F-16 and (Mitsubushi) F2

[elmayerle]

Northrop developed that capability in the 1980s and 1990s on various programs.  For the basic F-16, this was way too late.  From what I understand, one of the problems with the GD/McAir A-12 was that they didn't have the composites and low observables background that Northrop had (one reason Northrop was the team leader on the ATA competition) - and, again, they were the competition and it's unlikely GD would've brought them in.  I'm certain the military knew what Northrop could do, but there are limits as to just how much they can tell other companies.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Evan,

Northrop developed that capability in the 1980s and 1990s on various programs.  For the basic F-16, this was way too late.  From what I understand, one of the problems with the GD/McAir A-12 was that they didn't have the composites and low observables background that Northrop had (one reason Northrop was the team leader on the ATA competition) - and, again, they were the competition and it's unlikely GD would've brought them in.  I'm certain the military knew what Northrop could do, but there are limits as to just how much they can tell other companies.

What about the F-16 FSW?  Didn't that depend on a lot of light-weight high-tech manufacturing for a largely composite wing?  Granted it was never built...


KJ Lensick

[Gary F]

KJ,

  Building the one of a kind, relatively small, set of composite wings for the FSW F-16 is a lot different than the technology to build up the larger structures built for some of the later programs, and/or to be built in production numbers.  If I'm remembering the pictures correctly, the wings of the FSW F-16 were essentially laid up by hand and took some time.  If they had built a large number of those type F-16's perhaps they would have been forced to develope the higher manufacturing technology needed, earlier.  Then again, it would have been very expensive to do so, at the time.

[KJ_Lesnick]

Gary F,

I didn't think the manufacturing equipment would be that hard to develop.  I figured the techniques was the issue

[ChernayaAkula]

Just found this and thought it looked pretty cool!
Obviously photoshopped and the different views don't agree, but the basic idea looks pretty neat.

Caption:
F-16X Falcon 2000   Proposed F-16 variant with a lengthened fuselage and wing similar to the F-22 to nearly double fuel capacity.

[Spey_Phantom]

that idea almost became reality, when Lockheed proposed a delta-winged version of the F-16 for its block 60 offer to the UAE, they went for the boring conventional F-16 Layout instead 

bad move if you ask me, de delta wing looked cooler and had a higher feul capacity 

[Shasper]

Wish for the blk60 LM brought back the XL model, now that would've been killa!

[elmayerle]

that idea almost became reality, when Lockheed proposed a delta-winged version of the F-16 for its block 60 offer to the UAE, they went for the boring conventional F-16 Layout instead  

bad move if you ask me, de delta wing looked cooler and had a higher feul capacity  

If you look closely, the plan view of this wing is identical with that of the YF-22 wing, simplifying the scratchbuilding of this variant.  Actually, it was the UAE who decided on the variant they bought.  From other illustrations I've seen, this version would've carried four semi-submerged Sparrows/AIM-120s much as the F-16XL did.  It would've had three hardpoints under each wing but no wingtip rails.  So, more or less, this proposal is a F-16XL with a modified planform.

[KJ_Lesnick]

You know, I remember that during the development of the YF-16A to the F-16A, Colonel Boyd, noticing an increase in the overall weight of the design due to the addition of extra systems realized the originally sized 280 square-foot wing-area was insufficient and recommended an increase to 320 square-feet to allow much of the original performance to be retained.  Ultimately it was increased to 300 square-feet only, allegedly a book called "BOYD: The Fighter-Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" they said the wing-area wasn't increased to the desired amount to prevent the design from being more maneuverable than an F-15 (at least when fully loaded).

Apparently there was an officer at the F-16 Project Office who Boyd met and talked to about increasing the wing-area to 320 square-feet, hoping that he would use his authority to make the desired changes.  He later decided to go along with his superiors and settle on 300 square-feet.  Many years later he became a General and actually expressed remorse over his decision, though Boyd didn't care.

Would the increase to 320 square feet have made a significant weight-difference over 300 square feet?


KJ

[KJ_Lesnick]

During the development of the YF-16, they found during wind-tunnel tests Langley's full-scale tunnel that the plane experienced a deep-stall problem.  No other wind-tunnel was able to duplicate the conditions because they didn't operate at full-scale.  Apparently it was ignored because no other wind-tunnel could duplicate the deep-stall phenomena. 

My question was how could they ignore a full-scale test?  Certain things are affected by scale and a full-scale is the best test you can do.  Also, were multiple tests done at Langley to verify this deep-stall issue, or only one test done? 


KJ Lesnick

[GTX]

My question was how could they ignore a full-scale test?  Certain things are affected by scale and a full-scale is the best test you can do.  Also, were multiple tests done at Langley to verify this deep-stall issue, or only one test done? 

Again with the "deep-stall" issue

Given no-one here (as far as I am aware) was part of the F-16 development program, do you really expect an answer to this???

Greg

[KJ_Lesnick]

GTX,

Again with the "deep-stall" issue

Considering I found the data I mentioned doing a variety of searches on Google and such, I wasn't sure that was all the data available, just all the data that I could find.  I was kind of hoping you guys would know something I didn't.


KJ Lesnick

[mwf4nut]

I've been playing around with a twin-engine, side-by-side version.  Three different possibilities.  Personally, I like the third one.  Sorry for the crappy scans 

[Sauragnmon]

Hmmm I like the second one and the third... the third would lend itself to rebuilt intakes a little more Flanker/Fulcrum style in layout, allowing the center fuselage to operate as a lifting body.  I would consider using two kits for it, so as to create a whole lot of extra source material.  I would additionally consider an Su-34 style nose layout in principle, potentially with the pit more F-111 style with the side hatches and such.  The Wings, I would at least suggest using the second set of wings to extend the chord of the wing backwards, to give more lifting area and improve wing loading without too much stress on rolling.  Twin tails is one thought, as I'm not sure how you might go about fitting a single tail in place.

[kitnut617]

I think anyone of those are good, but use the F-22 wing