F-16 and (Mitsubushi) F2

Sauragnmon · September 17, 2008, 10:48:22 PM

Not sure I like the tailless delta concept, it just doesn't look right. Though if that were the case, I'd just make it one big tank and smooth it over the tail and dorsal section, with a second fuelling port built into the top of the tank. Go for broke and do it that way.

I dunno, I just like the look of the XL wing, and think it'd make a real cool strike bird project... if only I can find a conversion kit in 1/72. I'm too damn broke for anything else without special sacred blessings from the finance minister.

elmayerle · September 18, 2008, 02:11:58 PM

Quote from: Sauragnmon on September 17, 2008, 08:18:08 PM
I don't know about the conformal tanks, they have that whole dip in the center that makes them not so conformal looking to me, at least on the F-2 Super Kai concept model there, though in hindsight, they don't look so bad with the dorsal avionics pod on the F-16I.

The dip is for area-ruling purposes. The dorsal pod/fairing is present on all of your F-16D Model 50/52+ aircraft as there's just a need for the extra room. Now if someone wanted to try something a bit different, there's the all-moving vertical tail from the original F-16XL proposal, the one that uses a F-16 horizontal tail surface as the moving vertical tail.

Sauragnmon · September 18, 2008, 02:48:32 PM

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

Just call me Ray · September 19, 2008, 12:26:07 AM

Quote from: elmayerle on September 18, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
The dip is for area-ruling purposes.

Since this dip is absent on the standard model, I assume it's to compensate for the missing tail? Most people who are aware of area ruling probably don't realize how "hidden" such measures are in modern designs.

Sauragnmon · September 19, 2008, 01:57:29 AM

I was thinking of making the CFT's a little more conformal in my case... slimming the forward profile down to ease the airflow over that damnable rounded brick hump, and then smoothing out that dip to make it a little more level with the avionics package in the dorsal pod. It would look better, in my opinion, and I don't know if it would affect the airframe's drag effects, though I would imagine with the smoother slope it might work better... I don't know.

jcf · September 19, 2008, 10:21:57 PM

Quote from: Sauragnmon on September 18, 2008, 02:48:32 PM
Hmm, not a bad concept really... full control surface tail. Makes me wonder why it hasn't been done before.

The idea goes back to the earliest days of flight and was used on many designs through WWI.
More recent exemplars are the NAA Vigilante, Lockheed A-12/SR-71, TSR 2 and the Tu 160.

Not much new under the sun.

Shasper · September 20, 2008, 09:18:31 AM

Could go twin-verts . . .

Shas

GTX · February 13, 2009, 04:46:27 PM

My take on a super F-16 (has somewhat of a Flanker look I think):

Regards,

Greg

Shasper · February 14, 2009, 11:11:48 AM

Do that with the F-2 and I think you're on to somthin' there . . .

Shas

tinlail · February 14, 2009, 03:57:14 PM

Quote from: GTX on February 13, 2009, 04:46:27 PM
My take on a super F-16 (has somewhat of a Flanker look I think):

Regards,

Greg

I have the notion of building one of these with a ballistic missile hanging in the middle for air launch.

GTX · February 14, 2009, 05:03:41 PM

Quotefed by one big ventral intake

I was thinking of still using the standard F-16 inlets but in a quasi-Rafale style arrangement.

Regards,

Greg

KJ_Lesnick · February 14, 2009, 08:44:06 PM

I like that twin-engined F-16 set-up... I was thinking up an alternate Fixed-Wing VFX-WHIF... I had thought of using the thinner booms of the F-16. Putting two F-16 tails together ain't bad actually!

KJ

Scooterman · February 15, 2009, 08:32:30 AM

You guys are getting close to this. Dunno where I found it-I had it in my profile stash.

Rafael · February 15, 2009, 08:38:54 AM

Quote from: Scooterman on February 15, 2009, 08:32:30 AM
You guys are getting close to this. Dunno where I found it-I had it in my profile stash.

Imaginary-wings: http://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/

Worth looking at the CGI work of this fellow.

Rafa

Sauragnmon · February 15, 2009, 07:50:49 PM

So, I've been looking at investing in a Viper model now... and I had this... semi-crazy idea of whifbashing a whole whack of the F-16 modifications into One bird. Here is as follows:

The base aircraft is going to be an F-16N - I don't know if that includes hook and gears, either way. I'm wondering what External difference there are to the Block 60, as I intend to add the Block 60 systems into the aircraft ideally. My next step will be the Diverterless Intake, as the 16N is a smallmouth and the 60 is largemouth, I know, so I'll go for broke with that. Step three is the nozzle - I plan on notching the petals to give it the LOAN, and investigating what is required to give it the MATV/VISTA actuators for vectored thrust.

Thoughts? Suggestions?