F-16Xl/F-15E
ly...@cdsnet.net
vice viersa
2.) How would the F-16Xl compare to an ordinary F-16
3.) Why didn't we put it into production do to the fact it would have
bennifitted NATO more then the F-15E due to the already high usage of
F-16 by nato countries and the fact that we were already building alot
of them for our own use? Stupid question i know but one that you
wonder about
ly...@cdsnet.net
Dweezil Dwarftosser
>
> 1.) What were the strengths did the F-16Xl have over the F-15E, and
> vice viersa
Texas politicians were the F-16's strength.
A potent weapons system, two-man cockpit, BVR missiles, accurate bomb
delivery, speed, power, range, and hefty "cargo" capacity are the
strengths of the F-15E.
> 2.) How would the F-16Xl compare to an ordinary F-16
As I understand it, this ( quite old ) experimental jet could carry
a larger bombload, due to more wing area. ( Four bombs instead of
two ? )
> 3.) Why didn't we put it into production do to the fact it would have
> bennifitted NATO more then the F-15E due to the already high usage of
> F-16 by nato countries and the fact that we were already building alot
> of them for our own use? Stupid question i know but one that you
> wonder about
We badly needed F-15Es in order to replace the large numbers of F-4Es
which were approaching the end of their service life. Some in our
government tried to "shoehorn" the "lightweight fighter" F-16 into
that role, without regard to its' lack of similar capabilites.
The F-4E ( and its replacement F-15E ) was fully capable in the A/A,
A/G, and nuclear strike roles. The F-16 was capable of only the last
of these. ( Though, after a number of iterations attempting to find
a useable radar for the F-16, the AMRAAM came along so it didn't need
one for A/A - and a number of external pods seem to have given it at
least some capability to to drop a bomb accurately.)
If it was me, I'd give NATO countries five F-16s for every F-15E
they bought for the USAF. ( Hopefully, we'd give them *all* away.)
--
- John T., former MSgt, USAF - and member of the 1st, 4th, 15th
36th, 50th, 56th, 86th, and 388th ( Korat Dive Toss )
Tactical Fighter Wings.
http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/3227
RSayers
It has a cranked delta wing, though im not entirely sure what that means.
Bobby Sayers bsa...@usa.net
Kurt Plummer
>
> 1.) What were the strengths did the F-16Xl have over the F-15E, and
> vice viersa
>
>
> bennifitted NATO more then the F-15E due to the already high usage of
> F-16 by nato countries and the fact that we were already building alot
> of them for our own use? Stupid question i know but one that you
> wonder about
Here I gotta disagree with Dweezil.
The big-wing of the F-16XL had a LOT going for it,
Starting with some improved controls/scheduling which gave it a
supposedly MUCH higher, stabilized AOA and roll capability and at the
last, some nifty control-coupled maneuver modes rather like the AFTI.
Even baseline it had better roll dampening and CG compensation modes for
multiple A/A-A/G stores configurations and release modes; all
pilot-transpari-selected at via a single switch rather like the Hornet
did later.
It also had superior field length, /with weapons/, which could have come
in real handy had the Big Red Surprise happened some Cold winters
War-ning.
On sheer drag, it was likely at least 70knots faster than the F-15B DRF
and the change in aspect ratio actually made the ride smoother (I forget
whether it was actively damped) despite more than doubled wing area.
While the supposed '36 hardpoints' is deceptive description to say the
least ('overlapping' attach lines and restrictive CG configs etc.), it
could carry at least as many total-Big-Bombs (X5 2K rated stations for
GBU-10/24 or LAD/LOCPOD or MSOW or any of a bunch of others we were
tinkering with) as the F-15 DRF, whilst maintaining a MUCH superior AAM
reserve in the process.
LANTIRN would have undoubtedly capped some of this but then again
LANTIRN was nothing more than a 1980's Pave TACK with step-backwards
external TFR channel. A 'cheapie' solution that was neither cheap nor
fast and in the 90's, it's a parasitic embarrassment. Falcon Knight
however...
If I have one misgiving about the airframe it is the single-engine
theory and the lack of thrust-trust. The original SCAMP did NOT
supercruise though with the various NASA-SST mods to the 'LERX' (double
delta, cranked arrow, whatever) and a 110-129 it probably would today.
The big problem instead is probably that the T/Wr at full-fuel weights
and with heavy (and draggy, if there 2K class, mounted on conventional
pylons) loadouts is likely miserable and of course the 'battle damage'
thing if you lean that way. It would penecruise pretty-quick on aeros
but it wouldn't have anything like the sustained energy maneuver of the
baseline Falcon, in-role.
If a higher engine setting was needed for this then I suppose you could
have also seen some bad SFC factors, 'extra long' doubling of internals
quotients or no...
In the end, GD couldn't promise less than about four years to get the
thing up and running and the USAF 'went with a proven winner' which
seemed more completely (avionics as well as airframe integrated)
developed. Surprise, Surprise, it took the F-15E about 7 years more
itself to progress into something like service-worthy condition and it
went to war half-assed sorted for 'precision' delivery /anyway/.
Some interesting XL quoteables-
125% greater A/A combat radius (profile unspecified)
120% greater strike radii with equivalent 16A load, 50% greater with
twice the load.
90knots faster penecruise (fell down on this one I think)
MTOW of 48K (proto's) versus about 42-45K for even the 'heavyweight'
Blk.40 and around 81K for the Echo Eagle.
4K foot rotation at 180 knots with 12 Mk.82, and six shape-dummied AAM's
plus 12K gas (TRY /that/ in your Viper-C!). 2,230ft recovery from
brakes only (16A: 2,830') with chute 1,360.
28`, high alpha, stall 'recovery' with above weapons load and .45/130
indicated using a boot and fist left with complete 360` roll and less
than 5K slice-recovery height /still/ at max-alpha from 32K.
50% greater instantaneous load factors in 'all regimes' (7.3G A/G versus
5.5 for the A).
Sustained 4G jink at 550knots dry, loaded (maybe not so bad?).
230`/sec roll A/G. 305`/sec role A/A.
lo-lo 'excursion' G of .2-.3 compared to .5 for the A and .75 or more
for the F-4.
12,750lbs of internal gas compared to 6,256lbs for the A or about 23K
for the F-15E.
17% lower supersonic wave drag deriving from the new cambering/sweep
plan.
'Reduced' RCS due to longer intake ducting and removal of ventrals
(Glass Falcon equivalent, anybody?)
1.35 from 4K/300 knot runway stabilized egress heading to 30K and Mach
.9, again with 'full load'.
70% commonality with A structure/systems.
21 million dollars for two (purely aero) conversions of both prototypes
in 1982 compared to 57 million for the single B-AFCD 'compleat beagle'
prototype.
Now for your questions-
1. The Eagle has more powered mass at 'typical' (150nm off the tanker
or unrefueled, entering the 'lo' portion of the Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi profile)
penetration weights and at medium altitude probably a /little/ more
powered lift on the boom.
It has more avionics volume and bigger apertures for SARH and SAR, plus
a relatively sophisticated, internal, ECM suite 'inheritance'.
Unrefueled especially, it probably has some legs over even the
stretch-Viper.
XL is almost certainly faster and more residually agile (while the speed
lasts) for a given, compareable, range-payload.
2. Better in every department. The XL test pilots quoted it as being
more 'solid' than the standard 16 which could mean a heavier control
response but maximum allowable maneuver envelopes were definitely
greater and precision roll/AOA control remained the same or better.
I would hypothesize that avionics sophistication and volumes were better
if only because of the ability to trade fuselage fuel for some space and
because the C-MSIP was right around the corner.
3. Congress wouldn't budget more than one DRF variant and 'challenged'
the AF to prove a need for both airframes otherwise. And since /that
was the only tactical aviation program/ in existence at the time; none
of the other (A/A, supercruise etc.) abilities were given as much
'weight' as they might have if the ATF was better fleshed, AMRAAM had
been truly 2years instead of 10 away, or if the data on the RAM
prototypes of what would become the Soviet response to FX-Eagle had been
harder. Fiscal Constraint, nothing more or less.
As it was, Echo Hens are inventoried in numbers not much more than the
F-111E/F and the 'residuals' of the original DRF role-spec are shared
out over the F-117 and the lowly Falcon which, in the blk.40
configuration, is already tasked with night BAI/CAS as an 'intermediate'
rather than direct replacement for the ARNie F-4E and A-10.
Disappointing in some ways, it is itself a Very Considerable redesign
with most of the avionics which would have ended up in the 16E/F
(projected XL service-variant numbers) anyway but without the
payload-range fuel or altitude/speed/ride aero-performance to readily
support even the 'semi-sophisticated' interdiction mission with 500lb
class A/G weapons.
KP
SOURCE QUOTES:
_Great Book Of Modern Warplanes, F-16 Fighting Falcon_; Doug Richardson
AW&ST 7/21/80 pg.20->
AW&ST 9/26/83 pg.60->
Kurt Plummer
>
> Excellent posting Kurt, I had intended to add some comment but you have
> pretty much addressed it all.
>
> I think the telling numbers are the combat radius performance on
> internal gas, and the 9G envelope comparison to the standard wing F-16.
>
> Great pity it never made it to the squadron level.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carlo
Hey Carlo,
Wull Shucks, I'm glad it past muster but was hoping someone could
provide more info on the signature reductions and particularly what they
might aply/imply to further reduction levels in the diamond wing-16 such
as the new Motorbooks title on the F-22 has model-depicted... Kinda
thought that was a dead dog to flog but they talk as if the failure of
the JSF would make the 'new-XL' a forgone conclusion.
Also, did the Israelis ever get invited to evaluate the original c-arrow
improvements and if so, how (at lighter weights), would it compare with
say the Lavi as a 'pure pointy' ACM machine?
I know it would outclass the young lion as an interdictor (never could
understand some of the design philosophy behind a 'meaner Skyhawk') and
the PW-1120 seemed a little shy on thrust compared to a full up F-110
but the roll-indexed, high alpha, quickness seems the critical point of
comparison (pre-HOBA) and empty, the XL weighed as much as a full up
16A, on takeoff.
It would also provide some indication (I think) of the 'value' of a
tailored wing platform versus the canards-forward rcs sacrifice of the
surviving Euro darts.
Kurt
Kurt Plummer
>
> Carlo Kopp <Carlo.Ko...@aus.net> wrote:
> >Kurt Plummer wrote:>>
> >> ly...@cdsnet.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Hey guys, I snipped a ton but I agree wholeheartedly.
> The problem as I see it was the USAF was set on the 22/23 and
> knowing bucks were going to be increasingly scarce did not want to
> spend any on a non-stealthy aircraft. Even though the 16XL was a
> substantial improvement for all the reasons cited it was still
> faced with an increasing capable SAM threat.
> That same forward look has doomed many a neat aircraft because
> they were not 'next generation' types. USAF runs plans 25 years
> ahead and now and then they do get one right, though I hate to admit it.
> Walt BJ ftr plt ret
Hey Walt,
It is an /irritating/ little habit of theirs, ain't it?;)
My problem with the ATF priority is I thought they didn't even issue
paper on the full program spec until after the XL debut (was SCAMP runup
research for ATF supercruise POC?). The 22/23 airframes certainly don't
reflect the same drag-design path however.
And then there were Agile Falcon 'proposals' as late as 87 for a 'new'
16 with big-wings to continue 'carrying the load' (mud) of the lo-swing
fighter whilst also decreasing the wingload to 'accompany' the F-22 in
A/A support missions at higher-heights.
It was probably just another case of the manufacturer design office
continuing to throw out proposals to keep the program 'fresh' in the 16
SPO managers budget eyes but I think the all-delta planform had the
cruise and fuel AND wingloading edge over what was basically an FSX
style, span-out, increase to the standard-tailed Viper configuration.
Given the amount of money spent and the still less-than-best dynamic
stiffness results achieved on both the Japanese program and the Super
Bug (which in some, early, 'Hornet 2000' proposals was also a
super-arrow) the more-pylons-on-a-longer-less-swept-wing idea seems to
have hit a dead end aero structurally too.
KP
Mary Shafer
> >2.) How would the F-16Xl compare to an ordinary F-16
>
> It has a cranked delta wing, though im not entirely sure what that means.
It's a cranked arrow wing or a double delta, not a cranked delta. Think of
it as a triangle with a jog in the long side.
The F-16XL also has a fuselage plug and no horizontal tail, as well as
a different engine compared to that in use at the time. I think the
fuselage plug was required to carry enough fuel to make the airplane
competitive.
It's really just barely an F-16--different fuselage, different wing,
different engine, different control system, different empennage.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Mary Shafer
> Starting with some improved controls/scheduling which gave it a
> supposedly MUCH higher, stabilized AOA and roll capability and at the
> last, some nifty control-coupled maneuver modes rather like the AFTI.
It couldn't have much in the way of AFTI-like coupled modes; it has
fewer control surfaces than the regular plane does and fewer than half
as many as the CCV had. You can't do coupling for pure translations
without _pairs_ of control surfaces for each axis that can cancel the
rotations out. A single control surface will always produce a
rotational moment. Anything else is impossible.
> Even baseline it had better roll dampening and CG compensation modes for
> multiple A/A-A/G stores configurations and release modes; all
> pilot-transpari-selected at via a single switch rather like the Hornet
> did later.
So they wrote a better FCS for the plane. Big Deal. (By the way,
it's "damping", not "dampening"--no need to get the plane wet to make
it fly better.)
> 70% commonality with A structure/systems.
I find that hard to believe having seen the two XLs sitting next to an
A down in the YF-12 hangar. No common wing structure, precious little
common empennage structure, different engines, different inlets. The
XLs even use different canopies and canopy actuators.
Carlo Kopp
Excellent posting Kurt, I had intended to add some comment but you have
wal...@oneimage.com
Brian Varine
> I find that hard to believe having seen the two XLs sitting next to an
> A down in the YF-12 hangar. No common wing structure, precious little
> common empennage structure, different engines, different inlets. The
> XLs even use different canopies and canopy actuators.
So it's like an F-16, but different. Right?
Kurt Plummer
>
> Kurt Plummer <ch1...@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> > Starting with some improved controls/scheduling which gave it a
> > supposedly MUCH higher, stabilized AOA and roll capability and at the
> > last, some nifty control-coupled maneuver modes rather like the AFTI.
>
> fewer control surfaces than the regular plane does and fewer than half
> as many as the CCV had. You can't do coupling for pure translations
> without _pairs_ of control surfaces for each axis that can cancel the
> rotations out. A single control surface will always produce a
> rotational moment. Anything else is impossible.
>
> > multiple A/A-A/G stores configurations and release modes; all
> > pilot-transpari-selected at via a single switch rather like the Hornet
> > did later.
>
> it's "damping", not "dampening"--no need to get the plane wet to make
> it fly better.)
>
>
> A down in the YF-12 hangar. No common wing structure, precious little
> common empennage structure, different engines, different inlets. The
> XLs even use different canopies and canopy actuators.
>
> Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
> SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
> sha...@reseng.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
> URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
> For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Hey Mary,
Can't comment on the hows of the maneuvering. The XL at least matched
the original F-16 for total-numbers however (the rear section elements
are split and theres at least a 'partial' LE all-mover on the outer
panel) while I would /guess/ that they do either deflect very rapidly or
with opposed roll force on the inner sides/rudder(?) for lateral
pointing. A similar 'achievement' has been made with the FSX-2 which,
as originally proposed, had the AFTI canards incorporated but is now
'doing without'.
Structure, well I 'can only quote' but there are in fact TWO fuselage
plugs and given their positioning; I would /guess/ that the inlet is
standard NSI or MCID (2-seater) with a 'chunk framing' spliced in
behind. I realize this would alter the inlet pathing but don't know to
what degree it would effect airflow efficiencies.
As for the rest, yes it is indeed /fantastically/ 'different' yet again,
apparently the pair of airframes were modified for 21 million bucks
while the 15B AFCD soaked up 57.
Extension 1, 30" from about 6" aft of the canopy frames.
Extension 2, 26" between the turtleback panel aft of the IFR receptacle
and the LE point of the tail gondola.
Wings use 'bolt on' design approach rather than carry through framing
and allows: "for 93% of the fuselage airframe components and 91% of it's
avionics subsystems, components adn GFE to be utilized. Use of existing
components and systems, necessary modifications to subsytems and
components and requirements for new items have been identified and
procurement of long-lead-time items has been initiated" (Source: AW&ST
7/21/80, pg.21).
I respect your opinions and postion as the likely 'expertest
engineeringest' and would thus take any 'final clarification' you can
provide between the brochure propoganda and for-real engineering.
Please get back to me on this.
Meantime, how 'bout them LINKS!;)-
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL1/HTML/ED95-43029-5.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL1/HTML/ED95-43029-5.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL1/index.html
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/PAO/PAIS/HTML/FS-023-DFRC.html
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/locator/manufact/general/f16.html
http://aeroweb.brooklyn.cuny.edu/aircraft/f16xlb.html
http://www.algonet.se/~saba/bilder.htm
http://www.algonet.se/~saba/f16xl.htm
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/group/aiaa/national/Journals/aircraft.1988.html
http://www.monmouth.com/~osiris/militaryaircraft/f-16xl.htm
http://www.monmouth.com/~osiris/militaryaircraft/index.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/fighter.htm
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f16xl-2.jpg
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f16xl-1.jpg
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f16xl-3.jpg
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/f016.html
Unfortunately most are small or post-muckup with NASA junk foils...:(
THESE BOYZ THO!:)
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~svhastel/f16/versions/f16_xl.htm
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~svhastel/
KP
Carlo Kopp
>
> Carlo Kopp wrote:
> >
> > Excellent posting Kurt, I had intended to add some comment but you have
> > pretty much addressed it all.
> >
> > I think the telling numbers are the combat radius performance on
> > internal gas, and the 9G envelope comparison to the standard wing F-16.
> >
> > Great pity it never made it to the squadron level.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Carlo
>
>
> Wull Shucks, I'm glad it past muster but was hoping someone could
> provide more info on the signature reductions and particularly what they
> might aply/imply to further reduction levels in the diamond wing-16 such
> as the new Motorbooks title on the F-22 has model-depicted... Kinda
> thought that was a dead dog to flog but they talk as if the failure of
> the JSF would make the 'new-XL' a forgone conclusion.
Actually if JSf flops as a joint program I would expect to see a rerun
of the LWF split, which each service developing hihgly optimised
spinoffs of the 32/35, or at least the USAF doing so.
As a starting point, the JSFs have been shaped for LO, whereas a
new-build XL would have to be built from the ground up to get anywhere
near, and this really blows any $$$$ advantages to be gained from
working from that baseline.
BTW the cranked arrow is not a bad planform for observables, but you
would need to design a new nose, a new exhaust, add internal bays, and
go either tail-less or for a pair of twin tails. Either way odds are you
end up with very little structural commonality.
>
> Also, did the Israelis ever get invited to evaluate the original c-arrow
> improvements and if so, how (at lighter weights), would it compare with
> say the Lavi as a 'pure pointy' ACM machine?
No idea, Uri or Tay might know.
>
> I know it would outclass the young lion as an interdictor (never could
> understand some of the design philosophy behind a 'meaner Skyhawk') and
> the PW-1120 seemed a little shy on thrust compared to a full up F-110
> but the roll-indexed, high alpha, quickness seems the critical point of
> comparison (pre-HOBA) and empty, the XL weighed as much as a full up
> 16A, on takeoff.
What would matter to me is the overall loading at combat weight and for
BVR combat the supersonic energy bleed and G envelope. I gather the XL
did very well in the latter areas.
>
> It would also provide some indication (I think) of the 'value' of a
> tailored wing platform versus the canards-forward rcs sacrifice of the
> surviving Euro darts.
>
> Kurt
The cranked arrow is not a bad configuration. I suspect that the canards
are there in the Euro-darts primarily for transonic and low speed turn
performance. The question would be what is the value of low speed
supermanoeuvrability in this day and age of Slammer/Adder and 4th Gen
heaters ?
Cheers,
Carlo
wal...@oneimage.com
Hmmm. The 'maneuvering' F16 was the F16 CCV with the forward ventral fins.
Walt Bj
Arie Kazachin
writes:
>
[snip]
>Also, did the Israelis ever get invited to evaluate the original c-arrow
>improvements and if so, how (at lighter weights), would it compare with
>say the Lavi as a 'pure pointy' ACM machine?
>
I vaguely remember that XL had been evaluated by the IAF teams
in the process of deciding about the future purchases but had been
rejected. I heared this many years ago and I don't remember if this
happened before or after the Lavi cancellation.
AFAIR, the reason was that the XL was a "deviation" from the multi-role
fighter toward a better ground attack performance (much higher load)
at a price of degradation in other aspects while Israel prefares to buy
something that is multi-role. I don't know the maximum G load of the XL
but I guess if you build a stronger structure to hold heavier load the
structure will have to be heavier, thus you'll have to forget the 10.8G
of A and probably also the 9.6G/9.3G of D and settle for something
lower. Also, when instead of rolling by both the wide flaperons
and the horizontal tails you only roll by flaperons (which are probably
narrower because of the smaller winspan of delta), I would expect roll
rate and roll acceleration to be lower.
******************************************************************************
* Arie Kazachin, Israel, e-mail: ariek3.141592...@ibm.net *
******************************************************************************
NOTE: before replying, leave only letters in my userID. Sorry, SPAM trap.
Arie Kazachin
writes:
>
[snip]
>are split and theres at least a 'partial' LE all-mover on the outer
>panel) while I would /guess/ that they do either deflect very rapidly or
>with opposed roll force on the inner sides/rudder(?) for lateral
I'm not sure I've got your meaning but if you mean "differential LEF
movement" I very much doubt it - in models A through D both LEFs are
moved by a single PDU, which turns rigidly connected between them
left and right side rotary actuators which move the LEFs. A great care is
taken for left and right side to move without difference, both by
maintennance procedures and by locking the outer ends if too high
difference is detected. Changing this system to allow LEF to move
differentially would not be a "change" but a major redesign so I very much
doubt that XL moves LEFs principally differently from other models.
As to the speed of LEF movement, this can easily be changed by changing
the teeth numbers ratios in the rotary actuators or by changing dimentions
of control/feedback links of PDU or (if mechanics leaves enough margin)
just by reducing the gain of rotation speed feedback signal. Actually,
event between A-C/D models these parameters are different.
Kurt Plummer
Hey Arie,
Thanks for the info, no, I stated it poorly but I was referring to the
'inner sides' of the TE surfaces which are split around the mass balance
cum 'sensor boom' on the aft edge.
As for the other performance data; it may be that Israel's independent
flight test capability (errrr, CK-1?) enhances the performance of the
jet but the 'real' physicals due seem to be a little bit more complex:
1. Wingspan/Roll Rate
My list shows 32' 4.8" to the inside of the SRM rails; 34' 2.8"
outside-fin on the Winders. The list I have for the F-16A is 31'
without, 32' 10" with the AIM-9.
Roll inertia may indeed be different due to increased area or larger
loads but I would hazard a guess that the combination of split surfaces
and a severely changed sweep angle might help cancel out the bend-flex
loads on the wing; as would the tangential stores carriage method.
Indeed, the AvLeak article I read made special mention of 'retained
crispness', even with the full, X12, bombload.
2. Weights and G.
All's I can XL-say is another quote: "Double the 9G gun firing
opportunities of the _A_ model" (Squadron IA, #53).
To this I would add that Israel is considered 'parent of the
heavyweights' because she /wanted/ more stores delivery capability and
even in USAF service, G loadings seem to have decreased with aging of
the A-model fleet. Can you help me out with a ref source on your 10.69
load limiter here?
As, evidence I offer that depending on reference and the blk.## (WAPJ
21/22 in this case); the all-up weight of the PM F-16C is given as 47K
versus 42.5 on the the USAF blk.40. I find it a little bizarre that
anyone would consider the Barak-D/Brakeet to be 'multirole' under /any/
circumstances and at least with the F-110-100; I would think a C might
be 'challenged' if it bore too much A/G structural/systems beefing at
least at similar payloads.
Lastly, it seems almost a traditional desire of the IAF has to be able
to go farther with more bombs-on and less gas-dropped (externals) as
evidenced by everything from the Mir-V/Nesher/Kfir to the F-4E-not-104
to the most recent F-15I purchase. They seem to count upon pilot skill
and weapons systems superiority to make up any performance shortcoming
in ACM. So again, I wonder where the superior-A/A reference comes from?
With Thanks- Kurt Plummer
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > I find that hard to believe having seen the two XLs sitting next to an
> > A down in the YF-12 hangar. No common wing structure, precious little
> > common empennage structure, different engines, different inlets. The
> > XLs even use different canopies and canopy actuators.
>
> So it's like an F-16, but different. Right?
Yes, just as the F-20 was like an F-5, but different.
Or the F-18E/F is like the F-18A/B/C/D, only 25% larger.
Mary Shafer
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> >
> > Kurt Plummer <ch1...@earthlink.net> writes:
> >
> > > Starting with some improved controls/scheduling which gave it a
> > > supposedly MUCH higher, stabilized AOA and roll capability and at the
> > > last, some nifty control-coupled maneuver modes rather like the AFTI.
> >
> > It couldn't have much in the way of AFTI-like coupled modes; it has
> > fewer control surfaces than the regular plane does and fewer than half
> > as many as the CCV had. You can't do coupling for pure translations
> > without _pairs_ of control surfaces for each axis that can cancel the
> > rotations out. A single control surface will always produce a
> > rotational moment. Anything else is impossible.
> Can't comment on the hows of the maneuvering. The XL at least matched
> the original F-16 for total-numbers however (the rear section elements
> are split and theres at least a 'partial' LE all-mover on the outer
> panel) while I would /guess/ that they do either deflect very rapidly or
> with opposed roll force on the inner sides/rudder(?) for lateral
> pointing. A similar 'achievement' has been made with the FSX-2 which,
> as originally proposed, had the AFTI canards incorporated but is now
> 'doing without'.
It just doesn't work that way, no matter how fast you move them and no
matter what you do with the rudder. If you have only one set of
control surfaces per axis, you _will_ get a moment and _may_ get a
subsequent translation. You must have two sets of control surfaces in
the same axis (canards and elevons, for example, but not canards and
rudder or elevons and rudder) to get translation only, no moment.
Advanced flight control systems can do a lot, but they can't overrule
physics. Physics _always_ wins.
If you have trouble understanding this, try drawing a force diagram.
That will make things a lot clearer. But just for an easy example,
take a ruler and balance it at the center on your finger, to
counteract the gravity vector. Then push up or down on one end,
simulating the force generated by the elevons moving symmetrically.
The ruler will rotate around the center of gravity (where the gravity
vector is) and the other end will move in the opposite direction. If,
however, you put one finger under one end (elevon) and the other
finger under the other end (canard) and push up with both fingers
equally you'll see that the ruler translates (moves upward staying
level) but doesn't rotate. Of course, you're letting lift take care
of gravity here.
The roll-yaw interaction is more complex, of course, but if rolling
and yawing control surfaces are together at the back (or front) of the
airplane, you'll still have a moment. Scheduling them properly will
get you a little translation, but it will be small compared to the
rotations.
KWANG TEOW SANG S/B
and call it the Spitfire II?
The Typhoon was a failure as a fighter and thus relegated to ground attack.
Oh dear....bad precedence. I have nothing against Hawker...it's just the
Spit is so much better loved.
Here's to marketing......
Simon
Sam and Alastair Beadle
<sta...@tm.net.my> wrote:
Hmm - we had enough trouble convincing the Germans to accept any name used
by a British aircraft during WWII - Spitfire they would NEVER have
accepted - shame...
I don;t think the Typhoon was really that much of a disaster anyhow.
Alastair
--
--
(Remove the "deletethis." from the return address to reply by e-mail)
Alastair
KWANG TEOW SANG S/B
Sam and Alastair Beadle <sam...@delfloria.deletethis.demon.co.uk> wrote in
article <samnali-1009...@delfloria.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Hmm - we had enough trouble convincing the Germans to accept any name
used
> by a British aircraft during WWII - Spitfire they would NEVER have
> accepted - shame...
>
> I don;t think the Typhoon was really that much of a disaster anyhow.
>
> Alastair
Conversation on a German airbase, sometime in the early 21st century.
They are two German fighter pilots:, named Hans and Rudi.
Hans: Look Rudi, our new mounts....the Eurofighter.
Rudi : What kind of name is Eurofighter. How will I impress the girlfriend
if I say...would you like to have a ride on MY Eurofighter.
Hans: Well, the silly Tommies came up with the name Taifun. But only for
export.
Rudi: Ja, that's not so bad.....but was that not a Britischer fighter in
WWII.
Hans: It was....but was so bad, they would only use it as a jabo.
Rudi: Scheisse...if I wanted to fly a jabo....I would have gone to the
Tornados.
Hans: I suppose we could have called it a Spitfire.....
Rudi: Ja....Spitfeur...daka-daka-daka....now that is a good name.
Hans: Oh well, back to the Eurofighter.
Dumb.
Ken Duffey
EXCELLENT post ---- Very funny and not so far off the mark.
The Spitfire certainly had a certain cachet during WWII - so much so
that a Luftwaffe pilot who was shot down over the Firth of Forth by a
Hurricane insisted that it had been a Spitfeur !!
Even when the Hurricane pilot was presented to him, he refused to
acknowledge the fact and insisted it was some diabolical Britischer plot
and swore he had been shot down by a Spit.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken Duffey - Flanker Freak & Russian Aviation Enthusiast
Flankers - http://www.swan.ac.uk/mateng/gavins/aviation.htm
S-37 Model - http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/5634/
Genuine E-mailers - remove the x after uk
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++