• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

IRIS Simulations F-20 Tigershark problem

Switchblade408

Switchblade408

Members +
So, I have experienced this happening every time that I attempt to break 60,000 feet with the IRIS F-20. Once I reach the point of about 58,000 feet, the engine will cut out. I won't even be in afterburner most of the time. Am I just flying too high?
 
Could be. Maybe it's just my skewed logic, but I thought that I would be able to coax 60,000 feet out of an aircraft with a climb rate over 50,000 fpm.
 
Hi.. I'm the guilty party for the flight model on that.. Henrystreet is correct. 55 is the maximum controllable altitude you can get too, and even then youll be wallowing like a beached whale.. Or should be if memory serves me correctly.. The F-20 was a bit of an anomoly. It had an intercptors high spee and power, and the extreme maneuverability of the experimentals. Hell of a climb rate for sure, but aerodynamics limited its capabilities. In the end, i dont know what caused them to cancel the tigershark program, but most like it was that it didnt bring that much more to the table than they already had in the F5..
 
Switchblade408 said:
Or LM already had made the F-16 a financial success, and Northrop couldn't cope. I don't know.
Click to expand...

At the time the F-16 was a General Dynamics project, Lockheed would not acquire the project until 1993.

I think the F-20's main problem was it was viewed as an upgrade to the 1950's F-5 design while the F-16 was viewed as more advanced. If the USAF had bought some it might have had a chance but since the Tigershark cost almost as much as an F-16, export customers did not want a less advanced design when they could get the F-16.
 
The reason the F-20 wasn't put into production is the USAF wanted to drive down the cost of the F-16 by making everyone buy them (The more you build the lower the unit cost, over time). The F-20 actually had some more advanced technology at the time than the F-16 and the production model would have had a larger wing. However, other countries wouldn't buy an aircraft the USAF didn't buy (If the USAF buys it you know there will be plenty of spare parts available into the future) as the USAF chose a stripped down lower cost F-16, that was actually mostly useless, instead of the F-20, as for the Air Defense Fighter program. After the F-20 program was cancelled, IIRC, the ADF F-16s were quickly retired. The fact is, the F-16 was overkill for what many countries required and the F-20 would have had lower operating costs. Having said that, the F-16 is still one of the greatest fighter designs ever, IMHO.

Regarding the service ceiling, it's the height at which the aircraft can no longer climb more than 100fpm for propeller driven aircraft and 500 fpm for jets, IIRC, at cruise/continuous power settings. In afterburner, the aircraft should be able to attain higher altitudes, which is why so many fighters can zoom climb to 80000 ft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top