Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Thanks for that, Launcherman. In the posts that disappeared the guys said the inside stations were only cleared for AGM-65's in wartime, due to scorching of the stabilizers leading edges during launch if i remember correctly. Do you know if this problem still exists with LAU-117 ?

And just a quick update - I won this writing competition and in about 4 weeks I will have a right to call myself a published author!

F-16.net Sponsor

Sorry, I've been off F-16 for many years but I still know they use the LAU-117s.

Just a quick one: what is the oldest block able to launch AGM-88? is it block 30?
Thanks
Shrimpman

shrimpman wrote:

Just a quick one: what is the oldest block able to launch AGM-88? is it block 30?
Thanks
Shrimpman

I dont think 30/32 could launch agm-88.
The first must be the 40/42's... Since 1989...

Congrats on winning the writing competition and being a published author Shrimpman! Thumb

Thank you very much! Cheers

The next one in line is the F-16 stuff Smile

I'm working on the final touches to the first part. Should be ready in the next few weeks. I don't feel strong enough with my English yet, but I think I will try to translate it anyway. I'm afraid it might not retain any literary value after that, but I hope it will still be a good read.

Look forward to it.

Hi guys!
Here's another couple of questions: Let's assume the Viper has access to a really long runway, over 9000 TORA.
1) Would it be able to take off without afterburner?
2) Would it save fuel if it did?
I mean taking off with full AB and going vertical would burn off a lot of fuel, but only for a short period, then once the jets levels at something like 15,000 feet, it would burn much less fuel afterwards. Slowly climbing from the ground level without AB would take good few minutes at low altitude, where fuel consumption is very high. But I guess it would still use up less fuel then going vertical in full AB? Would it make sense to describe Vipers taking off without AB when going on a long ferry mission without tankers' support?
Thanks in advance

4v14t10n wrote:

shrimpman wrote:

Just a quick one: what is the oldest block able to launch AGM-88? is it block 30?
Thanks
Shrimpman

I dont think 30/32 could launch agm-88.
The first must be the 40/42's... Since 1989...

Concerning this list Dutch F16 MLU
Block 20 and lower. The MLU versions are either comparable with roughly block 50

List: Jane's Aircraft Upgrades 1999-00

Netherlands: Requirement to develop a Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) capability
by integrating either Matra BAe Dynamics ALARM or Raytheon/Texas Instruments AGM-88 HARM
anti-radar missiles. Missile purchases are scheduled for 1998.
http://www.aero.pub.ro/wp-content/theme ... u_1617.htm

The AGK-Harm-88 eventually has not been ordered. As far as known.
The Amraam C officially is not in the inventory, but appears to have been delivered in 2005.

Quote: AIM-120C AMRAAM; items: 39; transferred from United States of America to Netherlands
in 2005. Items: 39
http://www.deagel.com/Air-to-Air-Missil ... 64003.aspx

Some realistic Causes:
Bird striking engine where the fan blades get so beat up a disruption of airflow causes the engine to malfunction...

Fuel starvation, due to a leak or just no gas!

Engine gearbox shaft failure, no fuel pump no engine.

Sniper fire. Sniper shoots oil tank causing the pilot to shut down the engine

Exhaust gas nozzle separation. Back end of engine falls off due to a crack, due to vibrations causing a pressure surge.

Pilot kills engine feed switch for unknown reason...

Contaminated fuel

Turbine blade failure, blade comes off due to fatigue

Engine bearing seizure due to blockage of bearing cooling jets

shrimpman wrote:

Here's another couple of questions: Let's assume the Viper has access to a really long runway, over 9000 TORA.
1) Would it be able to take off without afterburner?

It would/could, but 'regulations' may prevent it depending on atmospheric conditions that would affect the engine's performance.
IE - Nellis AFB in summer, NO too hot; Duluth ANGB in winter, yes, nice cold/dense air.

shrimpman wrote:

2) Would it save fuel if it did?

Yes; lots

shrimpman wrote:

I mean taking off with full AB and going vertical would burn off a lot of fuel, but only for a short period, then once the jets levels at something like 15,000 feet, it would burn much less fuel afterwards. Slowly climbing from the ground level without AB would take good few minutes at low altitude, where fuel consumption is very high. But I guess it would still use up less fuel then going vertical in full AB?

Correct; you're talking roughly a 4x or 5x increase of fuel consumption (PPH) for that time. So if you fly 20 seconds in MAX, you'd likely be able to fly 2 or 3 minutes at MIL and still be likely to be higher/faster than trying to perform a 'short MAX zoom climb'.

shrimpman wrote:

Would it make sense to describe Vipers taking off without AB when going on a long ferry mission without tankers' support?

It would make lots of sense. Especially if they were 'stretching' it and waived the rules for takeoff-run versus weight. (Combat conditions often see 'exceptions' to the rules in order to save lives.)

As for your engine malfunctions; some of the biggest drivers for an in-flight failure are 'undetected' FOD (Foreign Object Damage) or latent defects in materials/design. Like the longeron issue with the F-15s that took decades to manifest, latent defects in engine disks can take years to fail. Likewise design 'shortfalls' have plauged engines in service for 25-30 years when the original lifespan requirement was set at 10-12 years in the contract specifications in 1975. (Not a shortfall exactly, but when you use something 3x more than originally planned for, the weaknesses start to appear and unforeseen failures begin to happen.)

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Thank you guys for your help and suggestions. This is invaluable for me. The fragment I am writing takes place at Lake Albert in central Africa. It is at 2000 feet above sea level and nearly at the equator. Reading your replies I see that taking off without afterburner there would be out of question. You’ve saved me from making a foolish error in the text! Thanks Smile

As for the engine malfunction, I will probably go for a bird strike or turbine blade. I think these matters are straightforward enough for me not to fail there.

Quote:

shrimpman
Reading your your replies I see that taking off without afterburner there would be out of question.

If you'll forgive me for throwing in my Two Cents

taking off without afterburner isn't entirely out of the question. If the F-16 was lightly loaded - for example carrying two air to air missiles on the wingtlps, ammo for the built in 20mm gun and not much else, then I think it's still feasible. But in an hot and humid environment my guess is anything beyond that would be a stretch (and if the F-16's needed to intercept they would probably use 'burner - fuel economy be damned)! Keep in mind I'm not a pilot or a maintainer myself so I could be mistaken.

Hi again. I’m falling behind a bit due to my first book being published here. Anyway I finally got to the engine failure part. But now I have some doubts. Would anyone care to correct me if I’m wrong?
1) Would a bird (big ugly beast, a vulture or something) being sucked into the engine intake be audible to the pilot? Would he feel the impact?
2) When the engine goes out, does the EPU have to be switched on manually, or is it automatic?
3) I believe EPU doesn’t last very long - would the pilot have to switch off everything not vital for bringing the plane back, like radar for example, to save power?
4) I recall I’ve read somewhere, that it is required to lower the landing gear asap, because later on there may not be enough power in the hydraulic systems to lower it down. Is that true? I find it a bit hard to imagine a plane gliding with the gear down.
5) Does the JFS have to be on for the EPU to work?
Thanks in advance!
Shrimpman

1) Ingesting a large bird would be audible and it would be felt. If a pilot didn't see the bird prior to impact, a pilot may not know that a bird strike had occurred. The symptoms could also be interpreted as solely an engine failure.
2) The EPU should start automatically.
3) The EPU can run on H-70 for approximately 10 minutes. The pilot does not have to switch things off since the electrical system automatically removes power from certain buses.
4) There's no need to lower the landing gear asap. There is an alternate landing gear extension capability that uses pneumatic pressure.
5) The JFS does not have to be on for the EPU to work; however, running the JFS can help extend EPU operating time for up to 15 minutes if flight control inputs are minimized.

Forum: F-16 Armament & Stores

Can anyone help me with a couple of technical questions?