F-16.net

In 1984 the GD representative in Norway gave a presentation on the tests going on with a new version of the Viper, the <a href ="modules.php?op=modload&name=Sections&file=index&req=viewarticle&artid=12" title=" F-16 AFTI - Advanced Fighter Technology Integration" target="_blank">F-16 AFTI</a>. He showed us film and told us about the results so far.

Many of the specialties of the AFTI seem to be creeping in to the F-35, 20 years later, but the forward canards seem to have been placed on the shelf. The GD man told us that with the canards the AFTI could do a 4G sideways shift, as well as moving vertically, without giving away his intentions by pitching or banking, in the unlikely event of a bogey at six. In test dogfights with an F-4, (I know, not fair) the F-4 had the advantage of starting on the AFTI?s tail. The AFTI did a sudden sideways shift, opened the speed breaks and the F-4 blasted past the Viper? The AFTI could also turn his nose (gun) several degrees off the line of travel, hence increasing the time the gun points at the target. As the A-10 replacement, both the Viper and the F-35 could benefit from this with their much higher speed through the hot areas.

Does anybody know why the canards never made it past the AFTI study?

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Don't know why, but the canards would have precluded carrying sensor pods on 5L/5R, I would guess the capability to carry those pods was deemed more important than the maneuverability gains provided by the canards.

I have heard that other pilots felt it was unsafe to fly close formation with the AFTI because of the lack of cues when the AFTI changed it's flight path.

I don't know why the canards were not used in production aircraft either for sure, as I only worked on the AFTI testbed at Dryden for a very short time. But having the pod capability on the inlet hardpoints probably wasn't the main reason. The AFTI had the Mission Adaptive Pods (MAPS) built into each wing root, and these pods could be changed rather quickly (i.e. in between flights), depending on need and mission. I heard (but can't say for sure) that these pods really disrupted the aerodynamic lift generated from the forebody strake, and caused some noticeable buffeting on the tail surfaces. There were also extra sensors on the nose, in front of the canopy (where the bird slicer antennae go on the ADF version).

I suspect the forward canards were tested and evaluated, and then they moved on to other test programs. The weight, CG effects, drag, and complexity of the canards (i.e. hydraulic actuators, mounting, etc) may have proved more costly than advantageous. And the advent of thrust vectoring testing soon thereafter (i.e. VISTA/MATV, X-31 et al) may have been the next logical step in this test sequence. And we are in fact seeing thrust vectoring incorporated on new aircraft (F-22, F-35, etc) to improve maneuvering.

FlightTestJim, did you ever get a glimpse of the AFTI cockpit? I have seen one small photo that shows a special throttle setup, a linear slider much like the MiG-29. Can you confirm this throttle setup?

Hi Habu2,

Here is a picture of the AFTI cockpit. It clearly showes an alterred throttle setup compared to the normal stick in other F-16s you can see a kind of linear setup.

Greets,

habu2,
It did have a "unique" throttle as I recall, and stick too, though I don't even see the throttle quadrant in the photo above. I'll have to check through some photo folders I have at home, and see if that's in there somewhere. A lot of things on that jet were very unique and one of a kind. I only spent a few hours actually in the cockpit, working to design and install a KY-58 Secure Voice radio capability.

F-16.net

Forum: F-16 Design & Construction

F-16 AFTI - Before its time