From: megazone@dolomite.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:39:34 GMT


From megazone@dolomite.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvI6oF.LLB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> eoahmad@ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
>		F15D	F18A/B	F16A/B	MIG29
>Gross wts(lbs):68000	51900	37500	60000
>Speed(Mach):	2.5	1.7+	2+	2.3
>Thrust/weight:	?	?	?	1.2
>Rate of turn:	8G	8G	8G	9G/16degrees/s(snap)?
>Angle of Attack:			highest?
>range(nm)				200

Weapons are a bit wrong....
>Weapons:	4xAIM7	2xAIM9	2XAIM9	6XAA10	
               +4xAIM9 +2xAIM7 
plus all the US aircraft have the GE M-61A1 20mm Vulcan... I'm not sure as to
the type of gun the MiG-29 has. Once the AIM-120 enters full service all types
will carry it. The F-16 has carried AIM-7 in tests, but it was decided to 
wait for the AIM-120

>Look down
>radar range(nm):			60
 
>Missile specs:
>AIM9 Sidewinder: short range missile

The AIM9 Sidewinder is in the 10-12 nm range, as you have labled the AA10.

>AIM7 Sparrow:	24+ nm

The AIM7 has a Max range of double that figure, of course accuracy and chance
for a kill goes down with range.

>AA10:		probably like AA-7 which is 15 nm and 12 for look down.

>From The great book of Modern Warplanes:
                            (Where are my C stats....)
               F-15C               F-16A                F/A-18A/C 
Length         63'9"(20.43m)       49'6"(15.09m)        56'0"(17.07m)
Wingspan       42'9.75"(13.05m)    31'0"(9.45M)         37'6"(11.43m)
Height         18'5.5"(5.63m)      16'8"(5.08m)         15'3.5"(4.66m)
Weights     
 Empty         28,000lb(12,700kg)  15,586lb(7,070kg)    21,830lb(9,900kg)
 Takeoff       44,500lb(20,185kg)  23,810lb(10,800kg)   
 max T/O       68,000lb(30,844kg)  35,400lb(16,057kg)   51,900lb(23,540kg)
 fighter con.                                           34,700lb(15,740kg)
Wing Area      608sq ft(56.5sq m)  300sq ft(27.87sq m)  400sq ft
Load factor    +9g/-3g                                  7.5g 
Wing loading                       73lb/sq ft/          96lb/sq ft
                                   (30.81kg/sq m)
Combat thrust:                                          range given
 weight ratio  1.3:1               1.1:1                <1:1
Max speed      >Mach 2.5           >Mach 2              Mach 1.8
Ceiling        65,000ft(19,813m)   50,000ft(15,200m)    50,000ft(15,240m)
Range
 ext tanks     >2,500nm(4,630km)   >2,100nm(3,890km)    >2,000nm(3,706km)
 ext + FAST    >3,000nm(5,556km)
 tact. radius                      >500nm(925km)
 fighter                                                >400nm(740km)
 attack                                                 575nm(1,065km)
Internal fuel  13,455lb(6,103kg)   6,972lb(3,162kg)     10,900lb
Hardpoints     5                   9                    5     
Max ord. load  16,000lb(7,257kg)   20,450lb(9,280kg)    17,000lb(7,710kg)

Arrgg... ok, I found some stats for the F-18A/C in the article from Proceedings
I posted the 18A/C - 18E stats from a week or so ago. They don't have the
metric conversions. (I'm lazy.)

Apparently tip rails and conformal carrying aren't included in the hardpoint
stats. 

In case it isn't obvious from my posts, I think the F-18E is a stupid idea,
especially after seeing the stats that I posted recently. But Northrops old
F-18L is something like a Strike Hornet, it seems that modifying the naval
F-18 to the carrying capacity of the 18L would make a better strike aircraft.
The 18L is a two seater and has the Sparrows on the tips, new Sidewinder
pylons, and conformal carry all along the bottom and sides for ordinance.

Maybe a cross between the 18E and 18L with the new wing and engines, but the
electronics and stores arrangement of the 18L. Just my opinion.

Of course the F-15E has a much higher stores rating that the F-15C, but it
has ground attack as a primary mission, where as the C has air superiority.

The 16C has a better thrust to weight ratio as a more powerful F110 engine
was installed, and the last of the F-15s had F110s or PW22? (220, 229?) 
which are again a bit more powerful.

The main advantage is that the American engines are generally smaller and
have a lower specific fuel consumption.

Looking at the stats I really wonder why the F-16XL was never adopted...

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################


Newsgroups: sci.military