New threads and interesting conversations directly in your inbox. Sign up now and get a daily summary of the latest forum activities!
Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by Winston, Jun 27, 2017.
The X-29s used fuselages from F-5s.
See here, for the flight envelope.
For some reason, the Arocket archives truncates the text accompanying this particular post, so here is the missing part.
The linked and quoted post is by Chuck Rogers (RASAero).
To me, this sounds like one could go a little bit faster if somebody were to risk the aircraft. 427C° sounds like a very specific temperature, but it is simply 800F° so I assume there is a bit of rounding involved, which could be interpreted as a small implicit temperature margin. The inlet temperature will go up exponentially with speed though, so there can't be much speed margin.
Part of fuselage. Typical F-5 is a twin engine, Grumman X-29 is single engine. And from the intakes back looks for all the world like a Northrop F-20, which was also known as F-5G. So, it could be said that both F-5 and F-20 are correct.
A 38 page report on the F-5G/F-20 venture, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2009/P7495.pdf
I saw an hour documentary on the Arrow and why it went away.
"I'm not entirely sure what my precise definition of beautiful would be."
Definition - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think a freshly painted A-10 is beautiful, too, and it's beauty comes from efficient design for a singular, specific purpose just like the F-16, but in that case designed to go slow instead of fast and to be extremely rugged to make it less vulnerable to ground fire.
Magazine article in PDF format:
Legacy of the Lightweight Fighter (LWF) Competition
It was the YF-16 against the YF-17 - even the loser won big
From that challenge eventually grew two of the most successful fighter programs in history, each now in service nearly 40 years: the F-16 and the F/A-18. Both have already achieved a combined production of more than 6,000 airframes.
Although the F-16 design has evolved in many ways, its original configuration remains iconic. It combines a host of advanced technologies that had never been incorporated in previous operational fighters. To ensure success, the YF-16 design team utilized a secret weapon in the talent of Harry J. Hillaker, who became the deputy chief engineer. Hillaker was a member of the renowned “Fighter Mafa” group of aeronautical experts and was later referred to as “the father” of the F-16.
The YF-16 was an entirely new animal, with blended-fuselage variable-camber wings and forebody strakes that provided additional lift. It would use the Pratt & Whitney F100 engine being used on the F-15. A fly-by-wire system would provide excellent response, simplify the electronics systems, and eliminate heavier hydraulic assemblies. Fly-by-wire controls allowed
for an aircraft inherently unstable to have increased agility. The YF-16 featured a side-mounted control stick and a head-up display that presented flight information such that the pilot wouldn’t have to look down into the cockpit and would potentially never take his eyes off the target. (or his hands off the throttle and stick - most combat-mode controls are on them - W) The pilot’s seat would be reclined 30 degrees to help him absorb heavy G forces, and the large bubble canopy offered nearly 360 degrees of visibility. Although explored piecemeal in other aircraft types, as a package in the YF-16, these innovations offered unprecedented agility and situational awareness.
During the Pentagon press conference, McLucas said the flight test program on the two types of jets “went extremely well,” and he said there were “significant differences in the performance of these prototypes.” The YF-16, he said, had performance
advantages over the YF-17 in “agility, in acceleration, in turn rate, and endurance.” The YF-16 “met all performance goals that we had established for it.”
The Air Force statement was intended to confirm a clear winner. However, Northrop’s loss of the LWF didn’t spell the end of the Cobra. The Navy had a preference for twin-engine aircraft for carrier operations, to offer pilots a better chance to recover an aircraft if an engine was out. The Navy was already considering a lightweight fighter to complement the larger and more complex Grumman F-14 Tomcat in a high-low mix.
On May 2, 1975, the Navy announced it had chosen the F-17 variant as its new lightweight fighter. The F-17 then evolved into the F/A-18A, the F/A designation coined by the McDonnell Douglas/Northrop team to suggest a multirole fighter/attack aircraft. Though it looked much like the YF-17 from a distance, the new jet was beefer, with bigger engines, a bigger nose, a fatter LEX, sawtooth wing leading edges, different intake geometry, heavier landing gear, and of course, an arresting hook system.
The F-104's look like they need a T200,000 shoved in the tailpipe for propulsion, they're so rocket looking.
Awesome photo of the SR-71 with shock diamonds
The spikes located in the nacelle's of the engines retract 1.6 " for every increase in Mach number above 1.6 to keep the normal shock wave in an optimum position inside the jets inlet. At Mach 3.2 they have retracted 26". Without this feature the oblique shock wave would ruin the efficiency of the engines
There will be more, I'm sure one of you will go looking
Here's a one of my favorites : https://youtu.be/F4KD5u-xkik
Buz Carpenter, former pilot, discussing his experiences at the National Air and Space Museum
A Navy F-16 variant that never landed on an aircraft carrier:
What It Was Like Flying And Fighting The F-16N Viper, Topgun’s Legendary Hotrod (souped up F-16C)
It was hideously fast, incredibly maneuverable and a huge step forward for the US Navy's aerial adversary capabilities.
I’ll start by saying that designing and building a fourth generation fighter is an extremely expensive endeavor. The only way to sell them at an affordable price is to sell them in large quantities. There was no way that purchasing 26 aircraft for the Navy would pay for a project such as that, even if the Air Force and Marines had become involved. The only way for the Navy to obtain an affordable fourth generation adversary aircraft was to use something already in production or a variant of the same.
The F-16N looked like an F-16C block 30 airframe, powered by the General Electric F110-GE-100 engine with 25,735 pounds of thrust in full afterburner. It normally weighed less than 25,000 pounds with full internal fuel. Later blocks of F-16s had a larger air intake, because that was apparently a limiting factor for the GE engine. With the bigger intake the engine could develop almost 29,000 pounds of thrust.
We normally flew the N with an AIM-9 Sidewinder captive training round on the left wing-tip, and an ACMI (air combat maneuvering instrumentation) pod on the right wingtip if we were going to be operating on a range equipped to support the system. Otherwise the wings were clean with no pylons to add weight and drag. We could carry a fuel tank on the centerline belly station, but usually didn’t on the single seat models. The two-seater TF-16N Topgun had held about 1200 pounds less fuel than the single seat F-16N models, so they were flown with a centerline fuel tank at times.
The F-16N had no gun. Consequently Topgun gun dets (detachments away from their home base for gunnery practice) came to an end as the F-5 departed the inventory. The lack of the cannon eliminated approximately 250 pounds of weight, plus the weight of the ammunition storage and feed system. It left a fairly large compartment on top of the left side of the fuselage where we could throw a gear bag when going on any type of overnight mission. Because of the removal of the gun, some ballast weight had to be placed in the forward part of the fuselage to keep the aircraft center of gravity within limits. The HUD still displayed a Lead Computing Optical System (LCOS) gun sight, and we could select “GUN” and simulate gun shots, there was just no physical gun in the jet. Additionally there was no Airborne Self Protection Jammer (ASPJ) since the aircraft would not be flown in a true hostile environment.
The N was an amazingly powerful jet with a one-to-one plus thrust-to-weight ratio at takeoff. It could take off, pitch straight up, and maintain its airspeedto a point. Obviously as it got higher and the air got thinner, it would lose performance. But a burner takeoff roll in the N was the next best thing to a catapult shot off a carrier!
One thing that we had to be careful about was the fact that the jet would do supersonic cruise (supercruise) in the configuration that we flew it. Generally slick, at altitude it could go supersonic with no afterburner with the help of its powerful General Electric engine. This was something we had to keep in mind transiting around the country. Unlike the F-14, there was not a noticeable reduction in acceleration as you approached Mach 1. Bottom line, it was sleek and it was fast. I’ve personally seen it achieving Mach two.
Having flown the F-14 and A-4, both of which had multiple canopy bows and items everywhere blocking your outward vision, the visibility from the cockpit of the F-16 was spectacular!
Walking away from Topgun and the F-16N was extremely difficult, but a part of life. I had become very comfortable with the aircraft and its weapons systems. Although most would think that the sheer power and maneuverability of the jet would be the greatest part of it, I’ll have to say that running the radar and learning to employ the weapons system through the hands on throttle and stick (HOTAS) controls was the most rewarding part of it for me.
Coming from the Tomcat, the ability to operate the radar in every manner, employ all types of weapons, fly the aircraft, and communicate with other aircraft without ever taking your hands off of the throttle and stick was like heaven! On top of that you had the ability to see the radar picture on a multifunction display, and all flight and weapons parameters on the HUD. Thus you had the complete tactical picture displayed directly in front of you. And because you were operating the system, you didn’t have to try to listen to someone else describe the situation.
With time, you not only flew tactically as one with the aircraft, but you also operated and employed the weapons system in the same manner. I had never played the piano, but I eventually felt as if I did while operating the F-16N. It was amazing at times in the debrief to watch the tapes and see what you had done during and engagement, realizing that you had done many of these things without ever consciously thinking about them.
You are right it is nice .................ALMOST as beautiful as the F-15 Eagle !!!
Very cool pictures, especially the one showing the Mach Diamonds in the exhaust. For obvious reasons, the fighters can out maneuver the SR-71, but for sheer speed the Blackbird could blow any fighter whether friend or foe away.
I'd say that last is the mark of a successful system and a successful pilot.
18th Aggressor Squadron F-16C in its new blizzard splinter camouflage over Alaska
Not a fighter, just a cool photo:
Another great B-2 photo:
THAT--is a cool pic!
The B2 kinda looks sinister in that pick, AWESOME!
The one and only, never duplicated and never ever will be again, the vulnerable and versatile McDonald-Douglas F4 aka the flying BRICK! Over 200 hours of live tactical A/C time with this amazing airframe from SE Asia, Mediterranean and Persian Gulf. Took a beating and kept on kicking ass.
Just don't try to take pictures up the tailpipes! The kids with guns will want to have a word with ya.
A10 Warthog and the F4 Phantom...
Looks like I might be getting closer to being able to find a Sukhoi 27KUB (or a variant of it) in my preferred scale. Kinetic, Hobbyboss, and Kitty Hawk have released several nice 1/48 Flanker variant kits recently. Hobbyboss has a Su-34 Fullback out now. I'm seriously thinking of picking up Kinetic's Su-33 Flanker D and/or Kitty Hawk's Su-35 Flanker E.
I'd love to try my hand at a paper model version of the KUB in 1/33 scale.
My by far favorite F 16. It's a still-can-happen thing, extending the life of the airframe for many years to come. It's also retrofit....
Finally someone posted a pic of a tail I've flown! 383 is a full on hot rod - a single seat Block 50 with a GE-129 in it. One of the flights I did in it was an FCF (functional check flight) at Edwards back in the day which includes a max AB takeoff followed by a vertical climb. The FCF config is a clean with just internal fuel. With the 129, that puts the thrust to weight at greater than 1:1 as soon as you release brakes. I had to take it completely out of AB to keep from going supersonic before the end of the runway. Back in burner, then a 7+G pull to the vertical and a quick jaunt to 30k+.
Here's a shot I took when I picked up that jet from depot maintenance at Hill AFB in Salt Lake City back in 2013. Brand new matte paint care of the paint shop at Hill. It didn't even have the 416th tail flash yet.
I built one of these for a club mate a few years go..
Here's the one from Seattle:
This one? That's quite a rare bird. Great footage of it in operation on Youtube.
Cool, an amazing coincidence.
That's seriously cool..
I'm really jealous,, lol..
For how long did you fly the F 16 ??
What else have you flown ??
There are others here on this forum that have flown seriously cool aircraft..
I don't seem to get to ask them much about their careers though..
There is a super nice man I deal with, he's in Canada..
He spent 20 years flying a favorite of mine,, the C 130 Hercules..
Now he's an instructor of some sort on that aircraft..
I have always, since childhood been intrigued by the wonder of flight..
Separate names with a comma.