F-16XL

popcorn · by **popcorn** » 10 May 2009, 16:05

Thanks for the clarification Johnwill.

F16JOAT · by **F16JOAT** » 02 Jun 2009, 18:22

Answer to the canards would be a plus. NASA did some external aero tests after they acquired the planes. Remember a few discussion to help air flow over the leading edge strake area to help with the Hi-AOA where roll off stability was hard to control.

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 02 Jun 2009, 22:11

Canards were considered by GD during the XL design phase, but showed no improvement over the chosen design. XL had better high AoA handling characteristics than the basic F-16, even though XL did not have ventral fins.

F16JOAT · by **F16JOAT** » 02 Jun 2009, 22:26

Oh right remember the ventral exercise along with the engine nozzle. Take-off and landing approach coupled with the 3 degree canted fuselage from the main landing gear aft would have resulted in grinding off about 3/4 of the effective height of the ventral. By the way, on the 4th flight Hi angle T/O the PW 220 on the #2 did scratch the turkey feathers some but not much. Made the performance guys go back to the table to double check the numbers. AFT CG issue was big factor.

geogen · by **geogen** » 03 Jun 2009, 03:59

Hats off to you guys, johnwill and JOAT. Thanks for your service..

My dream bird even today would be an F-16XL type, (perhaps with a later 'Finless' block and all new FCS), with CFT to possibly assist even better high AoA roll stability control characteristics, LOAN, LO inlet, 32k class power and possible CCV-type control fins for even better low altitude stability as well as improved high AoA control??

I'm pretty sure that if that bird was already developed by now as it should have been, it would be selling like hotcakes for another 10 yrs.

F16JOAT · by **F16JOAT** » 03 Jun 2009, 19:38

As a matter of fact, maybe Johnwill might remember the special project where we did just that. Proposal for a tailess version of an F-16XL look alike. I think the paper proposal also added a tipped canard to the wing as oppose to the "cranked arrow design". The tips reminded me of the Rockwell X-B70 configuration.

ViperDude · by **ViperDude** » 05 Jun 2009, 00:22

whynot wrote:
If that Vin guy is crewing the XL at Edwards then show us pics, if Johnwill was there on the program then cut and paste documents to show us. From what I know, based on the current aircraft I work on, the LEF statement sounds to be true. Believe me it's possible! Oh and they are PDU's (Power Drive Units)

Okay here is my proof...I have no idea why I even have to prove myself on here.

I worked XL1 and XL2 from the summer of 1984 until day they left for NASA in late 1985. I mainly worked avionics but worked primarily Weapons and Flight Controls on them. Back then we had 2 USAF assigned personnel to the aircraft and one guys name was Bernie and the other we called Sargent Mary and she is in the 400hr photo of XL1. Every time an aircraft completed 100 flights we took a group photo. Maybe JohnWill can remember them as well. Anyway enjoy the photos and I am in them as well. The sad thing is that quite a few of the people in these photos have passed on, and one of those guys just passed away not too long ago but if you ever knew good old "Doc Blanchard", he was one great guy and a lot of laughs.

Me Im standing 10 from the left, and Sgt Mary is right up front.

This is the last official photo taken of Xl1 & XL2 while assigned to the F-16 CTF. They had just landed after completing the last flights together before going to NASA. I believe this is late 1985, and I am standing just to the left of XL1's pitot tube.

Great shot over the water...with external fuels tanks

~Viperdude

F16JOAT · by **F16JOAT** » 05 Jun 2009, 03:21

You don't need to prove anything, anyone on the forum who has worked the XL's from GD to delivery at EAFB will know who's kidding who in the forum. Especially myself. I know for fact we did not deliver XL2 to EAFB with a F100-GE-110, it had another designation and very few people especially the propulsion set will know. It was shortly removed later after a few flights to return to GE since it was not GFE but a research engine modified by GE. A GE-110 production was later installed for continued flight test.

cywolf32 · by **cywolf32** » 05 Jun 2009, 03:27

Respects Vdude. I envy those who have the opportunity for these assignments. Speaks much of you character and intelligence. And thanks for the pics!! Much appreciated.

F16JOAT · by **F16JOAT** » 11 Aug 2009, 21:34

Gee a GE-132 with an AVEN nozzle in a XL????

No kidding, I wonder who would like a flag ship like this that never could be beaten not even by today's new toys.

geogen · by **geogen** » 12 Aug 2009, 06:07

Nah, not the ANG.. they're into Hornets now.

Re: XL: Higher speed, higher rate of climb, better AoA, better range/endurance, lower RCS, higher payload...

There should be 300 at least in service by now replacing block 30s/40s (at a fraction of the cost), I'm sorry. Capable for the next 15+ yrs to match likely Mig-35/Su-30x.

Respects to those involved w/ this TIE FIGHTER program indeed, way ahead of it's time.

madrat · by **madrat** » 02 Jul 2010, 21:16

ViperDude, thanks for the pictures!

geogen · by **geogen** » 03 Jul 2010, 06:16

Oh please folks... do not bring up the F-16XL again like this. Ever. It's aruably the most historic, decisive loss to cost-effective tacair deterrence strategy planning, the USAF (and perhaps FMS) never had.. :nono:

God speed.

cywolf32 · by **cywolf32** » 03 Jul 2010, 13:29

Its an open forum Geo. Many posters know how you feel regarding the XL. That does not mean that newer posters cannot opine on the subject. Obviously this poster feels the same as you. Me too infact. But it does not change the events that happened. Live and learn? In most cases not. Politics are just like taxes. No end in sight......

Respectfully

Obi_Offiah · by **Obi_Offiah** » 07 Jul 2010, 21:02

Looking at the head-on pictures of the XL, I'm wondering if they would have retained the same stores stations and Aim-120 recesses with production aircraft. It looks like there's a possibility of stores collison with the inside station when launching an AMRAAM?

I'm also curious to know how the XL would handle various other weapon configurations. It manages well with 12 500 pounders and AMRAAM's (excluding stores collison if that is a problem?), but what about mixes of LGB's and GBU's such as the GBU-15 and AGM-130?

An F-15E with 12 MK-82's still has space for a mix of 3 2000lb GBU's or GBU's and AGM-65's