern aircraft design is from the guy who didn't design the ones he was actually involved in.

 

You believe anything the Lockheed Martin press tells you, I get it.

 

Awh, you got me.. And that's evidenced by the many references to Lockheed Martin press releases and videos of their test pilots I've linked you to already in this discussion. Oh, crap. I guess I forgot the links to the press releases and test pilot videos.

 

The US Air Force, numb nuts. "The ones that fly it." I'm not the one bringing Boeing or Pierre Sprey in to the mix, so if you want to start down this path I'm feeling pretty confident.

[Hummingbird]

Watching you backpedal in increasingly contradictory monologues since you tried to use that boing test pilots claims is going from amusing to irritating.

 

 

Pierre Sprey is a lunatic whose opinion is so far out of touch with anything that it is ludicrous that it would be brought up here at all. He believes that everything that isnt the F-16 is a "turkey" and that includes the F-15 and F-22! His being a "designer" means absolutely nothing.

 

So lets look at the last few posts:

 

1. You post a non-nonsensical video of a bought and paid for test pilot who talks complete bullshit the entire video and claim that it reflects on how the F-35 is a worse design to the F-16 because of compromises due to stealth. This is despite the fact that everything that pilot says in the video has nothing at all to do with facts what so ever. Flap sizes....please....the F-35 has quite large flaps.

 

2. GG calls you on your nonsense and you immediately backpedal, now claiming that the guy was over the top and that it was only posted to demonstrate how the whole issue is completely ambiguous because the designers are clearly all juxtaposed in opinion.

 

3. You then start arguing about Spreys credibility, well known to be exactly nil, yet another example of a BS source of information. You list this as another example of supposed ambiguity among "experts"

 

 

In short, you started by posting a video you clearly thought was a legit source on the aerodynamic compromise of the F-35 and then did a U-turn when called on it to make it sound like you were just pontificating on this supposed ambiguity issue. It is clear from the context of your first post on this page that idea wasnt even part of this discussion yet, much less within your scope of intent.

 

You and your hidden agenda theories....

[Hummingbird]

 

The US Air Force, numb nuts. "The ones that fly it." I'm not the one bringing Boeing or Pierre Sprey in to the mix, so if you want to start down this path I'm feeling pretty confident.

 

You're obviously very passionate about the F-35, I see that.

 

 

Fact is though the F-16 has several key advantages, such as:

 

- blended wing body design

- LERX

- smaller size

- better T/W ratio

- better wing loading

 

The F-35 might have a sort of vortice generating extension near the engine nacelles, but to think that it will generate as strong a votice as the extensive LERXs on the F-16 is ludicrous IMHO. Either way it's not enough to make up for the overall better aerodynamics of the F-16 design.

 

Again I will remind you that the F-16 is considered a better dogfighter than the F-15, and the F-15 features both a wide fuselage and a low wing loading, the F-35 does not.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Hummingbird

[NineLine]

What makes anyone think that dogfighting is going to be a role the the F-35 needs to worry at all anyways in any scenarios we are seeing involving US aircraft?

 

Put the F-35 up against the F-16 in a true modern air combat situation and tell me how it does, and that right there nullifies all arguments about any perceived dogfighting inefficiencies.

 

These debates are so silly...

[pyromaniac4002]

You and your hidden agenda theories....

 

Yeah he didn't actually say anything about hidden agendas. Nobody needs to. It's obvious you were hoping for something like the following:

 

The F-35 is worse than the F-16.

• L/D ratio
  
• LERX
  
• Vortices
  
• Blended-wing-body
  

BOOM.

*Drop mic, exit stage left.*

 

Except most of your argument is crap and people are trying to tell you why.

 

I'm not particularly passionate about the F-35, the F-22 is my one true aircraft love. I like the F-35, I think it's pretty cool, and I'm anxious to see what it can really do. I'm involved in this discussion because I'm sick of people who have no idea what they're talking about getting all riled up and jumping on the "F the F-35" bandwagon because you just don't know. There are only a very few select people right now who can actually tell you what an F-35 is good for (Pierre Sprey is not one of them), and they're not telling us a whole lot about it yet.

[Basher54321]

Pierre Sprey is an aircraft designer, defense analyst, and record producer. Working with John Boyd and Thomas P. Christie, analyst Tom Christie and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni as well as aeronautical engineer Harry Hillaker, they formed the core of the self-dubbed "Fighter Mafia", advocating the use of Energy-Maneuverability (E-M) theory in fighter design.

 

I'd say that an aircraft designer has more credentials than any of us in here to speak on this matter with any form of authority. Not to say that he's right ofcourse, seeing as I believe his critique of the F-35 is way over the top.

 

Sprey is no expert - has no military background, every paper I have seen from him since 1982 has been devoid of any understanding of aerial combat or aerodynamics - the only purpose is to fool the ignorant - and it works - an example would be the air time this complete lunatic keeps getting.

 

Back in the 60/70s he may have had a point - but seems to be such a luddite could never accept the massive progress in technological fields.

 

If John Boyd was still around he would likely be kicking Spreys ass up and down a football pitch over the F-35 - a design that incorporates both Boyds theories and Harry Hillakers design concepts and recommendations into it.

[outlawal2]

What makes anyone think that dogfighting is going to be a role the the F-35 needs to worry at all anyways in any scenarios we are seeing involving US aircraft?

 

Put the F-35 up against the F-16 in a true modern air combat situation and tell me how it does, and that right there nullifies all arguments about any perceived dogfighting inefficiencies.

 

These debates are so silly...

 

Save your breath as I have stated this very fact at least 4 times to this individual and he keeps spouting the same irrelevant information being provided by self proclaimed experts...

 

Might as well rail on Ferrari because their F40 car sucks at towing your boat trailer... It is a true statement, but who the @#$% cares?

 

 

I give up...

[USARStarkey]

You and your hidden agenda theories....

 

Hidden agenda? What? That was just a record of what you typed. You clearly change your story over the course of a few posts. Just like with the F-15's fuselage. And dont write that like I have hidden agendas all the time. I have no such tendency.