"Texas ANG F-16E" Loadout

Here you can discuss paint schemes, kit details etc. for flying and non-flying scale models.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

Trigger

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2003, 03:20

Unread post08 Oct 2003, 03:44

I'm working on Monogram's F-16XL, "updating" it with parts from their new F-16C kit and Hasegawa weapons kits. I'm looking at LANTRIN, GBU-31 JDAMs, GBU-12s, HARM and AGM-154 JSOWs as some of my options.

What I'm looking for is info on hardpoints on the wings. I know there are a total of 17 on the airframe, but I need to know exactly where they are on the wing, which ones are "wet" and what each station's max weight allowance would be. I've seen pix with the four semi-recessed AMRAAMs and 12 Mk82s, but what about heavier bombs or AGMs? What would be "realistic." I really want to outshine all those Super Hornet kits out there. :twisted:

Any help would be much appreciated!
Thanks,
Trigger
Offline

Loader

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 268
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2003, 15:55

Unread post08 Oct 2003, 13:08

I don't know if we will ever really know what station capability the XL had because the aircraft never came to be. If found, I would be very interesting in seeing it.

Loader
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post08 Oct 2003, 14:27

Trigger, there is an old IPMS Quarterly that had an excellent article on the XL and the mods needed to correct the Monogram kit. Do you have access to that? It was a wealth of information IIRC.
Reality Is For People Who Can't Handle Simulation
Offline

Trigger

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2003, 03:20

Unread post08 Oct 2003, 19:02

No, sadly I don't.

I do know that the nose profile and radome shape is incorrect for a production model Viper and word has it that the intake is slighty too far fore or aft. I'll probably ignore those two points. I've already grafted a Cs tail, some ECW and RWR bumps and AMRAAM-compatible wingtip launch rails.

Habu2, if you or someone out there has a copy of that article, I'd be interested in seeing a copy of it.

habu_1974@hotmail.com
- Trigger
"There's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives"
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post08 Oct 2003, 19:46

The strakes on the XL do not extend forward along the sides of the nose like the production F-16, that might be the difference you are seeing. In fact the throttle area on an F-16 protrudes slightly into the strake area, and on the XL you can see a small hump/bubble on the left side under the canopy to provide clearance for the throttle mount. The radome is identical on the airplanes, I don't have the kit in front of me to compare.

There were two fuselage plugs (extensions) added to the XLs, the forward plug was between the cockpit and the wing but did not include the intake, so the real XL nose is longer but not the intake. On the Monogram kit they lengthened both so the intake/nose gear should be moved back to maintain proper spacing forward of the main gear, which did not move. This mod is not too hard to do.

The rear plug not only lengthened the fuselage but tilted the rear of the airplane up approximately 3 degrees. This was done to allow for ground clearance of the now-longer rear fuselage when the aircraft rotated on takeoff (and landing). This plug was between the (original) wing and the engine so the engine moved back with the tail. By that I mean the internal inlet ducting in front of the engine was lengthened, not the tailpipe. Hope that makes sense. The Monogram kit has the extension but not the upward tilt. Adding the tilt would be a major task as you'd have to deal with the wing root and fuselage joint all along the aft chord length.

These are pretty major mods to the Monogram kit, but even without them the Monogram kit is light-years better than the old 1:32 Ace/Revell-Germany/Trumpeter/Zhengdefu hack job on the original Hasegawa molds. That kit included none of the fuselage plugs - they merely grafted a poor approximation of the XL wing onto the standard F-16 fuselage.

GregD
Offline

habu2

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2809
  • Joined: 05 Sep 2003, 20:36

Unread post12 Oct 2003, 22:25

Trigger, it is your lucky day. Here is some info I have been able to dig up on the Monogram kit mods and the XL loadout.

I erred earlier when I said the main gear placement did not need to be moved. Monogram put both plugs between the nose and main gear. This image shows where the real plugs are and compares the kit with the outline of a real XL. You can see the intake and nose gear needs to go back 30 scale inches, the main gear needs to go forward 26 scale inches, and the amount of tilt (3 deg) in the rear fuselage:

Image

There are other inaccuracies but those are the major ones. Now on to the loadout.

The F-16XL had 17 stations and 29 hardpoints. The wingtips, centerline and chin points accounted for 5, four AIM-120s could be carried semi-submerged along the wingroot, four more hardpoints for heavy loads under the wings and 16 short stub pylons for lighter (Mk 82 class) stores. Of course not all 29 could be loaded at once, an "H" hardpoint replaced any "F/C/A" hardpoints. For instance you could have 2 or 2H but not both, likewise you could have (4F and 4A) or 4H but not both. Here is a graphic showing the stations and hardpoints:

Image

Stations 8/10 were the chin sensor pods but neither XL ever carried LANTIRN or any other sensor pods as far as I could find. I might have 11/12 reversed, I'm not sure which was which.

Here is a chart showing some of the different loads carried during the flight test program, there were many more configs but this is all I found:

Image

I did find references to the following possible loadouts:

- 14 AIM-120 AMRAAMS (!)
- 16 Mk82s, 2x AIM-9s, 4x AIM-120s
- 600gal tanks (on 4H/14H), 370 gal tanks (on 2H/16H), 300 gal tank (on 9), 2x AIM-9s (on 1/17), 4x AIM-120s (on 6/7/11/12)

That last one is amazing - that's almost 15,000 lbs of external fuel. Add that to the 12,750 lbs of internal fuel the XL was capable of carrying (includes 2,385# in each wing) and just imagine the unrefueled range...

The Monogram kit roughly depicts stations 1/17, 2H/16H, 4H/14H, 6/12 and 7/11. To depict the Mk82 layout you would need to fill the holes in the kit wing and scratchbuild the small pylons.

F-16XL-1 had a P&W F100 engine, F-16XL-2 had a GE F110 engine, so either could be correct for your version. Both had the extended drag chute housing, and larger landing gear struts and wheels to handle the heavier XL configuration.

I also found a quote from Joe Bill Dryden (late GD test pilot) that the XL had a better pitch rate than a Block 10A F-16.

GregD
Offline

Trigger

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 5
  • Joined: 08 Oct 2003, 03:20

Unread post13 Oct 2003, 23:38

Lucky day indeed! Thank you, thank you, thank you Habu2!

I knew that the XL had a lot of potential and I'm sure they had smart weapons in mind when they were in development, but WOW. And that's 20 years ago! This is before JDAM, HARM, 500lb LGB tank plinkers, etc. When I started this thread, my biggest problem was "what can I put on here," now it's "what do I leave off"

Even though the Monogram kits looks "right", I see what you mean. I honestly don't know it my surgical skills are up for that level of conversion.

I'm currently working on grafting the brake chute housing onto a Cs tail for my "Echo-Viper" and replacing the kit's original exhaust with a more detailed tailpipe. Also adding bulges to the main gear door like late model Cs.

With any luck, my next posting to this thread will include pix of the finished product!
- Trigger
"There's no problem that can't be solved with a suitable application of high explosives"

Return to Scale Models - F-16, F-35, F/A-22, F-2

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests