Basher54321

What I mean by that is the lower drag that comes from conformal carriage of weapons in normal flight. 1982 - 1985 test data apparently showed: 6 * Mk-82s on LODE-14 ejectors has 66% less drag over 6 on 2 x TERs 4 * recessed AIM-120s has 70% less drag over 4 on Pylons. The flight tests were done with F-16XL-1 (single seat) Engine: F100-PW-200 Empty Weight: 23,000 lbs (Estimate on given weights) F-16A (Block not given) Engine: F100-PW-200 Empty Weight: 15,000 to 17,000 lbs Interestingly both given a loadout of 6 * Mk-82s and 2 x drop tanks at 30,000ft - the F-16A still had a much better sustained turn. This was down to a combination of bigger Cranked wing (more draggy) and lower T/W of the XL mostly.

More of an off the cuff comment - if you read it again - "relatively drag free loadout" The XL drag index was vastly reduced. Regarding level subsonic acceleration you will find that the weight of the external stores is a much bigger factor than drag.

Depends what or where you are talking about (e.g Induced drag can increase with added weight). Also if the XL was 8,000 lbs heavier than the F-16A say but handled drag far better - then added weight might be of more concern regarding performance.

Interesting Surprised to see that the GE engined 2 seater F-16XL-2 is at the base as well - still with a laminar test flow wing!

Not sure how viable the wing root positioning was - but it would sure help drag/RCS. Only the B60 has a pod on the nose - which could be IRST considering it has an almost integrated TGP on the left cheek. I wonder if taking on Hillakers actual multirole F-16XL would have been better considering the USAF wanted A-G as primary. Under those wings you could have had a relatively drag free loadout of AIM-120s and bombs along with other Pods under the wings - it would have weathered the weight/drag far better even if it had a much lower T/W. (no cutting out of wing roots required :thumbup: )

Actually I am possibly 5 sqft out - A 1972 presentation by Harry Hillaker shows 280 Sqft wing area for the YF. The increased emphasis on air-to-ground capability implied larger payloads. The wing and tail expanded accordingly to carry the extra loads. The wing area grew from 280 to 300 square feet http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=23 The production F-16A differed from the YF-16 in having a 13-inch fuselage extension to accommodate more fuel and the Westinghouse APG-66 radar. The nose was deeper and longer to accomodate the radar. The vertical fin was increased slightly in height and incorporated a radar warning receiver in its tip. The ventral fins were redesigned and made larger in area. The nosewheel door was redsigned--It was now a one-piece design which hinged to starboard, whereas the nosewheel door of the YF-16 was in two pieces, the front section hinging to port, the rear section hinging to starboard. The wing area was increased by 20 square feet and an additional underwing hardpoint was fitted. http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f16_2.html Because the Air Force was paying the bills, Slay and his committee had the enthusiastic help of General Dynamics, who willingly dropped the Critics� concept of a simple, austere lightweight air-to-air fighter. The Configuration Control Committee added roughly two tons of new electronic equipment and other modifications to the F-16, including more pylons for bombs and electronic countermeasures pods, and then increased the F-16�s length so it could carry more fuel and enlarged the wing so it could carry bombs and keep the same performance.25 The F-16�s bombing system was about five times more accurate than the F-4�s in dropping conventional bombs, which, as one wag noted, was �a good thing since it carried one-third the number of bombs.�26 More important for the F-16�s combat capability, the Configuration Control Committee ordered it equipped with a small but highly capable pulse Doppler radar, something the Critics had adamantly opposed. (P181 HOW THE AIR FORCE CHANGED AFTER VIETNAM (THE REVOLT OF THE MAJORS) Michel III) The claim the F-16A was 3,500 lbs heavier - that possibly originates from Mr sour grapes himself - Pierre Sprey: Comparing the Effectiveness of A-A fighters F-86 to F-18 (PSprey) 1982 (Headed F-16) Found near the end - just after a useless T/W and WL comparison. Even a 1984 Standard Characteristics document puts the F-16 B10 at 15,306 lbs empty - so on that basis the YF-16 would weigh in at 11-12,000 lbs and would be some kind of super fighter - but the reality appears to be closer to 15,000 lbs for the YF.

Have a listing for Manufacturers Model as: 199-1C Blocks go from 21 to at least 50 for the C F-15C-21-MC to F-15C-50-MC

Well according to text the Block 15 had provision (CW) added in the early 80s to the APG-66 - but the ADFs were certainly the first USAF birds to carry them (and Bird slicers) that I know of in the bomber interceptor role. But this doesnt appear to have been until the late 80s - by then the AIM-120 was in test stage and only a few years from IOC. YF-16 Wing area = 275 sqft F-16A Wing Area = 300 sqft Depends on whether you mean the conceptual or actual YF because according to John Williams the F-16A was lighter than the YF-16: Forty years is too long to remember all the numbers, but when the F-16 was in early flight test, I did a weight comparison between the two and was very surprised to find the F-16 empty weight was less than the YF-16. So, the YF-16, designed for 6.5g at 14900 lb was heavier than the F-16, designed for 9g at 22,500 lb. Don't confuse the design weight as the actual weight, two totally different things. Here's why the YF-16 was heavier. First, it had a much larger structural margin. meaning it was designed for 25% overload capability, because no 150% static test was performed. Second, it was not a refined structural design, either design loads or stress analysis. If there was any doubt about load or stress, it was made a little heavier. Third, manufacturing processes were not refined. It was built as cheaply as possible. Remarkable, when you consider the added g and design weight, larger wing, horizontal tail, and ventral fins, and longer fuselage of the F-16, in addition to an 8,000 hour service life. [/i] I have read the USAF increased wing area mainly down to transforming it into a multi role jet - John Boyd wanted an even larger area increase according to Boyd (Coram) Here is an aggressor with an LM AN/AAS-42 IRST pod: http://aviationintel.com/exclusive-usaf-aggressors-fly-with-irst-po/ Some good points there. I suppose you have to question the internal space - because with the F-35C they have stuck more fuel in it and the B of course has the lift fan - I don't know if there is space left for a gun now.

Nice one This page also shows some locations for the C/D plate strengthening: http://www.usaf-sig.org/index.php/reference/114-research-material/82-f-16-viper-faq-stuff-you-wanted-to-know-about-the-f-16cd In the 1960/70s IR Tracking (IRST) and optical systems (TCS, TISEO) existed operationally along with medium range missiles, and internal ECM jammers and IFF interrogators (Combat Tree), Laser designation Pods (PAVE Spike/Knife) None of these things were integrated into the F-16 because it was designed as an out and out A-A fighter with aerodynamic performance being the priority. Harry Hillaker even says he would have redesigned it if he was doing it with A-G in mind. The AIM-7 was possibly dropped due to politics and of the knowledge of a smaller radar missile (AMRAAM) would be viable in the future. You could also argue some of the above technology was seen as a hindrance at the time - although ECM and Combat Tree were proven already as essential tools. (appreciate some operators do have internal ECM systems). The USAF gave the Block 1 bigger wing area and a bigger fuselage - but this was never enough to incorporate the above features without using pods - and today all of the above has been added through pods and weight (even IRST pods seen on B30s at red flag) - so it has suffered structurally and performance wise. F-35 includes all of the above sensors and a few new ones (DAS) from the start and also carries the fuel and weapons internally. I prefer this approach if it maintains performance levels throughout its life. The question would be - what else out there today could enhance its capability? has it incorporated everything? Cant predict the future but lasers could be added: https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=452e761675d8c05e5599115182696694&tab=core&_cview=0

That comment was based on something John Williams posted a few years back: The weight gains from upgrades to blocks 15, 25, and 30 finally caught up with the structure in a block 25 static test (could have been 30, not certain). There was a massive structural failure of the left wing at 137% of limit load, with 150% being the requirement. The local area around the failure was beefed up for airplanes already built (concurrency??) and redesigned for future production. Then the Lantirn system was added to Block 40 airplanes, resulting in added weight and a significant forward CG shift, which caused increased loads all over the airplane. So USAF decided a full redesign was justified. The Block 40 (and all following blocks) structure is substantially stronger, more durable, and heavier than all previous blocks. Photos of Block 30s (87340 / 87263) taken in 2014 show a strut brace around the base of the vertical tail, Bird Slicers and a lightning 2 (?) TGP. Some kind of Block 30+ upgrade - but pass when this was done or what was done. LANTIRN originally had the AAQ-14 and AAQ-13 pods so that might be a factor. Presume these are somewhat different to what you worked on? - although likely a lot heavier.

Taiwan was supposed to be launch customer for the F-16V - so yes upgraded Block 20s. If you want a new build F-16V though - have only seen words to effect of it having E capability without the GE-132. Given empty weight has increased at least 7,500 lbs to current day versions. (E is given at 22,000 lbs) Weight increase is not only down to extra avionics - but structural enhancements / braces. The structure and undercarriage was changed at B40/42 to allow it to carry and with stand carriage of more ordnance in an A-G role it wasn't designed for. If they consider SLEPing some to 12,000 hours than structural weight could increase even more. Use of new composites could improve the structural weight - and computer hardware should get smaller and lighter requiring less cooling in future with still gains in processing power. To assume the F-35 will get heavier is not totally certain unless it requires extra hardware - or structural changes.

What type of comparison? just on simple max T/W at empty? F-16C B30 = 1.61 Gripen E/NG = 1.25 F-35A = 1.37 (Lock Mart) ;) More seriously - much like the F-16C the Gripen E (NG) has put on weight but counteracts this slightly by having comparable test bench T/W and a better T/D in level flight over Gripen C. For anybody procuring either the choice is between Gripen E and F-16V - more down to avionics as opposed to raw performance.

Cool - like the way it recovers in one spin and crashes into the wall :thumbup:

Using test bench thrust and empty weights you can also have: FA-18E = 1.37 FA-18C = 1.57 (GE-402) F-16C B30 = 1.61 F-16D B42 = 1.18 So probably not best to assume too much on that. The thrust is important in a sustained turn - however pushing the CG further back in the F-16 & F-35 significantly reduces the drag!.

Dunno the F-35A just seems to me like a 2015 F-16 with a primary A-G role - which is how the USAF sees the F-16 generally anyway. It was also very advanced and dependent on high tech in the 70s. Interesting quote from Harry Hillaker: This points up a fallacy that has existed for thirty years, and I’m concerned that it may still exist. Our designs assume clean airplanes. Bombs and all the other crap are added on as an afterthought. These add-ons not only increase drag but they also ruin the handling qualities. They should be considered from the beginning. Just interesting that back then they couldn't do the F-35 concept - the F-16 is designed to ditch the drop tanks and fight/egress on internal fuel to get the required performance. Some might argue the Gripen is also an alternative in the lower cost segment to the F-16V. A clean F-16 head on is quite small - the width of the F-35 at the intakes looks about equal to the F-15.

Yeah the bigger display gets my vote - move the windows to different places or out of the way - much better - could have the TGP view full screen as well. Its a good point about the delay - basically a combination of Solid state memory, better or more CPU/ RAM - or the contractor needs to optimize the crap codeing!!

Sprey is no expert - has no military background, every paper I have seen from him since 1982 has been devoid of any understanding of aerial combat or aerodynamics - the only purpose is to fool the ignorant - and it works - an example would be the air time this complete lunatic keeps getting. Back in the 60/70s he may have had a point - but seems to be such a luddite could never accept the massive progress in technological fields. If John Boyd was still around he would likely be kicking Spreys ass up and down a football pitch over the F-35 - a design that incorporates both Boyds theories and Harry Hillakers design concepts and recommendations into it.

The F-16 fuselage can account for up to 40% of the total lift in certain situations if you must know - but its no basis for performance comparison really - the F-35 could produce more or less depending on the part of the flight regime it is in - no one knows.

Quite. The reply was in regards to this as you know: If you are surprised people have misinterpreted your quote then you need need to come across better.

This last one is a tad ambiguous - considering nearly all chase jets have been old F-16Ds with tanks you would fully expect it to out accelerate a PW-220 B42 D model with tanks if F-35A accelerates like a clean B50!

Thought it was good of him to give you some understanding of the issue.

Yes it is no basis for comparison, unless you know the velocity, fuel weight and whether the pilot is actually attempting a max turn, it doesn't tell much at all..............

Although there are specialist airframes built for the interceptor role F-101B, F-4B etc I also see it as a mission that any fighter can take on e.g. F-16A ADFs were used in the Interceptor role for the USANG Also this can depend on what you might be intercepting, in Vietnam in 1962 the USAF had F-102As but the USN used EA-1F Skyraiders to intercept slow flying aircraft at night.

Well here are some of the things not found on the F-16A B10: EOTS DAS AESA Radar Sensor Fusion HMCS EWS (Barracuda) Datalink (MADL) Stealth material & coating A larger Airframe You might have to subtract the cost of these capabilities to get a better comparison - getting those figures might not be easy :thumbup:

That's a bad example because that's the part of the regime where the F-35 would look more impressive assuming it is allowed to get near 50 degrees AOA. The F-16 is intentionally limited to much less so what you see in that video is relatively low.