Forum: General F-16 forum

As beautiful and impressive as the F-16 is, where does the Falcon lack? What deficiencies or design flaws, should or need to be addressd? Yes, I am sort of trolling, trying to find out if the so called "Fighter Mafia" got everything right.

F-16.net Sponsor

My brief take on it

The YF-16 is probably what John Boyd really wanted - the ultimate daytime dogfighter.

The Production F-16A has a radar and less wing area and is a bit heavier - the USAF wanted more capability - this was maybe against what Boyd wanted - but ultimately they were spot on.

It has to make do with a smaller radar than the F-15 - not a major problem as the F-15 was already cooked and part of the USAF hi / low mix

The Fighter Mafia were perhaps not convinced with progression in Electronic warfare (even to this day Confused

? ) - such as radar guided A-A missiles - which were to be fair **** when the F-16 was being put down - but its easy with hindsight.

But..........

And if you doubt the lightweight design concept (with FBW) - its influence is present in all modern Fighters

The F-16 - Still in production and being sold 34 years later -- a benchmark in fighter design...............

flighthawk has it about right, except the F-16A wing is larger than the YF-16, 300 sqft vs 270 sqft. Also, the F-16A structural weight was slightly less than the YF-16, which was a quickie design with lots of structural margin designed in, as there was no ultimate static test or durability test for the YF. The F-16A was heavier overall, but the extra weight was in added systems and fuel.

The reduced structural weight of the F-16A is even more impressive when you consider the YF-16 was designed for 6.5g and the F-16A for 9g.

radar....day vfr dogfighter is all well and good, but heresy aside, the idea was not applicable anymore. Once the enemy started carrying missle's, if you want to fight those airplanes, you need a longer stick (sts). With the flogger carrying apexs' the writing was on the wall. They did get right the concept of the lightweight fighter. Single engine, mass production, etc...

The production versions don't have cup holders. Wink

A important shortcoming of the F-16 design is that the asimetrical loads hits badly in the maneuvre capability and general stability compared to others design , thats is bad if drop a bomb and left another one in the opposite wing.

ok, a F-16 loaded with bombs, pods and drop tanks, shouldn't need much maneuvre capability, but the assimetric loads can cause a badly yaw that should make a dumb bombing less accurate tha other aircraft, for example a F-18 or F-15

Worse if you have the same problem with A-A missiles, launching a sole sparrow in a F-16ADF brings the situation that a heavy draggy sparrow will remains in the wings, limiting the AOA and Gs that the F-16 can pull in a turn, specially in high alttitude.

these shortcomings make the F-16 design less suitable that others as strike aircraft or BVR fighter, specially at high altitude.

check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo

Another shortcoming that I've read, is problems with the integration of weapons and external stores and lack of maneuvre capability at high altitude compared to others fighters.

Don't think problems with an asymmetric load is unique to the F-16 though. Check out what f-15.info has to say about the crash of an F-15E Strike Eagle in Libya.

Quote:

cause of the mishap was the aircraft's sudden departure from controlled flight because it exceeded the critical angle of attack during an air force approved combat maneuver. Other contributing factors to this accident include the pilot conducting an AF-wide accepted maneuver for the F-15E at a previously untested altitude and lateral asymmetry (unbalanced aircraft).

The emphasis on lateral asymmetry is mine.

See http://www.f-15e.info/joomla/en/strike- ... h-in-libya

Hi,

I am an Industrial Design student at the University of Cincinnati. For my most recent project, I have decided to take on the task of designing a cockpit for a fighter jet.

I was hoping that some of you may be able to put me in touch with some fighter pilots, or better yet, that perhaps one of you is a fighter pilot. If so, it would be an invaluable resource to help me throughout the research and development phases of this project.

I would be deeply grateful if any of you could help me out. I would love to have the chance to speak with actual fighter pilots.

Respectfully,

Mike

ps: If you are or can put me in touch with a fighter pilot, feel free to email me at:

mike@michaelmatteodesign.com

Thanks!

Trying not to think in present day fighter requirements, the F-16 was designed for a specific or perceived threat. The USAF wanted a Hi-Low mix and got a superb dog fighting AC, which also could pound ground. Designed 35+ years ago to AF specifications, making the early AC more capable, small radar and short range are all design limitations and trade-offs imposed when you make a dedicated dogfighter.

johnwill wrote:

flighthawk has it about right, except the F-16A wing is larger than the YF-16, 300 sqft vs 270 sqft. Also, the F-16A structural weight was slightly less than the YF-16, which was a quickie design with lots of structural margin designed in, as there was no ultimate static test or durability test for the YF. The F-16A was heavier overall, but the extra weight was in added systems and fuel.

The reduced structural weight of the F-16A is even more impressive when you consider the YF-16 was designed for 6.5g and the F-16A for 9g.

Ah good catch, got me wires crossed - Coram writes that Boyd wanted and tried to get the wing area up to 320 sqft to compensate for the extra electronics weight and other changes to the F-16A - and essentially keep it at the handling level of the YF-16 (or so he thought).

That's interesting info on the structural weight though thanks John.

flighthawk wrote:

My brief take on it

The YF-16 is probably what John Boyd really wanted - the ultimate daytime dogfighter.

The Production F-16A has a radar and less wing area and is a bit heavier - the USAF wanted more capability - this was maybe against what Boyd wanted - but ultimately they were spot on.

It has to make do with a smaller radar than the F-15 - not a major problem as the F-15 was already cooked and part of the USAF hi / low mix

The Fighter Mafia were perhaps not convinced with progression in Electronic warfare (even to this day Confused

? ) - such as radar guided A-A missiles - which were to be fair **** when the F-16 was being put down - but its easy with hindsight.

But..........

And if you doubt the lightweight design concept (with FBW) - its influence is present in all modern Fighters

The F-16 - Still in production and being sold 34 years later -- a benchmark in fighter design...............

So the F-16 wasn't qiute what the AF was looking for, and lacked in some critical areas like radar, range and some design inadequacies, structural strength and stability. With these issues it still turned out to be a stellar AC.

The F-16 is the benchmark for fighter agility and manueverability, improvements have not only made it a great dogfighter but all around good AC.

mikedesigner wrote:

Hi,

I am an Industrial Design student at the University of Cincinnati. For my most recent project, I have decided to take on the task of designing a cockpit for a fighter jet.

I was hoping that some of you may be able to put me in touch with some fighter pilots, or better yet, that perhaps one of you is a fighter pilot. If so, it would be an invaluable resource to help me throughout the research and development phases of this project.

I would be deeply grateful if any of you could help me out. I would love to have the chance to speak with actual fighter pilots.

Respectfully,

Mike

ps: If you are or can put me in touch with a fighter pilot, feel free to email me at:

mike@michaelmatteodesign.com

Thanks!

I'm not actually a fighter pilot (yet), but I can give you a few pointers. You want to minimize 'heads-down' time by presenting all vital information on the HUD and possibly a small button console directly below it. Using LCD screens with either touchscreen technology or a button collar, you can enable quick weapons and systems management. You also want to minimize canopy frames that obstruct vision or create blind spots. Finally, you want to make sure that the pilot isn't reaching every which way to accomplish simple tasks. The payload control panel on the F-4 is a perfect counterexample of this. The pilot has to reach down between his/her legs to use it, meaning that they aren't looking outside and avoiding/engaging hostiles.

Forum: General F-16 forum

F-16 shortcomings