KenV wrote: |
Weight is usually THE limiting factor in any kind of manuevering. External fuel tanks are designed to handle the same stresses as the aircraft. Air-to-air weapons can also go to the max g loading of the aircraft. |
|
Well, then I guess the F16 is unusual. Like I said earlier you don't know much about the F16. Both external tanks and air to ground weapons is restricting both G and maneuver capabilities.
KenV wrote: |
With the high weights of an air-to-ground mission, the aircraft's g-loading is limited. But all air-to-ground weapons can more than handle the aircraft's max g-loading when it is flying an air-to-ground mission.
|
|
Nope!! Not the case with the F16. The problem is not the weapons themselves, but the stores/hardpoints they are carried on. They can't take the same stress. It is very easy to overstress them even given the high weight of the aircraft.
KenV wrote: |
Keep in mind that wings are designed for up bending loads. But hanging ordnance on the wing bends it down. Pulling G with ordnance bends it down even more. that is one BIG reason why the max landing weight is always MUCH lower that the max take of weight. At takeoff, the aircraft weight is supported be the wing and the wing is producing lift and bending upward. Upon landing, the landing gear supports the aircraft and all the inertia of the wing and the ordnance haning on it causes down bending moment. Hence, the landing wt restriction.
|
|
Again the F16 is different. The F16 (Block 15 MLU) has the EXACT same maximum allowable GW for ground handling, taxi, takeoff, in flight, and landing (35,400 pounds)
KenV wrote: |
1. This thread was about the F-16XL being a superior ground attack platform, not a fighter plaltform. That is a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi mission that would be carefully mission planned to keep the fuel state during the Lo segments relatively low, and certainly would NOT be planned with a full bag of gas during the Lo segments.
|
|
Even as an attack platform you will be better off with extra gas. If you get engaged and you have to kick around a threat or go max speed for an extended amount of time due to lost time defending you will be using a significant extra amount of gas.
Besides Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profiles are rare in todays world. Much safer to supress enemy sams and stay high during the entire mission.
KenV wrote: |
2. Even flying CAP (combat air patrol), which can often involve lots of loitering, you don't plan on arriving on station with a full bag of gas. |
|
If you could you would, but of course you use something form the tanker to the FAOR. The more gas you have the longer you will be able to remain on station until you have to hit the tanker again.
KenV wrote: |
It is exceedingly rare to have multiple ACM (Air Combat Maneuvering, or "dogfighting") engagements and no one plans for that.
|
|
Just a single one can use a lot of gas
When you park that puppy in burner your fuel consumption is excessive. You can empty the F16 in less than 15 minutes if you wanted to for the fun of it.
It is however not unheard of to be engaged several times by ground defence.
RUN