F-16 and (Mitsubushi) F2

[KJ_Lesnick]

I heard that during the development of the YF-16, there was some evidence to suggest the deep-stall problem existed before the plane flew, but since there was conflicting information regarding wind-tunnel tests (due to the different size of the wind-tunnel test models) that either indicated a deep-stall would happen, and others that it wouldn't they pushed ahead assuming it was not a serious issue.

Now you're probably going to wonder how this goes into an alternative history post...

With the knowledge available at the time, was it possible for anyone to have been able to know that the deep-stall problem would occur on the actual aircraft (1:1 scale)?

[KJ_Lesnick]

What was the Agile Falcon exactly... 

I did some googling and I found it was an F-16 with an enlarged wing and revised control-systems.  I don't know what kind of revised control systems they were talking about (assuming it's not classified).

Is that the one where they were planning on putting some kind of aeroelastic flaps on the strake in order to increase instantaneous agility and cure deep-stall?  I do remember hearing something about a Falcon design like that.  It also was to have an enlarged wing to give the F-16C the wing-loading of the F-16A.


KJ Lesnick

[Sauragnmon]

In all essence, the Agile Falcon became the F-2 - the Japanese bought the rights because they wanted the expanded payload capacity that comes with the expanded wing area.

[Gary F]

  Agile Falcon was one offering to cure the growing weight of the F-16 and add additional weapons stations.  The main idea was to increase the wing area.  Ultimately, to save time, money, and developmental risks, the idea was shelved and they went with improved thrust engines as the primary way to offset weight growth of the plane.
  Better electronics helped reduce weight also, but then there was the tendency to add more stuff negating potential weight savings.
  CFT's sort of freed up the inboard wing station allowing more weapons carriage (another desire of some operators) but not everyone has bought the CFT's.
  As mentioned just above, the Mitsubishi F-2 is pretty much thought to be what Agile Falcon would have been, to a large extent ... the bigger wing, stretched fuselage, additional wing station.  However, the wing sweep was optimized for a different role (maritime strike/patrol) along with a different radar and different canopy setup, again for better safety operating in the new roles preferred operating altitudes.  Had the US/NATO Agile Falcon upgrade proceeded, it should have retained the original canopy and wing shape (just bigger).

regards,
Gary F

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gary F,

How much of a difference was there in wing-sweep from the F-16 and F-2?  Also, what differences were made to the LERX's on the F-2 over the F-16?  I can't make out any difference honestly


KJ Lesnick

[frinklemur]

Hmm, not a bad concept really... full control surface tail.  Makes me wonder why it hasn't been done before.

See the A3J / RA-5 Vigilante.  The single vertical tail was all moving for control, with no separate rudder.

[ChernayaAkula]

How much of a difference was there in wing-sweep from the F-16 and F-2?  Also, what differences were made to the LERX's on the F-2 over the F-16?  I can't make out any difference honestly

While I can't make any comment regarding the aerodynamic aspects, this diagram may be of help regarding the lay-out:


SOURCE

[KJ_Lesnick]

Chernaya Akula,

Wow, that image really spells it out! 

Thank you,
KJ Lesnick

[Gary F]

Moritz,

  Nice one.  Have seen this type of pic before but finally copied this one down.  I was going to dig out the angles but this shows it much better.

thanks,
Gary F

[KJ_Lesnick]

What I'm wondering then is what was the proposed idea for fitting the F-16 with a larger wing and either aeroelastic devices or some devices on the LERX to control vortices to prevent deep-stall tendencies and increase instantaneous agility? 

I read about it briefly, but I don't really remember what I read (obviously) and I can't find it.


KJ Lesnick
BTW:  Assuming nobody covered this yet, out of curiosity, does the F-2 have deep-stall characteristics?

[anthonyp]

While I can't make any comment regarding the aerodynamic aspects, this diagram may be of help regarding the lay-out:


SOURCE

Nice!  Now I know why I made my Naval Falcons out of F-2's   

Anyone got a comparison pic of the F-2, F-16, and the Ching-Kuo?  I wanna know how bad those Kiddy-Land kits are off.

[kitnut617]

I hadn't realised there was that much difference, I'll have to get my Hase' kits out and have a look now.

[Shasper]

I wonder what advantages/problems would occur if the F-2 stabs were added to the stock Viper airframe?

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gary F,

Agile Falcon was one offering to cure the growing weight of the F-16 and add additional weapons stations.  The main idea was to increase the wing area.  Ultimately, to save time, money, and developmental risks, the idea was shelved and they went with improved thrust engines as the primary way to offset weight growth of the plane.
  Better electronics helped reduce weight also, but then there was the tendency to add more stuff negating potential weight savings.

How much extra would the Agile F-16 have weighed over the F-16?  Would the extra wing-area have made up or offset the weight allowing it to truly possess the wing-loading of the F-16A as advertized?

CFT's sort of freed up the inboard wing station allowing more weapons carriage (another desire of some operators) but not everyone has bought the CFT's.

Still, it was an option at the very least.  The F-16 did have a massive air to ground capacity, and the lighter wing-loading would have improved its agility all around.

As mentioned just above, the Mitsubishi F-2 is pretty much thought to be what Agile Falcon would have been, to a large extent ... the bigger wing, stretched fuselage, additional wing station.  However, the wing sweep was optimized for a different role (maritime strike/patrol) along with a different radar and different canopy setup, again for better safety operating in the new roles preferred operating altitudes.  Had the US/NATO Agile Falcon upgrade proceeded, it should have retained the original canopy and wing shape (just bigger).

While Chernaya Akula showed us the geometrical differences between the F-2 and F-16, does anybody have a model-picture or a drawing of the Agile-F-16?


KJ Lesnick

[Jeffry Fontaine]

F-16 Agile Falcon (from f-16.net)
Impression of a proposed version, the Agile Falcon (click for image)