A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Turning performance of SEA fighters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old August 15th 04, 08:33 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Carrier wrote:

snip

Generally, the sustained turn rate was around 14-15 degrees/second for
the F-4 hard-wing and about 12.5-13.5 for the F-105.


Don't know where you got these numbers, but sustained for the F-4 was under
10 degrees/sec at combat altitudes and weights (we typically used 15K, 4+4,
no tanks, and 60% fuel) and was found at around 450 KIAS.


For reasons known only to the services, the USN standard for 'combat' weight is
with 60% fuel, while the USAF uses 50%.

The F-8 could do
just under 11 degrees/sec @ 400 in similar conditions (better wing, less
wing loading, not much less T/W). ... roughly a 1 degree/sec advantage. Of
course the Mig-21 (the adversary we trained for) was a couple better than
that. Still looking at under 15 degree/sec sustained.


snip

I've got one source which gives 14 deg./sec. sustained for the F-15A, 16 deg.
instantaneous. The same source claims it can sustain 7.3g at 400 kts/15kft;
it's unclear if that's KTAS or KCAS, but I'm guessing the latter. It credits
the F-5E with slightly over 11 deg. sec. sustained -- IIRC corner for it is
around 375 or so. ISTR seeing the F-16A credited with ca. 16 deg./sec.
sustained. BTW, John, I've read that the (hard-wing) F-4 could generally beat
the F-8 at low/medium altitude (once the pilots learned to use its energy
advantage), but at high altitudes the F-8's lower drag (induced, parasitic
and/or wave) gave it the advantage. What's your take?

Guy

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In zeno Instrument Flight Rules 0 October 30th 04 06:20 PM
B-17s Debut, RAF Wellingtons Bomb & Fighters Sweep at Zeno's Video Drive-In zeno Home Built 0 October 30th 04 06:19 PM
Why was the Fokker D VII A Good Plane? Matthew G. Saroff Military Aviation 111 May 4th 04 05:34 PM
US (Brit/Japanese/German/USSR) Use of Gun Cameras in Fighters?? ArtKramr Military Aviation 3 July 17th 03 06:02 AM
CUrtiss Hawk 75 performance debate Jukka O. Kauppinen Military Aviation 3 July 16th 03 10:45 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.