Forum: General F-16 forum

Someone pointed out to me recently that we didn't have the complete interview with Hillaker posted on the Code One website. I checked the reference copy of the old site that we retain internally and apparently we never posted it there either. I scanned and OCR'd the print version and added it to the existing (Part 1) interview on our new site today:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/article.html?item_id=37

It's a great read and gives you a lot of background on the F-16 and some classic Hillaker insights.

Enjoy.

--EH

F-16.net Sponsor

Thank you for sharing that article Eric!

I was just about to post this article myself, glad I checked the threads first. If you're out there johnwill, this piece it right up your alley. This guy doesn't say such nice things about the F-111 either. Wink

1st503rdsgt,

I lived it, so none of this is new to me. As a mid-level engineer, I did not get in on the high level decisions, but knew all the guys involved and did not concern myself with any of the politics going on. It was great fun and a good way to spend ten years before moving on to other projects.

Concerning the F-111, notice Harry says the bad reputation was undeserved. To me the surprising thing about GD winning the LWF competition was we had never built a fighter before (at Fort Worth), only bombers (B-24, B-32, B-36, B-58) and the -111, an attack airplane. Our sister division at San Diego had of course built the F-102 and F-106, but little of that experience made its way to Fort Worth, except for delta wing effects on the B-58.

The part about building in bulkheads for an alternate wing placement should the FBW not pan out was pretty clever. Cool

And maybe I'm all wet but I read or heard somewhere that the flat boxy areas just forward of the stabs are vestiges of one Hillaker design idea that gave the Viper twin tails. ICBWT.

johnwill wrote:

1st503rdsgt,

I lived it, so none of this is new to me. As a mid-level engineer, I did not get in on the high level decisions, but knew all the guys involved and did not concern myself with any of the politics going on. It was great fun and a good way to spend ten years before moving on to other projects.

Concerning the F-111, notice Harry says the bad reputation was undeserved. To me the surprising thing about GD winning the LWF competition was we had never built a fighter before (at Fort Worth), only bombers (B-24, B-32, B-36, B-5 Cool

and the -111, an attack airplane. Our sister division at San Diego had of course built the F-102 and F-106, but little of that experience made its way to Fort Worth, except for delta wing effects on the B-58.

That's awesome. I'm trying to finish a master's thesis on early American missile development (which also involved Convair). For my dissertation (if I ever do one) I hope to compare/contrast the GD LFX effort with a less successful program that got too bogged down in extra capability. Maybe it was an accident that the F-16 proved to be so versatile and popular, but it shows the viability developing a simple, strong airframe and augmenting it over time rather than expecting it to do everything at once. I wish this approach had been taken with the JSF, but maybe that's impossible for a plane with internal stores.

LinkF16SimDude wrote:

The part about building in bulkheads for an alternate wing placement should the FBW not pan out was pretty clever. :cool: And maybe I'm all wet but I read or heard somewhere that the flat boxy areas just forward of the stabs are vestiges of one Hillaker design idea that gave the Viper twin tails. ICBWT.

Bulkhead spacing could have helped if the FBW did not work out, but a huge amount of redesign would still have been required. For example, the lifting tail reduces wing and fuselage loads, so both wing and fuselage would have to have increased strength and weight.

Those boxy areas probably would have made good mounting points for the twin verticals, had they been adopted. Wind tunnel model data showed no benefit, so a single tail was used (lighter, cheaper, lower drag). As it turns out, those areas are well used for fuel and to house the hydraulic actuators for the flaperons and horizontal tails. They also serve to increase fuselage lift.

Northrop Grumman's Firebird, 5-9-11

Eric, I wanted to share an airplane design that my late father made when he was 25 years old, so I was delighted to find this post! Anyway, May 9th would have been his 92nd birthday, and it happened to be the day that Northrop Grumman unveiled its new design, the Firebird. I know the similarities would really have made him chuckle!

Forum: General F-16 forum

Harry Hillaker - Complete Code One Interview