ESR(D) test setup for ITR is this;
So for the comparison aircraft, 2xSRAAM, 100% internal fuel and full load of gun ammo @ ISA conditions.
2 Likes
Not really mate.
I compared the estimated weight of the F-16A 50% internal fuel with 4 missiles (22,000lbs) to the weight of the F/A-18 with 60% internal fuel and 4 missiles.
you compared the F-16 with 50% internal fuel and 2 missiles to the F/A-18 with 60% internal fuel and 4 missiles.
Thanks so the ITR comparison matches my hypothesis.
That matches directly with what I was saying.
Comparative fuel weight with same missile count and the F-18 will have a better ITR.
You where trying to claim it was the same.
The NASA document does not show a plane with 4 missiles and 60% fuel. I have already shown that the performance in the NASA document is greater than that in the GAO report ergo it is taken a lower reference weight.
The reason the F-16C in the Korean document is at 22,000lbs is because the airframe is heavier. Both EM diagrams are side by side and it is a direct comparison of how weight growth hurt the performance of the airplane.
This is something that General Dynamics was already well aware of in the late 1980’s. This is why they had planned to develop the F-16 Agile Falcon with a larger wing.
I seriously think that you do not know how to interpret any data. The ITR is specified at 200kts airspeed.
200kts IAS at 6000m is Mach .45
200kts TAS at 6000m is Mach .3
The F-16’s ITR at that speed and altitude is limited due to the angle of attack limiter.
Also there is another thing to note about the ESR-D documents when it relates to the F/A-18.
2 Likes
Again F-16A with 2 added missiles will weight more than the charts you shared. Add 10% internal fuel and its even more weight.
And why are we adding 2 missiles and extra fuel to make F-18 comparison?
Because you have theory that GAO report is a farce because NASA document showcases higher turn rate numbers? How is NASA getting higher performance than GAO? Or are we just going to say the .7 degree per second difference is insignificant for the argument?
Because that .7 degrees per second is essentially the same difference between the 22,000lb F-16C and 20,875lb F-16A.
You are fudging your comparison by doing the following;
- Adding extra weight to the F-16A to match notional 60% fuel + 4 missiles.
- Taking away weight from F-18C by insisting that 13 degree figure in NASA report is for 60% fuel and 4 missiles; and that GAO 12.3 degree per second figure for that exact loadout is wrong.
This is just intellectual dishonesty on your part.
clearly the navy dosent know how their own fighters perform
only the NASA would know
2 Likes
If you say so.
You’re still trying to compare 2 different things.
You’re still trying to imply the F-16 has a better ITR throughout the speed range.
where has he ever talked about ITR
In the charts he’s using.
Why is it so hard to believe that the f-16a is better than the fa18c when the f-16’s aoa limit is not in play
(in similar conditions ofc)
1 Like
the whole argument has been about STR you absolute clown
To be fair squish did bring up ITR with the esr d stuff
It should never be better.
Not really clown.
I also said from the very beginning the F-16 is better in STR especially at higher speeds. At lower speeds its worse.
Its you clowns trying to say the F-16 should be better at all speeds. This is just not the case.
you have been saying alot
but you didnt bring any data to back up what you were saying
Guys, keep it civil please.
Things can be debated respectfully without personal insults beint thrown.
1 Like
Except I did.
It’s not my problem if reality doesn’t align with your personal beliefs.
The problem is that (at least from what I’m seeing)
Is that you’re comparing the planes when they’re at differing conditions in terms of weight which imo is somewhat dishonest