Super maneuverable F-16 - Theoretical question

Agreed, it will never be a fair fight but how would the F-16 match up against the ... ?
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post27 Jan 2005, 21:58

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.
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post27 Jan 2005, 23:16

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
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 04:53

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.
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 07:20

Like this one?

Image
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 15:46

That's a cool one, but what is this one called? Also are those canards below the air
inlet?
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 16:12

F-16H Super Viper

(H = Hoax) 8)

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.

Image

Image

Image
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 17:30

Oh, so those were canards on the AFTI F-16. I had first thought they were stabilizers, or something.
Offline

Roscoe

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1320
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2004, 20:14
  • Location: Las Vegas

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 18:01

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

"It's time to get medieval, I'm goin' in for guns" - Dos Gringos
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post29 Jan 2005, 22:43

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?
Offline

Stefaan

F-16.net Webmaster

F-16.net Webmaster

  • Posts: 2603
  • Joined: 23 May 2003, 11:32
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post30 Jan 2005, 21:13

If possible, could you post the F2/F-16 question in the following topic:
  • <a href="f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-1165.html ">F-16 vs. F-2 FSX</a>
I'd like to keep this topic about the impact of canards and thrust vectoring on maneuverability :-)

Sorry for the nit-picking :-)

stefaan
Stefaan Vanhastel
F-16.net Webmaster.
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post31 Jan 2005, 21:35

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.
Offline

wwb23

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 17 Nov 2004, 01:45
  • Location: Germany

Unread post01 Feb 2005, 18:52

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?
Offline

agilefalcon16

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 26 Jan 2005, 20:59

Unread post01 Feb 2005, 21:16

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?
Last edited by agilefalcon16 on 26 Jun 2005, 16:59, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

lamoey

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1076
  • Joined: 25 Apr 2004, 17:44
  • Location: 77550

Unread post01 Feb 2005, 21:26

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 :D

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
Offline

ACSheva

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2004, 04:48

Unread post01 Feb 2005, 21:29

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
Next

Return to F-16 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests