How Fast Can The F-16 Fly?

I was working on grain elevator last month when 2 jets flew over followed by sonic booms. I wonder if the F16 is what they were.

A co worker insists they were A10’s “because they go Mach 2”.. lol
Of course. Because A-10s are the most awesomest airplanes ever with a killer gun! :sneaky:
 
I thought I posted this in another thread, perhaps not.

My favorite F-14. Victory* 211. Buno 161164.

Shown here about to launch on a combat flight in May, 1991. It had my name on the side at the time of this photo and barely visible under my name is a fish with a slash through it, long story.

She was equipped with TF-30 engines, but there were many versions of the TF-30. The standard engines in an F-14 were de-rated versions, known as P414A. The thrust was lowered to improve reliability in the operating environment of fighter aviation; throttle slams, high AOA, low speed, high speed, high G and the P414A had a belt of reinforcement around the turbine so that if it failed, which happened periodically under the abuse they received, the parts would be less likely to damage the airplane.

But this particular jet had P7 engine cores, the updated engines from the F-111**. It just seemed faster than the rest. It was ready to run whenever I went into AB. In zone two (of five zones), it was the jet that would run at 700+ indicated, supersonic, with a full combat load of missiles, jamming pod, camera pod, tanks and weapons rails. Just like it was shown here. No slicked off stunt plane, like the F-16 in the video, or that airplane I took to Mach 2+, but a fully loaded, real world, combat jet.

My wingman, usually from VF-41, would have to use zone 4 or more to keep up with her. I always ran my wing man low on gas because this particular jet was just plain fast.



*Victory was the radio callsign for VF-84. Every squadron had a navy-assigned radio call sign. For Navy agencies, we would use squadron call sign and nose number. In this case 211. So, on the radio, this jet was “Victory 211”. How we got the coolest fighter call sign ever is unknown to me, but saying “Victory” on the radio just plain warmed my heart.

**I found this out just a couple years ago in talking with one of the engine mechanics that used to work on it. He was in VF-84 during my time there and we still keep in touch. He kept his notebook, and told me that 211 had the P7 engines, and that he had to tweak, them a bit when the engines were installed and tested.
34B86480-2475-4B5F-8054-BC7780AEF01E.jpeg
 
I thought I posted this in another thread, perhaps not.

My favorite F-14. Victory* 211. Buno 161164.

Shown here about to launch on a combat flight in May, 1991. It had my name on the side at the time of this photo and barely visible under my name is a fish with a slash through it, long story.

She was equipped with TF-30 engines, but there were many versions of the TF-30. The standard engines in an F-14 were de-rated versions, known as P414A. The thrust was lowered to improve reliability in the operating environment of fighter aviation; throttle slams, high AOA, low speed, high speed, high G and the P414A had a belt of reinforcement around the turbine so that if it failed, which happened periodically under the abuse they received, the parts would be less likely to damage the airplane.

But this particular jet had P7 engine cores, the updated engines from the F-111**. It just seemed faster than the rest. It was ready to run whenever I went into AB. In zone two (of five zones), it was the jet that would run at 700+ indicated, supersonic, with a full combat load of missiles, jamming pod, camera pod, tanks and weapons rails. Just like it was shown here. No slicked off stunt plane, like the F-16 in the video, or that airplane I took to Mach 2+, but a fully loaded, real world, combat jet.

My wingman, usually from VF-41, would have to use zone 4 or more to keep up with her. I always ran my wing man low on gas because this particular jet was just plain fast.



*Victory was the radio callsign for VF-84. Every squadron had a navy-assigned radio call sign. For Navy agencies, we would use squadron call sign and nose number. In this case 211. So, on the radio, this jet was “Victory 211”. How we got the coolest fighter call sign ever is unknown to me, but saying “Victory” on the radio just plain warmed my heart.

**I found this out just a couple years ago in talking with one of the engine mechanics that used to work on it. He was in VF-84 during my time there and we still keep in touch. He kept his notebook, and told me that 211 had the P7 engines, and that he had to tweak, them a bit when the engines were installed and tested. View attachment 75595
Wow, that's cool. I didn't know there were hotter or better versions of that engine. I would have bet the farm that your favorite jet would have been F-110 powered. To this day, the coolest demo I ever saw was an F-14D at the Dayton Air Show with the GE engines. What a beast that thing was!
 
I was working on grain elevator last month when 2 jets flew over followed by sonic booms. I wonder if the F16 is what they were.

A co worker insists they were A10’s “because they go Mach 2”.. lol

Back in high school (1980s) a classmate insisted that the super secret "stealth fighter" that was in testing must be able to do mach 3.

The one thing I can't quite understand is why there are so many representations of the F-117 as doing things that it was never really designed for. Like in Family Guy where they showed them as some sort of super air combat machine firing missiles at other aircraft, or in Executive Decision where they supposedly used one to sneak a special forces team into a jetliner.
 
Back in high school (1980s) a classmate insisted that the super secret "stealth fighter" that was in testing must be able to do mach 3.

The one thing I can't quite understand is why there are so many representations of the F-117 as doing things that it was never really designed for. Like in Family Guy where they showed them as some sort of super air combat machine firing missiles at other aircraft, or in Executive Decision where they supposedly used one to sneak a special forces team into a jetliner.
Part of it was the Air Force intentionally misrepresenting the aircraft before it was officially acknowledged.
The classification of the aircraft as a fighter was disinformation. With no fighter capability whatsoever, it isn't an F-117A, it really is a B-117A. I would guess there were 2 primary reasons for this.
1. Tactical Air Command (TAC) was the command that was responsible for employing (it was too secret for the combat commands to have widespread knowledge of the aircraft), equipping and training for the aircraft. TAC was commanded by and staffed with fighter pilots. Nobody would care much about a bomber and even a stealth one would face an uphill fight for funding and other resources.
2. Special teams went among the Air Force fighter squadrons and recruited the absolute best pilots (and a few WSOs for mission planning) for a super secret highly selective program. If these top pilots were told they were volunteering to go to bombers instead of stealth fighters they would have laughed the teams out of the building. A classic bait and switch.

While not the plan,, there was another major benefit. The Soviets had to plan against a stealth fighter even though none existed. Senior Soviet leaders weren't willing to accept that we designated a bomber as a fighter. Our plan wasn't to fake out the Soviets, but it certainly was a bonus.

Official name was the Nighthawk. The rest of the Air Force called them Cockroaches. They were slow, non-maneuverable and they only came out at night.
 
Wow, that's cool. I didn't know there were hotter or better versions of that engine. I would have bet the farm that your favorite jet would have been F-110 powered. To this day, the coolest demo I ever saw was an F-14D at the Dayton Air Show with the GE engines. What a beast that thing was!
The -B and -D models were a huge improvement over the -A models, for sure.

Even over that particular jet, that just seems to run “right”.

Because she had my name on the side, and was my “trusty steed” for multiple combat missions, she will always be my favorite.
 
Last edited:
Part of it was the Air Force intentionally misrepresenting the aircraft before it was officially acknowledged.
The classification of the aircraft as a fighter was disinformation. With no fighter capability whatsoever, it isn't an F-117A, it really is a B-117A. I would guess there were 2 primary reasons for this.
1. Tactical Air Command (TAC) was the command that was responsible for employing (it was too secret for the combat commands to have widespread knowledge of the aircraft), equipping and training for the aircraft. TAC was commanded by and staffed with fighter pilots. Nobody would care much about a bomber and even a stealth one would face an uphill fight for funding and other resources.
2. Special teams went among the Air Force fighter squadrons and recruited the absolute best pilots (and a few WSOs for mission planning) for a super secret highly selective program. If these top pilots were told they were volunteering to go to bombers instead of stealth fighters they would have laughed the teams out of the building. A classic bait and switch.

While not the plan,, there was another major benefit. The Soviets had to plan against a stealth fighter even though none existed. Senior Soviet leaders weren't willing to accept that we designated a bomber as a fighter. Our plan wasn't to fake out the Soviets, but it certainly was a bonus.

Official name was the Nighthawk. The rest of the Air Force called them Cockroaches. They were slow, non-maneuverable and they only came out at night.

I heard that they were quite maneuverable considering what it was, especially considering the rather ludicrous design that looked like a triangular brick that had no ailerons.



But I think they would be better described as tactical attack aircraft, although I don't recall the USAF having anything with an A designation since they had the A-7.
 
The -B and -D models were a huge improvement over the -A models, for sure.

Even over that particular jet, that just seems to run “right”.

Because she had my name on the side, and was my “trusty steed” for multiple combat missions, she will a,ways be my favorite.

I was reading about the improved GE engine back in the mid-80s, but couldn't figure out why more of them weren't installed since the TF30 seemed to be rather notorious. I get that the Air Force didn't care in the F-111. I found this, and I specifically remember reading about John Lehman doing carrier landings in the Navy Reserve while he was Secretary of the Navy.

Navy Secretary John F. Lehman Jr. charged yesterday that the jet engines used in the $20 million F14 Tomcat fighters since 1971 are so "terrible" that they have caused 24 accidents, including one last weekend in the Arabian Sea.​
Capt. Lee Tillotson, the Navy's F14 program coordinator and a former wing commander on the USS Enterprise, also said, "I don't think there's any question" that the problem engine creates a greater risk for pilots in combat because of "a very high probability of engine stalling."​
"From the very start you essentially teach the pilots to fly the engine as a priority over flying the airplane," Tillotson said in an interview. "The pilot has to be very aware of what he does with the throttle at all times."​
Although problems with the $2.5 million TF30 engine, built by the Pratt & Whitney division of United Technologies Corp., have been recognized almost since the first F14s were built, Lehman, a pilot, raised the issue again with an unusually strident statement before a closed congressional hearing.​
The TF30 engine "in the F14 is probably the worst engine-airplane mismatch we have had in many years. The TF30 engine is just a terrible engine and has accounted for 28.2 percent of all F14 crashes," Lehman told a House Appropriations subcommittee last spring in testimony that was just released.​

I heard that the GE F110 could do a carrier launch of a Tomcat without afterburners.
 
Well, I guess compared to a B-52 or a 747 the F-117 could be considered quite maneuverable. Compared to any other fighter or attack aircraft, not so much. There was a reason the pilots called it the Wobblin Goblin.
I guess it could have been used as an attack aircraft, but with a bomb load of 2, no gun, and survivable only when flown at night, I think the B designation is more appropriate.
When I think of attack aircraft, I think of the A-1, A-4, A-7 and A-10, all aircraft capable of Close Air Support of ground troops. The F-117 would be hard pressed to be effective in this role.
 
Well, I guess compared to a B-52 or a 747 the F-117 could be considered quite maneuverable. Compared to any other fighter or attack aircraft, not so much. There was a reason the pilots called it the Wobblin Goblin.
I guess it could have been used as an attack aircraft, but with a bomb load of 2, no gun, and survivable only when flown at night, I think the B designation is more appropriate.
When I think of attack aircraft, I think of the A-1, A-4, A-7 and A-10, all aircraft capable of Close Air Support of ground troops. The F-117 would be hard pressed to be effective in this role.

OK - forgot about the A-10. I'm not sure about the A-4 being solely for close air support. It was a lightweight bomb truck. Then there was the A-6, which was a midweight bomb truck. I thought the idea was supposed to be that they tend to drop their ordinance a lot closer to the target than a bomber would.
 
The -B and -D models were a huge improvement over the -A models, for sure.

Even over that particular jet, that just seems to run “right”.

Because she had my name on the side, and was my “trusty steed” for multiple combat missions, she will always be my favorite.
I can sure understand that! How cool to have your name on that bird!
 
Astro,

When they talk about Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR), in a jet engine, is that the ratio of the pressure of the gasses coming out the back making thrust, in relationship to the air pressure being rammed into the hot section by the compressor? If so, how much difference is there? And does it vary much on a non afterburner engine? Could a pilot ever get it screwed up, to where it blew out the front, like when a compressor stall happens?
 
Astro,

When they talk about Engine Pressure Ratio (EPR), in a jet engine, is that the ratio of the pressure of the gasses coming out the back making thrust, in relationship to the air pressure being rammed into the hot section by the compressor? If so, how much difference is there? And does it vary much on a non afterburner engine? Could a pilot ever get it screwed up, to where it blew out the front, like when a compressor stall happens?
Hey Bill - EPR, as you said, engine pressure ratio, is exactly that, pressure in the tailpipe over pressure in the inlet.

Max thrust on an airliner is anywhere from 1.4 to 1.7 EPR but that value depends a lot on both design of the engine, and the location of the probes that measure that value. It changes with altitude and speed, of course, along with RPM/Power setting.

The TF-30, as installed in the F-14 originally, had EPR gauges in the cockpit. They were gone by the time I flew the airplane, so I don’t know the F-14/TF-30 EPR range.

The EPR values fluctuate tremendously during a compressor stall, which changes pressure at both ends of the engine.

I’ve seen lots of compressor stalls with the TF-30, but without an EPR gauge, I can’t tell you what the values would be.

In the airline simulators, the EPR fluctuate, often going below 1.0, during a compressor stall. I believe that to be an accurate representation of a stall.
 

How Fast Can The F-16 Fly? The F16 can fly much faster in a dive than in a climb. 1 of the 3 things I know about planes. Saving the other two for later.​

 
Last edited:
I never realized it, but when you look at that F-14 sitting on that flight deck, that is a BIG airplane! especially compared to the pilots. Even the canopy is huge. Not to mention the tire on the main gear. It looks like it just about comes up to that guy's waistline.
 
I never realized it, but when you look at that F-14 sitting on that flight deck, that is a BIG airplane! especially compared to the pilots. Even the canopy is huge. Not to mention the tire on the main gear. It looks like it just about comes up to that guy's waistline.

It was designed to carry that massive radar and those extremely heavy Phoenix missiles.

The F-111B was supposed to do that, but it was a real turd. It just wasn't maneuverable at all.
 
I thought I posted this in another thread, perhaps not.

My favorite F-14. Victory* 211. Buno 161164.

Shown here about to launch on a combat flight in May, 1991. It had my name on the side at the time of this photo and barely visible under my name is a fish with a slash through it, long story.

She was equipped with TF-30 engines, but there were many versions of the TF-30. The standard engines in an F-14 were de-rated versions, known as P414A. The thrust was lowered to improve reliability in the operating environment of fighter aviation; throttle slams, high AOA, low speed, high speed, high G and the P414A had a belt of reinforcement around the turbine so that if it failed, which happened periodically under the abuse they received, the parts would be less likely to damage the airplane.

But this particular jet had P7 engine cores, the updated engines from the F-111**. It just seemed faster than the rest. It was ready to run whenever I went into AB. In zone two (of five zones), it was the jet that would run at 700+ indicated, supersonic, with a full combat load of missiles, jamming pod, camera pod, tanks and weapons rails. Just like it was shown here. No slicked off stunt plane, like the F-16 in the video, or that airplane I took to Mach 2+, but a fully loaded, real world, combat jet.

My wingman, usually from VF-41, would have to use zone 4 or more to keep up with her. I always ran my wing man low on gas because this particular jet was just plain fast.



*Victory was the radio callsign for VF-84. Every squadron had a navy-assigned radio call sign. For Navy agencies, we would use squadron call sign and nose number. In this case 211. So, on the radio, this jet was “Victory 211”. How we got the coolest fighter call sign ever is unknown to me, but saying “Victory” on the radio just plain warmed my heart.

**I found this out just a couple years ago in talking with one of the engine mechanics that used to work on it. He was in VF-84 during my time there and we still keep in touch. He kept his notebook, and told me that 211 had the P7 engines, and that he had to tweak, them a bit when the engines were installed and tested. View attachment 75595
Hey, Astro, I'm on a F4 fan page on Facebook and someone posted this photo of a model F4 the same day you posted this pic... The previous Victory 211! 🙂
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1636411828303.jpg
    FB_IMG_1636411828303.jpg
    38.2 KB · Views: 27
Back
Top