Super maneuverable F-16 - Theoretical question
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Hi everyone,
Do you think that if you had the F-16 Agile falcon concept design, added canard foreplanes, and a MATV nozzel to it, do you think that it would be "super maneuverable" like the F-22 and the Su-37?
This question has been bugging me ages now. I just would like to know how these things would affect the maneuverability of my favorite aircraft.
Any help would be appreciated.
Do you think that if you had the F-16 Agile falcon concept design, added canard foreplanes, and a MATV nozzel to it, do you think that it would be "super maneuverable" like the F-22 and the Su-37?
This question has been bugging me ages now. I just would like to know how these things would affect the maneuverability of my favorite aircraft.
Any help would be appreciated.
- Senior member
- Posts: 439
- Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48
Welcome agilefalcon16
I think that it is possible, it probably would be hard. Since the body would probably have to be re designed(bigger wing area)and etc. Its probably not worth it now, too late in its years. Still it would be nice to see.
ACSheva
I think that it is possible, it probably would be hard. Since the body would probably have to be re designed(bigger wing area)and etc. Its probably not worth it now, too late in its years. Still it would be nice to see.
ACSheva
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I guess to figure out just how manueverable this design really is, it would need to be built, which probably will never happen. Darn, I wish the U.S. gave the go ahead for the Agile falcon program.
Last edited by agilefalcon16 on 11 May 2005, 20:08, edited 1 time in total.
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
That's a cool one, but what is this one called? Also are those canards below the air
inlet?
inlet?
F-16H Super Viper
(H = Hoax)
It is a composite of several different planes. Some skilled member of this board put a pair of Raptor wings on it and colored it to look very sexy. I then put the canards of the early 80's F-16 AFTI on it and tried to make the Raptor engine nozzle look about right for it as well.
(H = Hoax)
It is a composite of several different planes. Some skilled member of this board put a pair of Raptor wings on it and colored it to look very sexy. I then put the canards of the early 80's F-16 AFTI on it and tried to make the Raptor engine nozzle look about right for it as well.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Oh, so those were canards on the AFTI F-16. I had first thought they were stabilizers, or something.
The Japanese F-2 (?) is based on the Agile Falcon concept and has experienced tons of structural issues. There was a reason we chose not to go that route
Roscoe
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A
"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
F-16 Program Manager
USAF Test Pilot School 92A
"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Roscoe, I think you're right. It would make sense that structual issues would have been a major problem for the Agile falcon concept. So what do you guys think about the F-2's maneuverability compared to that of just a basic F-16CJ?
- F-16.net Webmaster
- Posts: 2603
- Joined: 23 May 2003, 11:32
If possible, could you post the F2/F-16 question in the following topic:
Sorry for the nit-picking
stefaan
- <a href="f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1165.html ">F-16 vs. F-2 FSX</a>
Sorry for the nit-picking
stefaan
Stefaan Vanhastel
F-16.net Webmaster.
F-16.net Webmaster.
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
No problem Stefaan, I agree totally that this topic should be focused on the impact of canards and thrust vectoring on the F-16. I rewrote the F-2 question under the F-16 vs. F-2 FSX section.
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 78
- Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 01:45
- Location: Germany
I agree with Roscoe that this idea would likely cause EXTREME sructural integrity issues. As kewl as it would be, I don't think that the jet could handle the amount of stress that this would produce. I also don't think that any pilots would stay concious trying it, as the amount of G-forces would be way out there.
I think there might also be a serious stall problem involved in this idea.... As the jet did a super fast turn, would there be enough air going up the intake to sustain the engine? Hmmm... It might require moving the inlet to someplace like next to the wing roots, similar to the F-22. That's just an idea, though.
It would be extremely awesome to see what an engineer has to say on this issue. Maybe we can get the AFETS guys to give up Lockheed's oppinion on this one?
I think there might also be a serious stall problem involved in this idea.... As the jet did a super fast turn, would there be enough air going up the intake to sustain the engine? Hmmm... It might require moving the inlet to someplace like next to the wing roots, similar to the F-22. That's just an idea, though.
It would be extremely awesome to see what an engineer has to say on this issue. Maybe we can get the AFETS guys to give up Lockheed's oppinion on this one?
- Senior member
- Posts: 401
- Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59
Yeah, this idea would cause a lot of structual problems for the aircraft, but how come the Su-37 can have these things, and didn't cause very many structual problems for that aircaft, at least I don't think it did. Could it be that the airframe of the Su-27 is more durable than that of the F-16 so that is can use canards, and thrust-vectoring engines.
Also how do the pilots stay conscience in the Su-37 while doing extreme manuevers?
Could it be that they have some strange G-suit that we don't know about?
Also how do the pilots stay conscience in the Su-37 while doing extreme manuevers?
Could it be that they have some strange G-suit that we don't know about?
Last edited by agilefalcon16 on 26 Jun 2005, 16:59, edited 1 time in total.
Notice the low speed when the SU-37 does its special manouvers. It may not pull that high G-load when doing them. In a real fight higher G-loads would be unavoidable and perhaps then we'll see a few SU-37's with bent wings
In the "old" days the Viper had to go thorugh a full "G check" if it pulled more than 9.8G, so thats was the limit of the airframe it appears.
In the "old" days the Viper had to go thorugh a full "G check" if it pulled more than 9.8G, so thats was the limit of the airframe it appears.
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
- Senior member
- Posts: 439
- Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48
Well probably because the awesome 35/37 was designed for that type of crazy flying.So it was already built to use its canards,and thrust vectoring stuff. Where on the 16 all of that stuff has to be added on. So it will probably cause some problems. Its all a structure issue.
Shev
Shev
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests