F-16 and (Mitsubushi) F2

GTX · February 15, 2009, 11:12:46 PM

I have plans to do a F-16 Block 50+ (might even make it a Block 60+ as an EF-16G. This would be a two seat model with CFTs, dorsal spine, Northrop Grumman AN/APG-80 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar derivative plus all the jamming pods etc from the EA-18G. Essentially the story is that following the retirement of the EA-6Bs, the USAF pulls its people out of the joint Sqns and reinstates the capability lost with the EF-111 but with a platform at least equal to the EA-18G Growler. Any ideas on a "Growler" type name?

Regards,

Greg

Daryl J. · February 16, 2009, 12:09:08 AM

Greg,

Baselisk. Only a few can even hear it.

Daryl J., tossing out a name to consider

Shasper · February 16, 2009, 08:02:33 PM

Saur, F16.net is your friend:

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions.html

Shas

ChernayaAkula · February 17, 2009, 06:42:51 PM

Quote from: Rafael on February 15, 2009, 08:38:54 AM
<...> Imaginary-wings: http://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/ <...>

Awesome link, Rafa!

Some jolly good stuff to be found there!

Desertpilot · February 23, 2009, 10:49:34 PM

This is the "Super Viper" I am working on over at What If Modelers...

Have a look here and let me know what you all think: http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=173057

Thanks

Shasper · February 24, 2009, 02:13:07 PM

Looks like an F-2 did the dirty with a Ching-Kuo . . . me likey!

Shas

dy031101 · April 22, 2009, 12:47:17 PM

Does anyone have close-up pictures of the nozzle of J79-GE-17X/J79-GE-119?

It would help enormously with a current 3DS Max project of mine.

Thanks in advance.

Shasper · April 22, 2009, 04:08:46 PM

Dy, its the same as the F404

Shas

dy031101 · April 22, 2009, 04:21:42 PM

As in one used by the legacy Hornets (I have to be sure)?

Shasper · April 22, 2009, 06:35:29 PM

Correct

dy031101 · May 10, 2009, 11:02:11 AM

The recently-acquired "American Secret Projects" book shed some light into the configurations of the naval F-16 proposals.

I'd like to concentrate on the Model 1601, which is said to have the most commonality with the YF-16.

77.5cm fuselage stretch forward and 40.6cm stretch aft of the wings, increased tailfin and tailplane areas, and wingtip Sidewinder launchers as per YF-16......

The variations were all done as compared to the YF-16. So given the changes from the YF-16 to the production F-16s (fuselage stretch and later larger tailplanes, just a bit different in terms of the amount from those planned for the Model 1601), how possible would it have been that the Model 1601 might just adopt the changes made by F-16A/C (albeit still with bigger wings and a different landing gear design) for even more commonality with the AF machines?

EDIT: Re-phrased the last sentence in an improved manner.

Sauragnmon · May 10, 2009, 12:23:22 PM

I have to say, what you're suggesting, sounds in ways like an F-2 with a stronger gear and a tailhook. Consider - the F-2 is larger in fuse, and wingspan is bigger, might it actually have worked?

dy031101 · May 11, 2009, 05:00:50 PM

Quote from: Sauragnmon on May 10, 2009, 12:23:22 PM
I have to say, what you're suggesting, sounds in ways like an F-2 with a stronger gear and a tailhook. Consider - the F-2 is larger in fuse, and wingspan is bigger, might it actually have worked?

The book made the comparison between the Model 1601 and the YF-16, which is why I was hoping that a production F-16 fuselage (without further stretching whatsoever) with bigger wings would do fine for modelling purposes......

Sauragnmon · May 12, 2009, 03:49:21 AM

Well, I don't know right what the stretch on the 1601 was compared to the YF-16 - was it actually enough to make its size relative to the Production Viper, or was it bigger, like the Agile Falcon proposal. Without some real numbers to look at, we're wandering into some conjecture more than anything.

dy031101 · May 21, 2009, 11:11:07 AM

Quote from: Sauragnmon on May 12, 2009, 03:49:21 AM
Well, I don't know right what the stretch on the 1601 was compared to the YF-16 - was it actually enough to make its size relative to the Production Viper, or was it bigger, like the Agile Falcon proposal.

According to ASP:

"Compared to the YF-16 this version had a forward fuselage stretched by 30.5in (77.5cm) with another 16in (40.6cm) aft of the wing, the fin and tail areas were the same as the Model 1600, but wing area was increased to just 312sq.ft (29.0sq.m). Internal fuel was less than the 1600 at 8386lb (3804kg) but a 150gal (682L) centreline tank could be carried. Gross weight in the interdiction role was now 37809lb (17150kg)."

Note by dy031101: ASP mentioned only that the fin and tail areas were enlarged compared to the YF-16, but not by how much.

Now......

Compare this to the info on F-16.net:

"The production F-16A differed from the YF-16 in having a fuselage stretch of 26 inches, 10 inches in the center fuselage (permitting a higher fuel load) and 16 inches in the nose to accommodate the Westinghouse APG-66 radar. The wing area was increased by 20 square feet and an additional underwing hardpoint was fitted. A total of nine external points were now available (3 under each wing, one at each wingtip, and one on the fuselage centerline) for up to 10,000 pounds of fuel or weapons. The horizontal tailplane was increased in size, and a jet starter was added to the F100 turbofan."

"Dimensions: wingspan 32 feet 9 1/2 inches, length 49 feet 3 1/2 inches, height 16 feet 8 1/2 inches, wing area 300 square feet.

Weights: 16,285 pounds empty, 25,281 pounds combat, 37,500 pounds maximum takeoff."

===============================================

I was wondering, should LVT have gotten the contract, if they would still have gone on stretching the YF-16 or taken a production F-16 fuselage and do some internal strengthening somewhere down the road instead......