F-16 and (Mitsubushi) F2

[Logan Hartke]

I like #2 the most.  The third one is too much a wannabe Flanker/Fullback.

Cheers,

Logan

[mwf4nut]

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.

I totally agree!  I was going for a SU-24 Fencer kind of cockpit, but the -34 would be interesting too.  I've got two of the 1/32 Academy F-16 kits just itching to get hacked up  .  For the canopy, I was considering cutting the kit canopy down the middle and filling in with a clear strip to get the right width.  If I get around to building this, I think the whole project would have to start with getting the cockpit correct, and let everything else fall into place around it.

Mark

[Zaskar24]

I picked up an Academy F-16A/C kit yeterday from Hobby Lobby on sale.  My question is does the kit as built for the C represent any particular Block number?  I plan on building it in a whiff merc paint scheme and was wondering if anyone could help with the BLock number for the back story.  I also have to say that the instrutions are kind of vague about which parts should be used to build which variant. 

Scott

[B777LR]

Differences are very small. There is always the size of the air intake, which depends on the engine. Weapons choices are also different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon_variants#F-16C.2FD

[ChernayaAkula]

I don't know which Viper kit you're talking about, but everything you ever wanted to know (and then some) about F-16Cs can be found >>HERE<<.

Another, very comprehensive, break-down of the versions can be found >>HERE<< on f-16.net.   

[Zaskar24]

Thank you for the replies B787 and ChernayaAkula.  I have the F-16 site book marked on my main computer which is unfortunately down right now.   .  When I get that computer back up and running I will look closer. 

Chernaya, for reference it is kit number 1688.

Does anyone else have any info?

Scott

[Shasper]

I'm willing to gander a guess that the HC kit would build a blk. 25 or lower C model, the 30 series introduced the GE F110 (blk30) as an alternant to the PW F100 (blk32), and IIRC the HC kit has decals for Israeli & Venezuela AF birds which use the PW engine (dont think the Israelis have the GE in their initial C model buy).

But thats just a gander

[Scooterman]

I built that kit and be prepaired to do a lot of PSR.  (putty, sand, repeat)   The fit is cack. The real quick version is if you use the smaller vertical tail base (parts D39 & 40), this would be a Block 15 F-16A model.  The bigger base (A1 & 2) will yield an Block 25 or early Block 32 F-16C.  I can go into specifics if you need.

Pays to keep old instructions!

[Zaskar24]

I built that kit and be prepaired to do a lot of PSR.  (putty, sand, repeat)   The fit is cack. The real quick version is if you use the smaller vertical tail base (parts D39 & 40), this would be a Block 15 F-16A model.  The bigger base (A1 & 2) will yield an Block 25 or early Block 32 F-16C.  I can go into specifics if you need.

Pays to keep old instructions!

That was exactly what I was looking for Scooterman.  I am fine with having to do some PSR on this one.  I am just getting back into modeling and have some WHIFs in mind that will require a lot of PSR.  So I might as well get some practice on a plane that will be basically a supporting cast member.


Scott

[Scooterman]

 

[ChernayaAkula]

The Mirage 5 came into being when Israel requested a dedicated fighter-bomber variant of the Mirage III, with reduced/simplified avionics, easier serviceability and higher weapons load.

Now, what if General Dynamics thought about a similar programme for the F-16?

- strengthen the structure and undercarriage so the pylons can be uprated to carry more ordnance.
- dispense with the radar (maybe install a Jaguar-style laser ranger in there)
- maybe lengthen the fuselage a bit to have more internal fuel.
- instead of expensive multi-mission radar, install a dedicated sea-attack radar to employ Harpoon, Exocet, Sea Eagle or the likes.
- devise a nose-mounted reconnaissance package (à la Tigereye or Mirage recon variants)

Above mods could be coupled with the F-16/79 re-engine project for an overall cheaper alternative to multi-mission F-16s/other aircraft.

[simmie]

I had a quick look through the rest of this thread and I didn't find any mention of this so here goes.

During the flight test of the YF-16, GD fitted a pair of Sparrows to pylons mounted on the main undergarriage doors (1 either side).

This installation was flown and the missiles fired, unguided as they weren't comptable witht e radar (if fitted, can't remember)

The pics were in an Ian Allan publication about the F-16, it was one of a series but I can remember the name of it!!
Found the pics on-line

http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16728.html
http://www.f-16.net/gallery_item16720.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1978/1978%20-%200146.html

Here are a few user ideas.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article28.html
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_users_article27.html

This is probably known to most people.

Anyway, hope this is of interest

[dy031101]

I've always found the wingtip carriage to be asthetically-pleasing.  I guess the weight might cause problems though......

[nev]

Interesting pics of a Viper with a probe!



http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=40

[Taiidantomcat]

Dude! Look at that!