PAF F-16 pilots are advised to stay away from the LCA in the horizontal plane at high Mach numbers

[Thorough Pro]

LOL joke of the century

The relative performance characteristics of the LCA versus the Lockheed-Martin F-16A/B aircraft operated as the premier frontline fighter by the Pakistani Air Force.

This analysis is based on computationally evaluated performance characteristics models developed by the author of the blog. The aerodynamics and flight data for the two aircraft are obtained from the published sources listed in the references of this article. The LCA aerodynamics data is obtained from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) publications and the F-16A/B data is extrapolated from public-domain NASA publications on the aerodynamics of the YF-16 prototype.

Assumptions that went into the analysis include the empty weight of the LCA as being 6,500 Kg and that of the F-16A/B as ~8,500 kg. The LCA engine used was General Electric F404-GE-IN20 with a rated output of 54 kN and a rated TSFC of 0.77 lbm/lbf-Hr. Similarly, the engine assumed for the F-16A/B is the F110-GE-100 with a rated output 76 kN and TSFC of 0.763 lbm/lbf-hr. The internal fuel capacity of the LCA is assumed to be 3,034 Liters and the aircraft is assumed to be capable of carrying a centerline external drop tank of 725 Liters as well as one 1,200 Liter drop tanks on pylon stations 1 and 2, respectively. The cruise speed of both aircraft are evaluated for maximum range for each condition.

Whilst the LCA is now available in the air-force single-seat fighter (LCA), two-seat trainer (LCA-T) and navy (LCA-N) versions, the following analysis restricts itself to the single-seat air-force version only citing the lack of available information on the other two variants. However, performance for the other variants can be extrapolated from the single-seat air-force version, on which they are all based.


Aerodynamic comparisons and validations ::

The aerodynamic force coefficient comparison can be summarized in the form of lift-over-drag ratio (L/D) plotted versus lift coefficients (CL) for both the aircraft. The F-16A/B is generally seen to have a slightly higher peak L/D ratio (~11.0) compared with that of the LCA (~9.0) and the peak is attained at a slightly higher CL value of 0.40. The LCA attains this peak at a lower CL value of 0.20. The F-16A/B is generally a heavier aircraft than the LCA and larger in size, which explains why its design is tuned to attain the highest L/D ratio for a higher CL value compared to the much lighter and nimble LCA. The F-16A/B sustained-turn-rate (STR) data is corroborated with the NASA YF-16 flight test data as well. The author generated a series of maximum STR rates for the extrapolated NASA aerodynamic data and has plotted it against the available F-16A/B data for the same Mach number ranges. The comparison is significantly in line with each other, suggesting that the extrapolation models for the YF-16 data to that of the F-16A/B is acceptable for this analysis.


Performance Comparisons ::

The performance of the LCA at 20,000 ft altitude is extracted from the earlier article on its performance. The plot is modified, however, to show the F-16A/B data. The latter aircraft is evaluated for the same equivalent fuel mass as that carried by the LCA when it is armed with a centerline drop-tank and two large pylon drop tanks for a maximum of 6,159 L of fuel. The range attained by the two aircraft are summarized in the form of payload and range plots. The payload is evaluated from 0 to 10,000 kg and is assumed to include the pilot weight and all auxiliary equipment excluding fuel. The vertical axis of the plots is range, measured in kilometers. The combat-radius of the aircraft is considered to be ~40% of the range. For example, a range of 1,000 km corresponds to a combat radius of ~400 km. Plots are provided for the LCA in three conditions: clean (internal fuel only), combat (internal + centerline drop tank) and ferry (internal + centerline drop tank + 2 x wing drop tanks).


The F-16A/B has a generally higher performance engine than that used in the LCA with regard to fuel efficiency. As a result, it attains a higher range (1,930 km at 0 kg payload) versus the LCA (1,553 km at 0 kg payload) under similar conditions. As payload increases the LCA and the F-16A/B maintain this slight difference in range performance at high altitude.

In the horizontal plane STR, the LCA outperforms the F-16A/B at high Mach numbers and the F-16C/D under all Mach number regimes. The nimble LCA can out-turn an F-16A/B at higher Mach numbers and an F-16C/D by a significant margin at lower Mach numbers, which are encountered in a turning fight within visual range. As Mach number increases, the turn rates lower for the F-16 models at a faster rate than that for the LCA with a crossover point at Mach 0.65. At all higher Mach numbers, the difference in turn rates increases substantially once more. The LCA can also pull higher “gee” forces at high Mach numbers than the F-16A/B in the horizontal plane. At high Mach numbers, the F-16 pilot remains at a significant disadvantage in the horizontal plane. Newer “Block” F-16 models only worsen this gap in performance between themselves and the LCA. They are heavier and even less nimble than the early “block” models currently operated by the Pakistani Air Force.


Conclusions ::

The F-16 pilots are advised to stay away from the LCA in the horizontal plane at high Mach numbers. At lower Mach numbers, they can fight the LCA on an equal footing. If they get into a turning fight with an LCA at high Mach numbers, the LCA will win.

Part-II of this analysis will focus on the maneuvers in the vertical plane.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This article has been written by Adarsh exclusively for www.DefenceNews.in
Location: INDIA
Qualification: BE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.defencenews.in/article/P...he-horizontal-plane-at-high-Mach-numbers-5350

 

[Bad Guy]

1000+ K8 Vs 2 prototype Teja , enough said

2 prototypes only? Good to know that.
Next time, check actual figures. Anyway, pick Kiran or Sitara for comparing with K-8. It can't be compared with a fighter aircraft, be it LCS or anyone else.

 

[Sri]

This is an old article done by Vivek Ahuja very informative... Here is the link to his blog
http://thebetacoefficient.blogspot.in/2015/04/lca-tejas-versus-f-16-in-combat-part-i.html

 

[Bad Guy]

Damn this thread got off topic quickly but they're right F16's are nothing infront of teja

Wah u got a +ve rating on this

If people with such a knowledge level are there, what else gonna happen to thread. It says, LCA has advantage over F-16 in horizontal plane and high Mach numbers and look, you guys started trolling without discussing the issue.

You know, pakistan has "warned US" that if they don't get F-16 with subsidy, they'll bjy JFTs which is at par with F-16 according to PDF pakistanis..
@PARIKRAMA @Ankit Kumar 002
They will only troll.
please. through some light on the issue. What's this matter.

 

[Majet Raha]

One thing that i noticed, these so called 'Senior member' 'Elite member' from pakistani group has no brain. No one talks on topic, everyone trolls.
No one really cares about the article, and just trolling. And this is not new. I see Indian experts trying to teach you and bring some sense in every thread but you will never learn.

On topic
Entire post talks about STR, turning radius and fuel economy against the payload carrying capacity. Also this is not a thread against F16 by any means, this machine proved its mettle all over the world. It says Tejas (and please guys use correct names for god sake, you look more stupid than you actually are when you use wrong name) is more nimble and hence the advantage on higher mach, but at lower mach both planes are equal or F-16 may have some advantage.

So read first.

 

[Vapnope]

Tejas already have outperformed every Aircraft in the world. What is next? Tejas VS F 22 ?

 

[GURU DUTT]

Tejas already have outperformed every Aircraft in the world. What is next? Tejas VS F 22 ?

and i think some one was talking about "trolling" .... oops my bad have a nice day sir

 

[Vapnope]

and i think some one was talking about "trolling" .... oops my bad have a nice day sir

I mean why not? Any aircraft can be compared with any aircraft and still be a winner based on some twisted scenario, that might never happen. NO?

 

[GURU DUTT]

I mean why not? Any aircraft can be compared with any aircraft and still be a winner based on some twisted scenario, that might never happen. NO?

i guess you are intellegent and experienced enof to know that tejas is/was convied as a light point defnce interceptor not and air sureioryty fighter i myself almost fell down laughing when i saw this stupid article

F16 avoiding tejas is like a pro westler avoinding a school level wrestler

that bieng said its still not clear what is actual range and comabt radius of tejas with a single centerline drop tank and 4XBVRs and 2XWVRs and some fanboys want to beleve it can take on the best ever fighter jet F16 funny na

tejas still not got FOC but even in its IOC format with HMDS+EL2032MMR+Derby+Python5 tested on it with IFR and OBOGS on board its still more capable than some up coming BLK2 &3 variants of a elite fighter

 

[Dazzler]

Another crap thread, what's going on at PDF these days??

@Manticore @waz @Oscar ??

 

[Tipu7]

This article has been written by Adarsh exclusively for www.DefenceNews.in
Location: INDIA
Qualification: BE

LCA again?

This time challenging F16 instead of Jf17?

What next? F35?

 

[FLIR]

If F-16 can handle EF2000 or RAFALE it can handle any aircraft in dogfight including RAPTORS!!!

 

[Arsalan]

The relative performance characteristics of the LCA versus the Lockheed-Martin F-16A/B aircraft operated as the premier frontline fighter by the Pakistani Air Force.

This analysis is based on computationally evaluated performance characteristics models developed by the author of the blog. The aerodynamics and flight data for the two aircraft are obtained from the published sources listed in the references of this article. The LCA aerodynamics data is obtained from the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) publications and the F-16A/B data is extrapolated from public-domain NASA publications on the aerodynamics of the YF-16 prototype.

Assumptions that went into the analysis include the empty weight of the LCA as being 6,500 Kg and that of the F-16A/B as ~8,500 kg. The LCA engine used was General Electric F404-GE-IN20 with a rated output of 54 kN and a rated TSFC of 0.77 lbm/lbf-Hr. Similarly, the engine assumed for the F-16A/B is the F110-GE-100 with a rated output 76 kN and TSFC of 0.763 lbm/lbf-hr. The internal fuel capacity of the LCA is assumed to be 3,034 Liters and the aircraft is assumed to be capable of carrying a centerline external drop tank of 725 Liters as well as one 1,200 Liter drop tanks on pylon stations 1 and 2, respectively. The cruise speed of both aircraft are evaluated for maximum range for each condition.

Whilst the LCA is now available in the air-force single-seat fighter (LCA), two-seat trainer (LCA-T) and navy (LCA-N) versions, the following analysis restricts itself to the single-seat air-force version only citing the lack of available information on the other two variants. However, performance for the other variants can be extrapolated from the single-seat air-force version, on which they are all based.


Aerodynamic comparisons and validations ::

The aerodynamic force coefficient comparison can be summarized in the form of lift-over-drag ratio (L/D) plotted versus lift coefficients (CL) for both the aircraft. The F-16A/B is generally seen to have a slightly higher peak L/D ratio (~11.0) compared with that of the LCA (~9.0) and the peak is attained at a slightly higher CL value of 0.40. The LCA attains this peak at a lower CL value of 0.20. The F-16A/B is generally a heavier aircraft than the LCA and larger in size, which explains why its design is tuned to attain the highest L/D ratio for a higher CL value compared to the much lighter and nimble LCA. The F-16A/B sustained-turn-rate (STR) data is corroborated with the NASA YF-16 flight test data as well. The author generated a series of maximum STR rates for the extrapolated NASA aerodynamic data and has plotted it against the available F-16A/B data for the same Mach number ranges. The comparison is significantly in line with each other, suggesting that the extrapolation models for the YF-16 data to that of the F-16A/B is acceptable for this analysis.


Performance Comparisons ::

The performance of the LCA at 20,000 ft altitude is extracted from the earlier article on its performance. The plot is modified, however, to show the F-16A/B data. The latter aircraft is evaluated for the same equivalent fuel mass as that carried by the LCA when it is armed with a centerline drop-tank and two large pylon drop tanks for a maximum of 6,159 L of fuel. The range attained by the two aircraft are summarized in the form of payload and range plots. The payload is evaluated from 0 to 10,000 kg and is assumed to include the pilot weight and all auxiliary equipment excluding fuel. The vertical axis of the plots is range, measured in kilometers. The combat-radius of the aircraft is considered to be ~40% of the range. For example, a range of 1,000 km corresponds to a combat radius of ~400 km. Plots are provided for the LCA in three conditions: clean (internal fuel only), combat (internal + centerline drop tank) and ferry (internal + centerline drop tank + 2 x wing drop tanks).


The F-16A/B has a generally higher performance engine than that used in the LCA with regard to fuel efficiency. As a result, it attains a higher range (1,930 km at 0 kg payload) versus the LCA (1,553 km at 0 kg payload) under similar conditions. As payload increases the LCA and the F-16A/B maintain this slight difference in range performance at high altitude.

In the horizontal plane STR, the LCA outperforms the F-16A/B at high Mach numbers and the F-16C/D under all Mach number regimes. The nimble LCA can out-turn an F-16A/B at higher Mach numbers and an F-16C/D by a significant margin at lower Mach numbers, which are encountered in a turning fight within visual range. As Mach number increases, the turn rates lower for the F-16 models at a faster rate than that for the LCA with a crossover point at Mach 0.65. At all higher Mach numbers, the difference in turn rates increases substantially once more. The LCA can also pull higher “gee” forces at high Mach numbers than the F-16A/B in the horizontal plane. At high Mach numbers, the F-16 pilot remains at a significant disadvantage in the horizontal plane. Newer “Block” F-16 models only worsen this gap in performance between themselves and the LCA. They are heavier and even less nimble than the early “block” models currently operated by the Pakistani Air Force.


Conclusions ::

The F-16 pilots are advised to stay away from the LCA in the horizontal plane at high Mach numbers. At lower Mach numbers, they can fight the LCA on an equal footing. If they get into a turning fight with an LCA at high Mach numbers, the LCA will win.

Part-II of this analysis will focus on the maneuvers in the vertical plane.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This article has been written by Adarsh exclusively for www.DefenceNews.in
Location: INDIA
Qualification: BE
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://www.defencenews.in/article/P...he-horizontal-plane-at-high-Mach-numbers-5350

WHO advised who here?
The title make it sound like PAF instructor asked PAF pilots to fear LCA That is not the case

Kindly please note that this is an article by an Indian member who is, out of generosity advising PAF F16 to stay away from LCA. Now is he being generous toward IAF or PAF is anybody's guess.

Furthermore, what confuses me is how can PAF F16s come even close to LCA in the first place? I don't think they would be allowed to land in India

@Bratva @araz @Windjammer @WAJsal @notorious_eagle

 

[GURU DUTT]

WHO advised who here?
The title make it sound like PAF instructor asked PAF pilots to fear LCA That is not the case

Kindly please note that this is an article by an Indian member who is, out of generosity advising PAF F16 to stay away from LCA. Now is he being generous toward IAF or PAF is anybody's guess.

Furthermore, what confuses me is how can PAF F16s come even close to LCA in the first place? I don't think they would be allowed to land in India

@Bratva @araz @Windjammer @WAJsal @notorious_eagle

funny isnt it F16 pilots told to avoid LCA

well the writer is a fool and OP i guess is a kid and a bit too emotional and patriotic

if he was a bit mature he(writer) should have known LCA is a point defnce fighter not an air superiorty fighter and in IAF that job is already assigned to Mig29s and Su30MKI

 

[SQ8]

BAseless and flamebait thread.

CLOSED.