I vaguely remember hearing that the Falcon and the Hornet were the only U.S. fighter jet’s that had the ability to accelerate while flying vertically. I did a search on this and only found a couple sites that claim the F-16 can do this but not that it and/or the F-18 could do it as well. I imagine the F-22 Raptor would have this ability also. Does anyone know of a reliable site that makes this claim? I mentioned it to a buddy last night and now, of course, he wants proof. I’ve really got to pay more attention to what I say to this guy.
On a not so related note: We were also watching “The Perfect Storm” during the scene where a modified C-130(“Hurricane Hunter”) was flying into the eye wall of Hurrican Grace and it got me thinking. Is it possible for a plane flying into a wind with wind speed of say, 130 m.p.h. to be physically moving backward but have enough wind going over the wing to give it enough lift make it seem like it’s flying foward? or is this impossible?
Hmm. I wasn’t aware that they could, but I guess its possible with the correct payload. The thrust has to be more than their weight in order to do that. The F15a-c can as well… but I’m sure that will vary with payload etc.
As for Russian fighters, I would suspect the SU27 can too
Interesting…I coulda sworn once hearing at the Chicago Air and Water Show that the F-15 was the only plane able to accelarate vertically. The Su-27 is a good bet, and I’m willing to water that the MiG-25 Foxbat might be able to do so as well.
What you’re asking is if a plane can have negative groundspeed, and sure, it can.
Except for gravity and lift, all forces on a plane in flight are relative to the surrounding air. Whether the air moves relative to the ground is of no importance, unless you’re close to it, of course.
ok…i gotta get out of this habit of posting first, and researching later… anyhow, this web site says the f-15 was the first operational plane whose thrust exceeded its weight…so probably the fact i heard that the f-15 is the only plane to accelerate veritiocally was true at one time.
anyhow, basically you’re wrong if you said the f-16 and f-18 are the only planes to accelerate vertically. the f-15 certainly does this.
As bernse mentioned this is a pretty straightforward calculation. The engines have to produce more thrust than the plane weighs.
By this definition the F-18e can fly straight-up (or more specifically accelerate straight-up) under certain but not all flight configurations.
According to this website the F-18e (latest model) has two engines producing 22,000 pounds of thrust each for 44,000 total. The plane’s empty weight is about 30,000 pounds. So with a little gas and a pilot it could do this. At it’s maximum takeoff weight of about 66,000 pounds you can forget it.
Besides the F-18 lots of planes can do this…
The Russian Su-35 Super Flanker is a lot bigger than the F-18 but seems to have a broader window for going straight-up. 61,000+ pounds of thrust pushing a 40,648 pound plane (empty) and 74,956 (max) weight.
The F-15 Eagle:
50,000 pounds of thrust
28,600 pounds (empty)
68,000 pounds (max)
I’m sure you can find a lot of others just doing the math. At a guess I’d look at the Eurofighter, Joint Strike Fighter, MiG-29 Fulcrum and Mirage 4000 just to name a few.
I work at the general aviation facility an Baltimore/Washington International airport and there in a Northrup Grumman ramp on the other side of the field and they have some pretty funky planes over there. I could have sworn I saw a Talon (which I think is an F-22) take off vertically (well, not take off like the shuttle, but accelerate vertically). It looks very lite compared to an F16 or 18 so it seems conceivable.
Anyway, an aircraft can accelerate vertically if its engine thrust exceeds its weight.
So, the F-16 - nope.
*F-15 - oh, yeah.
*F-22 - yes.
*Mig-29 - yep.
*Su-27 - think so, but I can’t find a recent reference.
*Mig-25 - no way. Yes, it can go really fast, but it takes a long time to get there. Think old Cadillac with a big v8.
*F-18 I’m not sure (very few references on current Navy aircraft), but I don’t believe so.
*SR-71 - no. 2 engines. 32500 lbs thrust each. Empty weight (ie no fuel, not flyable) of the SR-71 is 67500 lbs.
Gross weight 172000 lbs (full fuel, sensors, crew)
Weights used are of course operating weights - I assume it’s generally minimal combat load, depending on the source.
According to this site the thrust of the F-16 is 27,000 lbs. and the empty weight is 16,234 lbs. So as long as you dont add more than 10,000+ lbs. of fuel, armament, crew, etc. it should be able to accelerate vertically. In fact, I was at an air show at Hanscom A.F.B. a few years ago and watched an F-16 come in level at about 500 ft. and go vertical to an altitude of about 20,000 ft. I can’t say for sure if he was accelerating while doing this but it certainly appeared so.
From what I’ve read, the term ballistic refers to the ability to accelerate vertically. At least, that was my impression from reading Aviation Week and Space Technology. So when I heard the term in the movie Top Gun, I already knew what it meant. One of the characters said “go ballistic,” meaning to climb vertically.
Since then, the phrase “go ballistic” has been in general use to refer to a temper outburst.
Point taken. My reference for the USAF aircraft is the 2001 USAF Almanac published by the Air Force Association, and it only lists empty weight and gross weight - a bit more research seems to indicate that what they call gross weight I would call maximum take off weight.
CurtC: I don’t think you’re quite correct on “Go ballistic”. I understood it to mean to proceed on a ballistic (as opposed to conventionally controlled with elevators, spoilers, rudder, etc.) flight path. That is, if (say) you had a fighter and dove to pick up speed, then pulled upwards and added all available power, you’d have the ability to fly —well, proceed along that path— until your momentum ran out and you began a descent.
Because this is like the path of a bullet, cannonball, or other similar projectile, it’s called a ballistic flight path.
So when you “go ballistic”, you’re powered by your momentum and on a path of great force that is not easily altered.
I have heard --but don’t know if it is true-- that when the US began U-2 overflights, the Soviets tried to intercept by trying to fly ballistic intercept paths. I gathered that this would send their aircraft beyond their engines’ limits to function effectively, and their flight control surfaces to control the yaw, pitch, and roll of the aircraft effectively. You can imagine being in such an aircraft, shooting upwards while your engine sputters and/or dies, and your ability to control becomes like a hog on ice. I believe they lost a number of aircraft and pilots attempting U-2 intercepts.
I also understand that the NF-104 was equipped with thrusters to keep it in control while it shot to extreme altitudes balistically. The engine was adapted to run and not die at extreme altitudes. I don’t know how high it eventually got, but it used a ballistic flight path to get there.
My flight instructor claims to have “hovered” a Cessna 150 in a very strong headwind in Arizona. Why his judgement allowed him to get into in this situation is a better question…
Actually, the Talon is the T-38 - it was developed in the same program as the F-5 Freedom Fighter (N-156 development program). The T-38 is a supersonic trainer still in service after 40 years.
