Page 1 of 9

F-16XL

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2008, 05:32
by PeFo
So, it was politics for the most part why the XL was never put into production? I know the 15 won the contract, but if the XL has superior handling characteristics and could carry more fuel and payload why did they go with the current set up with the F-16?

Unread postPosted: 18 Feb 2008, 06:30
by TimmayMan
They wanted to keep F-15 production lines open.

But honestly the way the train and fly it would be nice to have XLs in place of the blk 40s and maybe even 50. Maybe even if the U.S. bought into CFTs we wouldn't have to waste hours and hours a week on reconfiguring jets. Or maybe we would still.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2008, 21:09
by F16JOAT
The original project was CRAD funded. The delta wing has always been on the design tables as an alternate configuartion, even the F-111 had a delta wing proposal. The F-16XL just happened to come along at a time when the opportune time just happened to be during the second competition fly off for both the F-16/F-15 with new upgrades. I still would like to put a GE-132 in it , that 680 inlet will ram more air than any other inlet to make that engine produce above red-line in no time! :D :D :D

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2008, 22:57
by Master-of-Disaster
It's really a shame that the F-16XL project never got further than the two jets now owned by NASA.
It still is the most beautiful plane ever if you ask me.

Unread postPosted: 19 Sep 2008, 23:08
by F16JOAT
One one remains in NASA's testing. The other has gone to static display last I heard. I also had contract with crew chief a while back and I believe NASA is trying to get an engine upgrade to a current PW-229 and when who knows. :D Maybe some one in th eforum might speak up!

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2008, 07:17
by geogen
Concur re: GE-132 (or equivalent) rated power upgrade for F-16XL-type variant. Is my actual baseline conceptualized for a potential 'Super Viper'. Perhaps add CVV fins and CFT to this model and even 2-D (or axisymmetrical) thrust vectoring option.

Rate of climb would be phenomenal compared to Block 50 and F-15E for one thing.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2008, 16:22
by JetTest
Maybe a great idea, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2008, 16:30
by FlightDreamz
If I remember correctly, General Dynamics got caught in a big scandal overbilling the U.S. Government over some contract and that played a hand in the F-16XL losing to the F-15E.

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2008, 17:33
by renatohm
Source: http://ausairpower.net/TE-F-15E-Strike-Eagle.html An article from the time of selection states:
"MDC's win may be attributed to several factors, firstly the mature airframe and systems of the F-15, secondly the advanced state of the F-15E/APG-63 SAR development program which ran (company funded initially) since the late seventies, thirdly the F-15's ability to carry more bombs further, and finally the 87% spares commonality with the F-15C/D."
If there were politics involved also, e.g., keep the F-15 production line open, GD scandal, etc., we will never know unless someone directly involved in the decision telling it.
EDIT: mispelling :oops:

GE-132 in F-16XL

Unread postPosted: 20 Sep 2008, 22:18
by F16JOAT
geogen wrote:Concur re: GE-132 (or equivalent) rated power upgrade for F-16XL-type variant. Is my actual baseline conceptualized for a potential 'Super Viper'. Perhaps add CVV fins and CFT to this model and even 2-D (or axisymmetrical) thrust vectoring option.

Rate of climb would be phenomenal compared to Block 50 and F-15E for one thing.


The CVV (AFTI variant) wouldn't be such a good idea, delta wing aerodynamics does not lend to side slipping as some lift would be lost off the swept as the swept angle would increase beyond 73 deg and that's not good. CFT's would be a good idea, it just might help the transonic airflow boundary layer near the wing root which was a subject of one of NASA's programs ( they redesigned the wing glove on one side to a more rounded leading edge than the traditional sharp strake blended edge).

Vectoring Nozzle, well we had it tested on a standard F-16 with the GE-AVEN, but look where it went, see any planes flying with it? Lockheed ( just bought out GD when the test program started) couldn't do a good job on the sales to the customers ( NAVY and Air-Force). Navy didn't like the idea of being a sitting duck in some maneuvers where KE was lost to recovery a fast enough maneuvering speed to get out of a combat situation ( T remember that presentation clearly).

How ever, that GE-132 with the 680 inlet on the present F-16XL would be a valuable asset to that combination as it is the largest airflow inlet that any F-16 has carried.

RE: GE-132 in F-16XL

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2008, 00:40
by flames
I'm just putting an idea out. But what if they some how put canards on to the F-16XL??

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2008, 01:38
by FlightDreamz
I'm just putting an idea out. But what if they some how put canards on to the F-16XL??

Sounds like an americanized eurofighter. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2008, 02:10
by flames
True. I never said it was a good idea just an idea. Besides it just might turn out better than the eurofighter :whistle:

Re: GE-132 in F-16XL

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2008, 04:35
by geogen
F16JOAT wrote:
geogen wrote:Concur re: GE-132 (or equivalent) rated power upgrade for F-16XL-type variant. Is my actual baseline conceptualized for a potential 'Super Viper'. Perhaps add CVV fins and CFT to this model and even 2-D (or axisymmetrical) thrust vectoring option.

Rate of climb would be phenomenal compared to Block 50 and F-15E for one thing.


The CVV (AFTI variant) wouldn't be such a good idea, delta wing aerodynamics does not lend to side slipping as some lift would be lost off the swept as the swept angle would increase beyond 73 deg and that's not good. CFT's would be a good idea, it just might help the transonic airflow boundary layer near the wing root which was a subject of one of NASA's programs ( they redesigned the wing glove on one side to a more rounded leading edge than the traditional sharp strake blended edge).

Vectoring Nozzle, well we had it tested on a standard F-16 with the GE-AVEN, but look where it went, see any planes flying with it? Lockheed ( just bought out GD when the test program started) couldn't do a good job on the sales to the customers ( NAVY and Air-Force). Navy didn't like the idea of being a sitting duck in some maneuvers where KE was lost to recovery a fast enough maneuvering speed to get out of a combat situation ( T remember that presentation clearly).

How ever, that GE-132 with the 680 inlet on the present F-16XL would be a valuable asset to that combination as it is the largest airflow inlet that any F-16 has carried.


I hear ya about 'lift' problems, interesting point. Instead of horizontal-flight flat turns however, my thinking for CVV benefit was more in line of J-turn, post-stall and helicopter maneuver enhancers (and perhaps even more stability at low level flight)? Perhaps it could further add to lower speed landings combined with Delta wing and 2-D TVC, for shorter landings??

The rate of climb with the GE-132 however could be what, north of 65k'/min?

Unread postPosted: 21 Sep 2008, 06:46
by sferrin
FlightDreamz wrote:
I'm just putting an idea out. But what if they some how put canards on to the F-16XL??

Sounds like an americanized eurofighter. :roll:


Nah, that would be one of the other "Hornet 2000" configurations that lead to the Super Hornet. Seriously, one of the concepts ditched the horizontal stab and had a canard instead.