Some question bout F-15's
-
I was browsing thru some online article on F-15. It states that an F-15's high thrust-to-weight ratio and low wing loading let it shoot off the ground at a sharp angle.
1)Is this ability(shooting off the ground at sharp angle)present in our current F-16's(Block-52)?
I was thinking that this might be one of the deciding factors to why F-15 was selected for our Fighter replacement programme. Pardon me and my lack of knowledge.
Here's the link: http://science.howstuffworks.com/f-15.htm -
yes it is present in our F-16
-
if you want to know if F-16 got the ability , use the weight of the aircraft and compare it with the thrust
-
Thrust to weight ratio is 3:1, therefore the F-15 holds the record for climbing from 0ft to 10000ft, not including the Harrier.
Besides the F-15, the F-16 can also do that, though the F-15 accelerates faster. If any other aircraft tries to climb vertically for prolonged time period, they would simply fall back to Earth. If there is any thing quite shocking then, it was the F-15's ability to actually accelerate while climbing vertically. -
F15 could substain continuous 9g turn with full weapon load, but this is not possible on F16. F15 have more sophiscated EWS suite onboard, and have more "room" to grow and for add-on upgrade compare to F16. The F15 strike reach and "stand-off" weapon delivery capability is battle tested, can carry more variety weapon than Eurofighter and Rafale, esp after our infamous Nation X Mod...hehehe...
Maybe we can try to mod of F15 air frame with the new NUS wind tunnel, offical spec listed that our air tunnel can perform air frame testing for wind speed up to Mach 4....almost hypersonic (Mach 5) liao... -
This could be why the F-15 is able to operte on aircraft carriers but not the F-16?
-
the F-15s got 2 of F-16s P&W engines.
-
check again sir. f15s on a flat top? both are USAF planes.Originally posted by tvdog:This could be why the F-15 is able to operte on aircraft carriers but not the F-16? -
F-15s are never operationally deployed from US carriers.
-
can you substantiate that?Originally posted by archon1234:F15 could substain continuous 9g turn with full weapon load, but this is not possible on F16.... -
Yes.This sustained acceleration with climb is only matched by the SRBs on the Shuttle.Originally posted by SBS1908B:Thrust to weight ratio is 3:1, therefore the F-15 holds the record for climbing from 0ft to 10000ft, not including the Harrier. Besides the F-15, the F-16 can also do that, though the F-15 accelerates faster. If any other aircraft tries to climb vertically for prolonged time period, they would simply fall back to Earth. If there is any thing quite shocking then, it was the F-15's ability to actually accelerate while climbing vertically. -
F-15E has a 3 to 1 thrust to weight ratio? Its high but not that high.... its abt 1.2 to 1 or so.
Not many aircraft have good thrust to weight ratio. To have a thrust to weight ratio of more than 1 to 1 means ur jet can take off, climb and accelerate vertically. The F-15E cannot do tat with a full combat load.
The F-15 we are buying is the STRIKE variant. F-15E Strike Eagle. Its a heavier bird but packs more avionics, and electronic warfare systems. Not to mention a more advanced radar when compared to the F-15C/Ds.
My point of view at this is simply this. F-15E has what we need. Its a strike air craft with both excellent air to air and air to ground capabilities. It comes with a whole package of weapons and electronics. When compared to the Rafale, which is more like a multi-role fighter and not a dual role fighter, the choice is obvious. -
ha ha ha.... come on.. is the above post a joke!Originally posted by tvdog:This could be why the F-15 is able to operte on aircraft carriers but not the F-16? -
Actually thrust to wt ratio is hard to substantiate and compare.... because a lot depends on the "wt" component.....Originally posted by Shotgun:F-15E has a 3 to 1 thrust to weight ratio? Its high but not that high.... its abt 1.2 to 1 or so.
Not many aircraft have good thrust to weight ratio. To have a thrust to weight ratio of more than 1 to 1 means ur jet can take off, climb and accelerate vertically. The F-15E cannot do tat with a full combat load.
The F-15 we are buying is the STRIKE variant. F-15E Strike Eagle. Its a heavier bird but packs more avionics, and electronic warfare systems. Not to mention a more advanced radar when compared to the F-15C/Ds.
My point of view at this is simply this. F-15E has what we need. Its a strike air craft with both excellent air to air and air to ground capabilities. It comes with a whole package of weapons and electronics. When compared to the Rafale, which is more like a multi-role fighter and not a dual role fighter, the choice is obvious.
Wt of a/c is highly dependent on the fuel carried and the weapons payload.....
For these "record" attempts usually the aircraft is stripped bare... minimal fuel with "clean" low drag no warload configuration. -
Yeah, but even clean, our F-15E/T is still a very heavy bird, probably in the 32000lb region. (it is quite well armored for a fighter)
Assuming if the Sg gov goes with the GE-129, which has abt 29000lb thrust eac, ude have 58000lb of thrust at full AB. the Tw ratio is probably nearer to 1.8 to 1.
The GE engine does perform better at low levels, perhaps maybe a lil more than that? definitely not 3 : 1.
The only plane that i know that definitely breaks a 2:1 ratio is the F/A-22, not the Strike eagle. -
Thrust to weight ratio, I am 60% sure is 3:1, but the weight does not include drag. Hehehe. The high ratio allows the F-15C to streak to high altitudes quickly to capture the Foxbat. I recall F-4s cannot catch up.
-
You are 60% sure. If you would go back and do some quick calculations and simple research, you will realise how far off the mark you are.Originally posted by SBS1908B:Thrust to weight ratio, I am 60% sure is 3:1, but the weight does not include drag. Hehehe. The high ratio allows the F-15C to streak to high altitudes quickly to capture the Foxbat. I recall F-4s cannot catch up.
From the Boeing website:
Propulsion - Two P&W F100 turbofan engines in 29,000 lb (13,154 kg) thrust class with afterburning
Weight - 45,000 lb (20,411 kg) class
81,000 lb (36,700 kg) max gross takeoff
Do the maths. -
Originally posted by fett:check again sir. f15s on a flat top? both are USAF planes.
pai sey. Dunno much about aircrafts at all.
So what makes an aircraft suitable for carrier ops - besides the obvious being able to have STOL...?
Eg why a F-18, F-14 can operate on carriers but F-16, F-15, F-5 cannot? -
For an aircraft to operate from a flat-top, it needs to be designed in. One of the biggest reasons is that it's airframe and undercarriage needs to be stressed to take the shock of a landing on a carrier.
If a normal F16 or F15 tried to land on a carrier (assuming they have the hook) odds of thier undercarriage breaking or some other part is quite high. -
not onli tat, the electronics of the -15s\16s will also shake itself into pieces..Originally posted by insouciant:For an aircraft to operate from a flat-top, it needs to be designed in. One of the biggest reasons is that it's airframe and undercarriage needs to be stressed to take the shock of a landing on a carrier.
If a normal F16 or F15 tried to land on a carrier (assuming they have the hook) odds of thier undercarriage breaking or some other part is quite high. -
I think some of the F-15's have the hook. Mainly for emergancy landings.Originally posted by insouciant:For an aircraft to operate from a flat-top, it needs to be designed in. One of the biggest reasons is that it's airframe and undercarriage needs to be stressed to take the shock of a landing on a carrier.
If a normal F16 or F15 tried to land on a carrier (assuming they have the hook) odds of thier undercarriage breaking or some other part is quite high.
Heck the F-117s have hooks. -
Well, any aircraft with a thrust to weight ratio of more than 1 to 1, or even NEAR 1 to 1 can streak off the runway at high angles. As long as its not vertical, they 'd be able gain altitude fast. Of course, having more than 1 to 1 will allow it to ACCELERATE and CLIMB at the same time. Where as, those with less than 1 to 1, trades airspeed for altitude.
Naval aircraft, those that land on carriers are specially designed to endure the shock of carrier landings, the salty spray of the sea. Imagine if u just take any jet engine and operate near the ocean, sucking all the salty spray... woosh.
As for the impact the aircraft makes on landing... heh. Lets just say, landing on a carrier is not really a landing. Its more like a controlled crash. -
Paiseh paiseh........came back to tell you guys that the thrust to weight ratio is not 3:1, went to look up the book again which took me 1 hr and realised that I was thinking of the wrong one.
Its more like 1.8:1. Sorry, sorry.
PS: Regarding the aircraft carrier one, nah.......needs the hook for the catapult and the landing gear is not strong enough. -
No worries. =D
I'd love to have a jet that has 3:1 ratio tho! -
if they planned to modify them..then can lor.....stronger landing gears...arrestor hooks..and all thatOriginally posted by tvdog:
pai sey. Dunno much about aircrafts at all.
So what makes an aircraft suitable for carrier ops - besides the obvious being able to have STOL...?
Eg why a F-18, F-14 can operate on carriers but F-16, F-15, F-5 cannot?
but theyre built to be used on tarmacs instead