Viper1031 Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Since the JSF is on the horizon it's time for these two planes to come back up for consideration. They're using theoretical (I.E publically available) data to create the JSF for us, devs now could do the same exact thing for the XL and Super Hornet. Give the XL the block 50 avionics, tweak the flight model to represent the new airframe, and let it carry the block 50 weapons, the Super Hornet, surely there's some block 2 or 3 data available.
Furiz Posted March 18 Posted March 18 Your first post on this forum, not even "hello" but right to the point of starting a rant or drama post... Are you unhappy with something? 3
Viper1031 Posted March 18 Author Posted March 18 37 minutes ago, Furiz said: Your first post on this forum, not even "hello" but right to the point of starting a rant or drama post... Are you unhappy with something? Not my first post despite the post count, I'm originally Viper1031, for some reason it won't let me access that account. But yeah, sorry, HELLO! HI! How are you? 1
ED Team BIGNEWY Posted March 18 ED Team Posted March 18 Hi I have sent you a PM please check and we can assist you, we do not allow multiple forum accounts. thank you 2 Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, PIMAX Crystal
bies Posted March 18 Posted March 18 1 hour ago, Overkill1031 said: Give the XL the block 50 avionics, tweak the flight model to represent the new airframe, and let it carry the block 50 weapons F-16XL didn't have Block 50 avionics. It had analog avionics of F-16A Block 10 as it has been developed in 1980/1981. F-16XL was also 2500kg heavier and generated far bigger drag at higher AoA then F-16A so it couldn't dogfight well. If F-16XL would't lose to F-15E, and actually been developed into fully functional aircraft it would enter service around 1988, it would receive F-16C Block 40 avionics, integrated with LANTIRN with wide, FLIR integrated HUD, as it was a strike aircraft. It would be like F-16 Block 40, but with better low level fast strike performance at cost of worse preformance in a dogfight. 3
Viper1031 Posted March 18 Author Posted March 18 30 minutes ago, bies said: F-16XL didn't have Block 50 avionics. It had analog avionics of F-16A Block 10 as it has been developed in 1980/1981. F-16XL was also 2500kg heavier and generated far bigger drag at higher AoA then F-16A so it couldn't dogfight well. If F-16XL would't lose to F-15E, and actually been developed into fully functional aircraft it would enter service around 1988, it would receive F-16C Block 40 avionics, integrated with LANTIRN with wide, FLIR integrated HUD, as it was a strike aircraft. It would be like F-16 Block 40, but with better low level fast strike performance at cost of worse preformance in a dogfight. Right, but we're going theoretical on the JSF, so why not theoretical on the XL?
Dragon1-1 Posted March 18 Posted March 18 We're not "going theoretical" on the JSF. ED is apparently convinced they can recreate it based entirely on data leaked through videos and other unclassified sources. What I expect is a jet that's accurate with regards to things it has, but there's a lot of nonfunctional features. Basically, "we don't know what this button does, so it's not implemented". They say that they know what enough of the buttons do to make a functional jet. It wouldn't be the first time. RAZBAM's Harrier has a few classified pages marked as such, and even the Hornet has a button or two which isn't planned to be implemented for now, like s-mode for the AMRAAM. The only question is, will the missing features from the F-35 be a few inconspicuous details, or will they be all over the place? We'll see. 2
Viper1031 Posted March 19 Author Posted March 19 4 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: We're not "going theoretical" on the JSF. ED is apparently convinced they can recreate it based entirely on data leaked through videos and other unclassified sources. What I expect is a jet that's accurate with regards to things it has, but there's a lot of nonfunctional features. Basically, "we don't know what this button does, so it's not implemented". They say that they know what enough of the buttons do to make a functional jet. It wouldn't be the first time. RAZBAM's Harrier has a few classified pages marked as such, and even the Hornet has a button or two which isn't planned to be implemented for now, like s-mode for the AMRAAM. The only question is, will the missing features from the F-35 be a few inconspicuous details, or will they be all over the place? We'll see. That still screams theoretical to me, leaked and incomplete data. Some of the blanks they'll have to fill in, leave some systems out of it, but that's differing opinions, Alright, give the XL block 40 systems, and dogfighting? No, it won't be able to dogfight, but then, the Strike Eagle isn't exceptionally good at it either, but it can sling AMRAAMs probably better than most, and bomb the crap outta stuff.
Dragon1-1 Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) Apparently, the data is more complete than you'd expect. I have no doubt there will be a lot of stuff left out, but we'll see how it'll end up looking. In any case, that's more than the F-16XL, which never existed as an operational platform, and thus we don't know what it'd have carried. Not to mention, we don't even have the regular Block 40 Viper. Edited March 19 by Dragon1-1 1
Jayhawk1971 Posted March 19 Posted March 19 (edited) Highly doubtful that ED will ever consider doing niche experimental aircraft like the F-16XL, as the potential market for such modules is probably too small to be financially viable. As has been pointed out by Wags several times in numerous videos/ interviews: modules need to make sense economically for ED to consider making them. The F/A-18E/F would be much more likely, and I suppose it's rather a "when" than an "if". Once ED feels they are no longer creating unnecessary competition for their legacy Hornet module. I for one would very much welcome a whole "DCS: Test Pilot" module, set in an expanded Nevada map (Edwards AFB), where you can fly all relevant X-planes from the late 1940's onward. DCS: Chuck Yeager, if you will. But I suppose that's very niche, and therefore not financially viable. Maybe a 3rd party would be interested, though? Edited March 19 by Jayhawk1971 2
Viper1031 Posted March 20 Author Posted March 20 (edited) On 3/19/2025 at 8:38 AM, Jayhawk1971 said: Highly doubtful that ED will ever consider doing niche experimental aircraft like the F-16XL, as the potential market for such modules is probably too small to be financially viable. As has been pointed out by Wags several times in numerous videos/ interviews: modules need to make sense economically for ED to consider making them. The F/A-18E/F would be much more likely, and I suppose it's rather a "when" than an "if". Once ED feels they are no longer creating unnecessary competition for their legacy Hornet module. I for one would very much welcome a whole "DCS: Test Pilot" module, set in an expanded Nevada map (Edwards AFB), where you can fly all relevant X-planes from the late 1940's onward. DCS: Chuck Yeager, if you will. But I suppose that's very niche, and therefore not financially viable. Maybe a 3rd party would be interested, though? Yeah, I realize the chance for an XL is worse than a snowball in Hel, but ya can't blame me for trying Edited March 21 by Viper1031
jojyrocks Posted March 20 Posted March 20 F-16XL was a tester prototype, not much data on this than even the F-35. F-18 Super Hornet is more possible. 1
Jayhawk1971 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 vor 10 Stunden schrieb Viper1031: Yeah, I realize the chance for an XL is worse than a snowball in Hal, but ya can't blame me for trying Of course I'm not blaming you for asking. From my POV, the more modules, the merrier. 2
mkellytx Posted April 14 Posted April 14 This is one of those topics that need a sticky, or mention in an FAQ. Use search, most all of this has been asked answered in previous XL threads. Rant aside, both demonstrators were Franken-birds, written off A/B's given plugs, new wings and block 30 avionics. Block 40/50 on production birds isn't unreasonable as they would have cut in in the 91/92-time frame. There never was an XL vs E competition per Sae. The AF had the option of finishing one, both or neither line with the E or XL demonstrators. The AF chose the E b/c it was 10% the cost of a C/D while the XL would have been 30-40% of a block 40/50. There's also the bit about protecting funds for ATF and the fact that the gray eagle types really didn't like a Viper that could carry as many BVR missiles as them. The XL demonstrator was very much WIP. Even when NASA put the digital FLCS from a Block 40 they basically only recreated the analog control laws. There were still undesirable P&FQ that were never fixed, mentioned in NASA reports. The upside, NASA characterized the aero of the aircraft very well and makes that data available for verification of CFD code. There's a NASA book, free download that I linked in one of the other threads. Well worth the download and read, Short of an alternative Cold War offering, can't see it ever happening. My $0.02 3
Recommended Posts