F-16XL
- Banned
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
True, the F-15E class would likely still be the heavier hanger of the two (albeit at an even heavier cost to range), given twice the power and bigger airframe. The XL could probably still accomodate 2x 2k lb class stand-off load-out though, plus 12-16x mixed SDB and 500lb class load and the rear 2 AMRAAM. Perhaps up to 16x SDB or 500lb class load and possibly 18x with the twin centerline rail, could be plausible in addition to the 2x rear AMRAAM. In air-air role, there would be more load parity though, with XL seemingly capable of carrying 4x AMRAAM class, 4x heavier ESSM class, plus the two wing-tip load a centerline drop tank and IRST Shadow Pod. What would have been interesting, is if an XL-customized CFT could have been effective and feasible, both aerodynamically and in relying less on drop tank.
Off-topic, I'd be curious if F-2 could be upgraded to an XL standard as an advanced jet option (with possible follow-on new build) and to force-multiply the existing fleet in question?
Below pics pulled off the net.
Off-topic, I'd be curious if F-2 could be upgraded to an XL standard as an advanced jet option (with possible follow-on new build) and to force-multiply the existing fleet in question?
Below pics pulled off the net.
- Attachments
-
-
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
- Active Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09
Thanks geogen, interesting comments.
The weapon station diagram is very helpful. I didn't realise that there was actually space for 8 MK-82 size weapons per wing.
What about ECM. Would pods still have been needed?
The weapon station diagram is very helpful. I didn't realise that there was actually space for 8 MK-82 size weapons per wing.
What about ECM. Would pods still have been needed?
-
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 72
- Joined: 23 Feb 2005, 20:07
- Location: Texas
I scanned Harry Hillaker's public presentation on F-16XL he did for Lone Star Aero Club many years ago. (Admins) let me know if you want them. Bunch of jpegs. Too detailed for my site.
-
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 813
- Joined: 18 Aug 2007, 17:18
- Location: Long Island, New York
codeonemagazine
I scanned Harry Hillaker's public presentation on F-16XL he did for Lone Star Aero Club many years ago....Bunch of jpegs.
Ohhhh! Post them, post them!
A fighter without a gun . . . is like an airplane without a wing.— Brigadier General Robin Olds, USAF.
- Active Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09
johnwill wrote:Hi, Obi!
During my time on XL (until May, 1983) stations 2, 3A, 15A, and 16 were never loaded. Honestly, until I did some research on XL about two years ago, I did not even know they were there.
Hey John, how've ya been
?
Well then the rest of us can definately be excused as well, for not noticing
I wonder why GD didn't mount them, particularly when demonstrating the XL's carriage capability, I mean 16 bombs will alway look better than 12. Perhaps those stations weren't ready/fully integrated?
BTW what was the function of the pod like structures on the wings, the parts that gave the false impression of a folding outer wing?
What would the XL be like now if it had won the competition, one wonders?
- Active Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09
codeonemagazine wrote:I scanned Harry Hillaker's public presentation on F-16XL he did for Lone Star Aero Club many years ago. (Admins) let me know if you want them. Bunch of jpegs. Too detailed for my site.
Those would be a great addition to the site codeonemagazine.
- Active Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09
I've just been looking over some of the XL pictures. I noticed that in the following picture stations 3A and 15A are loaded:
In the following image station 16 is loaded:
The following is an interesting picture because the aircraft is loaded with 4 MK-84's:
This lovely over water image posted earlier, shows the aircraft carrying SUU-64/65/66 dispensers as opposed to the more common MK-82's seen in pictures. Its also illustrates how station 13F is tilted slightly upwards:
There is also a picture with the aircraft carrying 6 Maverick missiles on the net.
In the following image station 16 is loaded:
The following is an interesting picture because the aircraft is loaded with 4 MK-84's:
This lovely over water image posted earlier, shows the aircraft carrying SUU-64/65/66 dispensers as opposed to the more common MK-82's seen in pictures. Its also illustrates how station 13F is tilted slightly upwards:
There is also a picture with the aircraft carrying 6 Maverick missiles on the net.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Obi,
I knew as soon as I said those stations were never loaded, someone would find a photo to prove me wrong. How about this - I think they were never flown. The 12 Mk-82 loading was an Air Force mission requirement, so both the XL and the F-15 Strike Eagle made many flights to demonstrate range, max speed, and safe separation of that load.
As an aside, early in the flight test, the F-15 SE carried 12 Mk-82 on wing pylons and MERs. They saw we were beating their butts on range and speed, so requested a delay in the test program. During the delay, they added six hard points on each of their conformal fuel tanks and completely transformed the airplane with much lower drag. It was very clever and done with remarkable speed. It made the range and speed capability close to the to the XL (although it used twice the fuel and ride quality sucked at low altitude). It won the competition for them - well-done, MAC!
About 13F being tilted, all the wing hardpoints followed the wing contour. That way, all the small pylons would fit at any wing hardpoint.
In your original comment about possible interference between the forward AMRAAM and the adjacent weapon, right you are. Any production XL would probably have had to move the AMRAAM inboard slightly. The pods on the wing contain the aileron actuators. Because the aileron hinge line is swept, and the actuators have to stay perpendicular to the hinge line, the actuators do not lie fore and aft, but are rotated. That is why the pods are so wide.
I knew as soon as I said those stations were never loaded, someone would find a photo to prove me wrong. How about this - I think they were never flown. The 12 Mk-82 loading was an Air Force mission requirement, so both the XL and the F-15 Strike Eagle made many flights to demonstrate range, max speed, and safe separation of that load.
As an aside, early in the flight test, the F-15 SE carried 12 Mk-82 on wing pylons and MERs. They saw we were beating their butts on range and speed, so requested a delay in the test program. During the delay, they added six hard points on each of their conformal fuel tanks and completely transformed the airplane with much lower drag. It was very clever and done with remarkable speed. It made the range and speed capability close to the to the XL (although it used twice the fuel and ride quality sucked at low altitude). It won the competition for them - well-done, MAC!
About 13F being tilted, all the wing hardpoints followed the wing contour. That way, all the small pylons would fit at any wing hardpoint.
In your original comment about possible interference between the forward AMRAAM and the adjacent weapon, right you are. Any production XL would probably have had to move the AMRAAM inboard slightly. The pods on the wing contain the aileron actuators. Because the aileron hinge line is swept, and the actuators have to stay perpendicular to the hinge line, the actuators do not lie fore and aft, but are rotated. That is why the pods are so wide.
- Banned
- Posts: 3123
- Joined: 11 Mar 2008, 15:28
Fascinating, thanks. OK, I'm curious now if Obi can track down a pic out there of 4x external tanks on 2H, 16H, 4H and 14H ever being tested; or if Johnwill could offer any input on that loadout's feasibility?? One could only wonder what a strategic ferry range could look like, when hypothetically coupled w/ CFT too? You'd hardly need any tanker support?!? Talking about green fighter forces and cutting down on footprints - via not requiring the extra Tankers being launched in the first place! 
And perhaps a follow-up question re: the actuator pods, if known: I've been curious if there would there have been any space in the aft pointy pod section to house let's say, a towed decoy, etc? Thanks in advance..
And perhaps a follow-up question re: the actuator pods, if known: I've been curious if there would there have been any space in the aft pointy pod section to house let's say, a towed decoy, etc? Thanks in advance..
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2303
- Joined: 24 Mar 2007, 21:06
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
geogen,
No doubt, 4 tanks (plus maybe a CL tank) would give a huge ferry range. CFT frees some wing hardpoints, but for all these loadings, the problem is max gross weight. The XLs were limited to 48,000 lb, mainly due to landing gear strength and brake energy limits for refused takeoff. Certainly, a production airplane would have had a redesigned gear,
To give an idea of ferry range, an FB-111 once flew from Fort Worth to Paris unrefuelled, with six 600 gal tanks on board, plus additional tanks in the weapon bay. That's almost 5000 miles. Not saying the XL could do that, of course.
The aft half of the actuator pod was empty, just a fairing over the actuator. That may have had some function in area rule management, but I don't really know. I'm pretty sure something would have gone in there in a production airplane.
To answer your wondering about the F-2, it has a modular fuselage like the F-16, so should be capable of similar stretching and plugging. No reason it could not be developed into an F-2 XL. The F-2 JASDF mission is anti-shipping, so great range is not required, but the added weapon load capability might be worth it. As always, cost is the problem. Due to its low production, the F-2 is one very expensive airplane.
Another XL story. Looking at the posted hardpoint layout is becomes clear the aft AMRAAM was located directly in front of the speedbrake, partially blocking airflow to the lower speedbrake panel. At low airspeeds, this was not a problem. However, at 1.6 mach, 30,000 ft, it caused all kinds of problems. The speedbrake is a balanced design, meaning no more than 60% of the total load could be applied to either the upper or lower panel. When the brake was deployed, there was very little load on the lower panel, so an immediate structural failure occurred, accompanied by a loud noise and severe shock load felt by the pilot. Oddly enough, the failure was not visible to the chase pilot, so the maneuver was repeated (a very bad idea). This time the noise and shock was much stronger, followed by total hydraulic failure in either system A or B, whichever drives the brake. Fortunately the remaining system was able to bring the airplane back and get it stopped on the runway. The AMRAAM effects had been completely missed by the aerodynamics and structural engineers during design of the XL.
No doubt, 4 tanks (plus maybe a CL tank) would give a huge ferry range. CFT frees some wing hardpoints, but for all these loadings, the problem is max gross weight. The XLs were limited to 48,000 lb, mainly due to landing gear strength and brake energy limits for refused takeoff. Certainly, a production airplane would have had a redesigned gear,
To give an idea of ferry range, an FB-111 once flew from Fort Worth to Paris unrefuelled, with six 600 gal tanks on board, plus additional tanks in the weapon bay. That's almost 5000 miles. Not saying the XL could do that, of course.
The aft half of the actuator pod was empty, just a fairing over the actuator. That may have had some function in area rule management, but I don't really know. I'm pretty sure something would have gone in there in a production airplane.
To answer your wondering about the F-2, it has a modular fuselage like the F-16, so should be capable of similar stretching and plugging. No reason it could not be developed into an F-2 XL. The F-2 JASDF mission is anti-shipping, so great range is not required, but the added weapon load capability might be worth it. As always, cost is the problem. Due to its low production, the F-2 is one very expensive airplane.
Another XL story. Looking at the posted hardpoint layout is becomes clear the aft AMRAAM was located directly in front of the speedbrake, partially blocking airflow to the lower speedbrake panel. At low airspeeds, this was not a problem. However, at 1.6 mach, 30,000 ft, it caused all kinds of problems. The speedbrake is a balanced design, meaning no more than 60% of the total load could be applied to either the upper or lower panel. When the brake was deployed, there was very little load on the lower panel, so an immediate structural failure occurred, accompanied by a loud noise and severe shock load felt by the pilot. Oddly enough, the failure was not visible to the chase pilot, so the maneuver was repeated (a very bad idea). This time the noise and shock was much stronger, followed by total hydraulic failure in either system A or B, whichever drives the brake. Fortunately the remaining system was able to bring the airplane back and get it stopped on the runway. The AMRAAM effects had been completely missed by the aerodynamics and structural engineers during design of the XL.
-
- Elite 2K
- Posts: 2544
- Joined: 31 Jan 2004, 19:18
- Location: SW Tenn.
How do ya tell someone that put that much work into a model that nice that they misspelled "Goddess"?
Why does "monosyllabic" have 5 syllables?
- Active Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09
johnwill wrote:Obi,
I knew as soon as I said those stations were never loaded, someone would find a photo to prove me wrong. How about this - I think they were never flown. The 12 Mk-82 loading was an Air Force mission requirement, so both the XL and the F-15 Strike Eagle made many flights to demonstrate range, max speed, and safe separation of that load.
As an aside, early in the flight test, the F-15 SE carried 12 Mk-82 on wing pylons and MERs. They saw we were beating their butts on range and speed, so requested a delay in the test program. During the delay, they added six hard points on each of their conformal fuel tanks and completely transformed the airplane with much lower drag. It was very clever and done with remarkable speed. It made the range and speed capability close to the to the XL (although it used twice the fuel and ride quality sucked at low altitude). It won the competition for them - well-done, MAC!
About 13F being tilted, all the wing hardpoints followed the wing contour. That way, all the small pylons would fit at any wing hardpoint.
In your original comment about possible interference between the forward AMRAAM and the adjacent weapon, right you are. Any production XL would probably have had to move the AMRAAM inboard slightly. The pods on the wing contain the aileron actuators. Because the aileron hinge line is swept, and the actuators have to stay perpendicular to the hinge line, the actuators do not lie fore and aft, but are rotated. That is why the pods are so wide.
As usual John thanks for the great insight to the project
- Active Member
- Posts: 241
- Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 00:09
geogen wrote:Fascinating, thanks. OK, I'm curious now if Obi can track down a pic out there of 4x external tanks on 2H, 16H, 4H and 14H ever being tested; or if Johnwill could offer any input on that loadout's feasibility?? One could only wonder what a strategic ferry range could look like, when hypothetically coupled w/ CFT too? You'd hardly need any tanker support?!? Talking about green fighter forces and cutting down on footprints - via not requiring the extra Tankers being launched in the first place!
Unfortunately I haven't seen the any pics of the XL configured with 4 tanks geogen. If it had entered production I wonder if it could have been cleared to carry the 600gal tanks. Imagine four of those, a centreline tank and CFTs
. Excluding the CFTs you'd be looking at an external fuel capacity of 18500lbs and an external load thats over 20000lbs. johnwill has already stated the gear limitations for the prototypes, but if the gear could be made robust enough the unrefueled could be immense.
In terms of required space I can't see why it couldn't carry 8 MK-84's leaving the centreline for an ECM pod or tank. Another possibility would be for 2 wing tanks, 6 MK-84's and a centreline tank or pod. Both of those would be serious stores loads, very impressive.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests