Glider
Captain
Why has the F16 got to be more manoeuvrable?
The F15 and most more modern jets such as the Rafael, Typhoon, Gripen and no doubt some of the modern Russian fighters outmanoeuvre the F16, why not the F22
Which performance aspects of a fighter were most crucial?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why has the F16 got to be more manoeuvrable?
The F15 and most more modern jets such as the Rafael, Typhoon, Gripen and no doubt some of the modern Russian fighters outmanoeuvre the F16, why not the F22
Grampi,
Not even close! The F22 has a much more advanced fly by wire system that works in conjunction with thrust vectoring along with improved aerodynamic tricks.
Nothing currently in production can kill it except by fluke. Nothing.
Your tax dollars bought a new standard.
Cheers,
Biff
drgondog
Major
I had a lengthy conversation with a RAF Typhoon wing CO at Davis Monathan AFB in 2010 in conjunction with a 4th FW F-22 Squadron CO that basically said - "we could kill it if we could only see it"
drgondog
Major
Joe - apropos of our conversation earlier - 'my life is infested with twats" or words to that effect
GregP
Major
Funny you should say that ...
From the words of the first Italian Air Force Pilot that took in his hands Typhoon, then EF-2000, 9th february 1996:
"Il "Typhoon", pur essendo un velivolo dal notevole spessore operativo, non contiene in sé elementi tali da poterlo considerare altrettanto innovativo. Il contenuto tecnologico di questo velivolo è già presente su altri caccia (addirittura già in servizio) sia che si parli di avionica, software dei comandi di volo o materiali, sia che si considerino prestazioni e qualità di volo. Anzi, per certi aspetti il velivolo è addirittura in ritardo: si pensi alle caratteristiche "stealth" e "supercruise" dell'F22 "Raptor", l'aeroplano con il quale, per forza di cose, si deve paragonare l'EF-2000. "
]Tiscali Webspace
"Il "Typhoon", pur essendo un velivolo dal notevole spessore operativo, non contiene in sé elementi tali da poterlo considerare altrettanto innovativo. Il contenuto tecnologico di questo velivolo è già presente su altri caccia (addirittura già in servizio) sia che si parli di avionica, software dei comandi di volo o materiali, sia che si considerino prestazioni e qualità di volo. Anzi, per certi aspetti il velivolo è addirittura in ritardo: si pensi alle caratteristiche "stealth" e "supercruise" dell'F22 "Raptor", l'aeroplano con il quale, per forza di cose, si deve paragonare l'EF-2000. "
]Tiscali Webspace
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #67
Didn't know about the thrust vectoring...that probably makes a huge difference...
- Thread starter
- #68
I'd have to see that to believe it...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
If the Gulf War cold be used as a starting point, the MiG-29 has done pretty poorly in combat, mainly because of pilot training IMO. F-15s shot down at least 3 MiG-29s, I believe an F-16 got one, all with no losses
google translate
"The" Typhoon ", despite being an aircraft operating from very thick, not in itself contains elements such that it can be considered as innovative. The technological content of this aircraft is already available on other hunting (even already in service) whether we speak of avionics, flight control software or materials, both on this performance and flying qualities. Indeed, in some respects, the aircraft is even overdue: think of the characteristics of "stealth" and "Supercruise" dell'F22 "Raptor" the airplane with which, inevitably, you must compare the EF-2000. "
Today there are many things required to push a certain fighter from 'potentially capable' category into 'successful in war' category. One of them you've noted - pilot training. Then we have radar communications coverage support, availability of good electronics on fighter itself, good radars/electronics/countermeasures, good missiles, maneuverability (increasingly important as fighters are to engage in ever closer ranges, for WVR missises and/or guns), speed, RoC, ratio between enemy and allied fighters in current combat (ie. numerical advantage/disadvantage), doctrine tactics, etc.
Too many factors decide the outcome of the air combat, and Iraqi AF MiG 29s enjoyed maybe one of those (maneuverability) vs. USAF F-15s. We can also observe the Bekaa Valley air combat, where the Israely AF enjoyed probably all of the listed advantages, while using fighters that were mostly a full generation ahead of what Sysians used; the lopsided kill to losses ratio should not come as a surprise.
Or, the Falklands air war, where even the Mirages were ill able to harm Harriers, despite the 'paper' advantage.
The " Typhoon ", despite being an aircraft operationally most valid, does not present features that can be considered as innovative (as was the F 104 when it was introduced in service in the '50s. The Pilot was an F 104 G and S driver in 1996. My note). The technological content of this aircraft is already available on other fighters (even already in service) whether we speak of avionics, flight control software or materials employed, and both for performance and flying qualities. Indeed, in some respects, this aircraft is overdue: think to the characteristics of "stealth" and "Supercruise" of F22 "Raptor" the airplane with which, inevitably, the EF-2000 must be compared .
Last edited:
I was looking through documents relating to Australian efforts to develop a tropical filter for their Spitfires, relevant to another thread. The solution incidentally was to request drawings from England.
The point relevant to this thread is that the overriding consideration relating to such filters' either indigenous or copied from those in the UK was the effect on the aircraft's speed. Speed, as I think Edgar pointed out earlier, was always the primary consideration when any modifications were muted and for the Air Ministry, RAF and other operators of the Spitfire was consistently the primary performance factor in their calculations which answers the original question posed in the title succinctly.
Cheers
Steve
The point relevant to this thread is that the overriding consideration relating to such filters' either indigenous or copied from those in the UK was the effect on the aircraft's speed. Speed, as I think Edgar pointed out earlier, was always the primary consideration when any modifications were muted and for the Air Ministry, RAF and other operators of the Spitfire was consistently the primary performance factor in their calculations which answers the original question posed in the title succinctly.
Cheers
Steve
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
It'll be interesting to see how Sukhoi's PAK FA (T-50) stacks up against the F-22
Thanks Elmas despite 3 years in Italy my Italian rarely got past discussing F1 Football food and work.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well they weren't able exploit that advantage. There was only one VR dogfight between a MiG-29 and an F-15 and the MiG-29 was destroyed.
- Thread starter
- #78
I guess I don't see how planes (like the Mig 29) that are roughly twice the F-16s size could be more maneuverable...
The Mig 29 is 57' long by 37' span, the F-16 is 49 by 32 in the same areas.
Full loaded weight ( not max. take off ) is Mig-29 34,000 lbs. verses 27,000 for the F-16.
By neither measure does the Mig-29 come close to roughly twice the size of a F-16.
GrauGeist
Generalfeldmarschall zur Luftschiff Abteilung
Actually, the MiG-29 is very agile
