4th Gen Fighter Performance Comparison Thread

[Hummingbird]

As the title says in here you can compare all 4th gen fighters in all their aspects - so go nuts gentlemen! :pilotfly:

[Ultra]

What about 4.5 gen fighters, can we discuss those :P

[Hummingbird]

What about 4.5 gen fighters, can we discuss those :P

 

Oh alright then ^^

[Ultra]

You should compile a list of all the ones considered 4th gen in your first post. Everyone knows the big US ones, but some (like me ;)) may not know what international planes are considered 4th gen.

[Roadrunner]

THAT might help as list ;)

[SDsc0rch]

i would think 4th gen is referring to anything in this latest generation (post-F-4/MiG-23) but isn't stealth

 

i think 4.5 is "modern" in that it has state-of-the-art avionics, has some stealth features, but doesn't fully incorporate stealth (ie.. f/a-18e)

[Ultra]

Where should our cutoff be then? Early 90's?

[NineLine]

This thread will be 12 pages before you decide which fighters you are going to discuss :D

[Ultra]

This thread will be 12 pages before you decide which fighters you are going to discuss :D

 

That's half the fun :P

[Exorcet]

While I like this thread, I think it's going to go slow without a specific topic. I'm quite tempted to bring up the F-14 vs F-15 debate from a certain other thread(s) because BVR maneuvering wasn't talked about much if I recall. However, this is already in another thread and I don't want to see this one turn into a clone.

 

I guess one other topic I've been curious about is the F-18L. Just how much better would it have been over the F/A-18C as a fighter? If I recall, the YF-17 wasn't that far off the YF-16, but the F/A-18 is said to lag behind a bit when it comes to sustained maneuvers. I don't have figures for the C as is though, and out of the teen series it's probably the aircraft I'm least familiar with.

[Ultra]

How does the Tornado ADV compare to other 4th gen fighters? I don't know much about that plane.

[Pilotasso]

The tornado is a dedicated strike fighter (emphasis now on smart weapons though it started with dumb weaponry delivery at low altitudes early on), not really good at dogfighter but on the other hand has long legs for a fighter size plane which makes the plane highly appreciated in deployments overseas.

[Ultra]

I know the main version was primarily A-G, but wasn't the ADV the dedicated interceptor variant?

[Hummingbird]

Exorcet,

 

I'd love to see some graphs on the F-18C in terms of sustained maneuvers etc, as I am equally curious about this.

 

 

Ultra,

 

As far as I've read the Tornado at least initially wasn't half bad in the fighter role, the British rating it a superior dogfighter compared to their slatless F-4 Phantom. But in comparison to the teen series it obviously falls noticably short in the fighter role.

[Hummingbird]

Btw, for those who say that the F-16 can't do high AoA flight :D :

9JXWWDqtiRM

[Pilotasso]

I know the main version was primarily A-G, but wasn't the ADV the dedicated interceptor variant?

 

There was an interceptor/QRA variant indeed, that is already retired for years and now replaced by Eurofighter (there were much fewer of them in numbers). It used the long legs for good measure but was still a poor dogfighter. Pilots nicknamed it "Tomato" during AA exercises.

[Ultra]

I see.

That's what I wanted to know, thanks.

[Pilotasso]

Btw, for those who say that the F-16 can't do high AoA flight :D :

9JXWWDqtiRM

 

In 2002 I saw one making circles at high AOA around the tower in the pic below located in Lisbon. It was advertising the Airforces 50th anniversary celebrations (it was the armies aviation before that). I was shocked in disbelief.

 

[Ultra]

Where does the Mirage 2000 rank in "turn n burn" ability against the other 4th gens?

[Pilotasso]

Pretty good, though it traded some T/W ratio for speed and altitude compared to the F-16, the latter also had better sustained G and turn rates. The difference is not very big but the advantage is there.

[Hummingbird]

Where does the Mirage 2000 rank in "turn n burn" ability against the other 4th gens?

 

There is this chart, although I cannot vouch for its accuracy:

[Pilotasso]

and heres the corresponding F-16 chart.

 

[Hummingbird]

One aircraft that I'd really love to see such a chart on is the GR-9 or AV-8B Harrier, as I've always wondered how well that thing maneuvered.

 

[Hummingbird]

In 2002 I saw one making circles at high AOA around the tower in the pic below located in Lisbon. It was advertising the Airforces 50th anniversary celebrations (it was the armies aviation before that). I was shocked in disbelief.

 

 

Yeah, the F-16 can definitely pull off some impressive high AoA stunts, despite its' CAT I/III AoA limiter. I wonder if it can be overridden? Because I've definitely seen F-16's pull off 40+ deg AoA flight before.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Hummingbird

[Hummingbird]

The F-16 & MiG-29 compared, part one:

 

I've got over 500 hours in the MiG-29 and 2000 hours in the F-16 (I also flew the F-15A/C and the F-5E). The following is an excerpt from a research papaer I wrote while working on a Master's Degree in aerospace engineering. Bottom line: F16 (and F-15) good, MiG-29 bad.

 

MiG-29 Fulcrum Versus F-16 Viper

 

The baseline MiG-29 for this comparison will be the MiG-29A (except for 200 kg more fuel and an internal jammer, the MiG-29C was not an improvement over the MiG-29A), as this was the most widely deployed version of the aircraft. The baseline F-16 will be the F-16C Block 40. Although there is a more advanced and powerful version of the F-16C, the Block 40 was produced and fielded during the height of Fulcrum production.

 

A combat loaded MiG-29A tips the scales at approximately 38, 500 pounds. This figure includes a full load of internal fuel, two AA-10A Alamo missiles, four AA-11 Archer missiles, 150 rounds of 30mm ammunition and a full centerline 1,500 liter external fuel tank. With 18,600 pounds of thrust per engine, this gives the Fulcrum a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.97:1. A similarly loaded air-to-air configured F-16 Block 40 would carry four AIM-120 AMRAAM active radar-guided missiles, two AIM-9M IR-guided missiles, 510 rounds of 20mm ammunition and a 300 gallon external centerline fuel tank. In this configuration, the F-16 weighs 31,640 pounds. With 29,000 pounds of thrust, the F-16 has a takeoff thrust-to-weight ratio of 0.92:1. The reader should be cautioned that these thrust-to-weight ratios are based on uninstalled thrust. Once an engine is installed in the aircraft, it produces less thrust than it does on a test stand due to the air intake allowing in less air than the engine has available on the test stand.

The actual installed thrust-to-weight ratios vary based on the source. On average, they are in the 1:1 regime or better for both aircraft. The centerline fuel tanks can be jettisoned and probably would be if the situation dictated with an associated decrease in drag and weight and an increase in performance.

 

Speed

 

Both aircraft display good performance throughout their flight regimes in the comparison configuration. The MiG-29 enjoys a speed advantage at high altitude with a flight manual limit of Mach 2.3. The F-16’s high altitude limit is

Mach 2.05 but this is more of a limit of inlet design. The MiG-29 has variable geometry inlets to control the shock wave that forms in the inlet and prevent supersonic flow from reaching the engine. The F-16 employs a simple fixed-geometry inlet with a sharp upper lip that extends out beyond the lower portion of the inlet. A shock wave forms on this lip and prevents the flow in the intake from going supersonic. The objective is to keep the air going into the engine subsonic unlike a certain ‘subject matter expert’ on this website who thinks that the air should be accelerated to even higher speeds than the aircraft is traveling. Supersonic air in the compressor section? That’s bad.

 

Both aircraft have the same indicated airspeed limit at lower altitudes of

810 knots. This would require the centerline tanks to be jettisoned. The placard limits for the tanks are 600 knots or Mach 1.6 (Mach 1.5 for the MiG-29) whichever less is. It was the researcher’s experience that the MiG-29 would probably not reach this limit unless a dive was initiated. The F-16 Block 40 will easily reach 800 knots on the deck. In fact, power must be reduced to avoid exceeding placard limits. The limit is not thrust, as the F-16 has been test flown on the plus side of 900 knots. The limit for the F-16 is the canopy. Heating due to air friction at such speeds will cause the polycarbonate canopy to get soft and ultimately fail.

 

Turning Capability

 

The MiG-29 and F-16 are both considered 9 G aircraft. Until the centerline tank is empty, the Fulcrum is limited to four Gs and the Viper to seven Gs. The

MiG-29 is also limited to seven Gs above Mach 0.85 while the F-16, once the centerline tank is empty (or jettisoned) can go to nine Gs regardless of airspeed or Mach number. The MiG-29’s seven G limit is due to loads on the vertical stabilizers. MAPO has advertised that the Fulcrum could be stressed to 12 Gs and still not hurt the airframe. This statement is probably wishful and boastful. The German Luftwaffe, which flew its MiG-29s probably more aggressively than any other operator, experienced cracks in the structure at the base of the vertical tails. The F-16 can actually exceed nine Gs without overstressing the airframe. Depending on configuration, momentary overshoots to as much as 10.3 Gs will not cause any concern with aircraft maintainers.

 

Handling

 

Of the four fighters I have flown, the MiG-29 has by far the worst handling qualities. The hydro-mechanical flight control system uses an artificial feel system of springs and pulleys to simulate control force changes with varying airspeeds and altitudes. There is a stability augmentation system that makes the aircraft easier to fly but also makes the aircraft more sluggish to flight control inputs. It is my opinion that the jet is more responsive with the augmentation system disengaged. Unfortunately, this was allowed for demonstration purposes only as this also disengages the angle-of-attack (AoA) limiter. Stick forces are relatively light but the stick requires a lot of movement to get the desired response. This only adds to sluggish feeling of the aircraft. The entire time you are flying, the stick will move randomly about one-half inch on its own with a corresponding movement of the flight control surface. Flying the Fulcrum requires constant attention. If the pilot takes his hand off the throttles, the throttles probably won't stay in the position in which they were left. They'll probably slide back into the 'idle' position.

 

The Fulcrum is relatively easy to fly during most phases of flight such as takeoff, climb, cruise and landing. However, due to flight control limitations, the pilot must work hard to get the jet to respond the way he wants. This is especially evident in aggressive maneuvering, flying formation or during attempts to employ the gun. Aerial gunnery requires very precise handling in order to be successful. The MiG-29’s handling qualities in no way limit the ability of the pilot to perform his mission, but they do dramatically increase his workload. The F-16’s quadruple-redundant digital flight control system, on the other hand, is extremely responsive, precise and smooth throughout the flight regime.

 

There is no auto-trim system in the MiG-29 as in the F-16. Trimming the aircraft is practically an unattainable state of grace in the Fulcrum. The trim of the aircraft is very sensitive to changes in airspeed and power and requires constant attention. Changes to aircraft configuration such as raising and lowering the landing gear and flaps cause significant changes in pitch trim that the pilot must be prepared for. As a result, the MiG-29 requires constant attention to fly. The F-16 auto-trims to one G or for whatever G the pilot has manually trimmed the aircraft for.

 

The MiG-29 flight control system also has an AoA limiter that limits the allowable AoA to 26°. As the aircraft reaches the limit, pistons at the base of the stick push the stick forward and reduce the AoA about 5°. The pilot has to fight the flight controls to hold the jet at 26°. The limiter can be overridden, however, with about 17 kg more back pressure on the stick. While not entirely unsafe and at times tactically useful, care must be taken not to attempt to roll the aircraft with ailerons when above 26° AoA. In this case it is best to control roll with the rudders due to adverse yaw caused by the ailerons at high AoA. The F-16 is electronically limited to 26° AoA. While the pilot cannot manually override this limit it is possible to overshoot under certain conditions and risk departure from controlled flight. This is a disadvantage to the F-16 but is a safety margin due its lack of longitudinal stability. Both aircraft have a lift limit of approximately

35° AoA.