General Dynamics and Vought Navalised F-16s to VFAX/NACF requirement

Mark Nankivil

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
13 June 2007
Messages
2,024
Reaction score
2,226
Greetings All -

Here's a few of the Vought concepts - first off the designs that competed for the F-14 and then the LWF designs when they teamed with General Dynamics and would have/could have had the F/A-18 had the Navy followed Congress's edict to choose the winning LWF design (F-16). I'm going back down to Vought in the Fall and will do some more research into other proposals/designs for both of these Navy programs.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

F/A-18 Program designs/proposals:
 

Attachments

  • VoughtModel1602B1602B-1InboardProfi.jpg
    VoughtModel1602B1602B-1InboardProfi.jpg
    229.7 KB · Views: 3,364
  • VoughtModel16001600-1GeneralArrange.jpg
    VoughtModel16001600-1GeneralArrange.jpg
    128.6 KB · Views: 3,194
Very, very nice Mark, but I think I will move the VFX pics to another topic.
 
With a little prompting from Overscan, I am posting some drawings of the proposed F-16 variants for the Navy. Vought would have handled the Navy side of the program for General Dynamics IF the Navy had not gone in the YF-17/F/A-18 direction. Personally, the Navy went the right direction.

Enjoy the Day! mark
 

Attachments

  • xVought Model 1600 1601 Interior Arrangement.jpg
    xVought Model 1600 1601 Interior Arrangement.jpg
    164.5 KB · Views: 1,238
  • xVought Model 1600 1600-1 General Arrangement Data.jpg
    xVought Model 1600 1600-1 General Arrangement Data.jpg
    114.9 KB · Views: 981
  • xVought Model 1600 1600-1 General Arrangement - 2.jpg
    xVought Model 1600 1600-1 General Arrangement - 2.jpg
    89.7 KB · Views: 1,218
  • xVought Model 1600 1600-1 General Arrangement - 1.jpg
    xVought Model 1600 1600-1 General Arrangement - 1.jpg
    148.8 KB · Views: 2,431
  • xVought Model 1600-1 - 2.jpg
    xVought Model 1600-1 - 2.jpg
    109.3 KB · Views: 2,468
  • xVought Model 1600-1 - 1.jpg
    xVought Model 1600-1 - 1.jpg
    174.4 KB · Views: 2,648
and a few more.... Mark
 

Attachments

  • xVought Model 1602B 1602B-1 Inboard Profile - 1.jpg
    xVought Model 1602B 1602B-1 Inboard Profile - 1.jpg
    262.7 KB · Views: 1,156
  • xVought Model 1602B 1602B-1 Inboard Profile - 2.jpg
    xVought Model 1602B 1602B-1 Inboard Profile - 2.jpg
    146.2 KB · Views: 979
  • xVought Model 1602B 1602B-1 Inboard Profile - 3.jpg
    xVought Model 1602B 1602B-1 Inboard Profile - 3.jpg
    217.8 KB · Views: 850
I think it was basically not large enough for Sparrows and the radar range that the Navy wanted, and was up against a limit in thrust terms - the Hornet had 32,000 pounds from the get-go, but the F401 was basically an F100 core and was good for maybe 25000 pounds.
 
I'm trying to look at the Vought 1600 & 1602 drawings and confirm how it would have been different from the standard F-16. Wingtip armament is obviously different, and the nose gear is beefier with double tires. The canopy hinges differently, and some of the drawings depict a different slant to the nose (probably to improve carrier visibility.) The tailhook would definitely get beefier. Some of the drawings appear to show changes to the base of the vertical stabilizer, and perhaps a deeper fuselage.

In looking at the 1602, the wing has gotten longer, with reduced sweep angle. I assume that Vought's refined analysis on the Model 1600 showed that the plane would approach the carrier too fast, necessitating the new wing.

Had the Navy chosen an F-16 variant over the F/A-18, the F-16 might have instead gotten a nautical name like "Corsair" or "Cutlass" instead of "Fighting Falcon."
 
I've always thought the chin intake would be a problem due to steam ingestion on launch - electromagnetic was a looonngg way off back then :) A-7s had a problem with steam ingestion and I cannot see it being any better for a navalized 16. The landing gear was also something I saw as an issue - pretty narrow track and both the F-8 and the A-7 (more so the F-8) had issues with high sink rate landings on their gear and at the run out of the arresting gear.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Mark, thank you very much...beautiful stuff as always
 
Does anyone know the reasoning behind the changed (from F-16 standard) canopy hinging? Was it a USN requirement?

Regards,

Greg
 
Note also the change in the horizontal tail. Not only is it larger, probably to meet the trim requirements for the bring back weight/WOD requirements, but it also lacks the dihedral of the USAF variant. In fact, in the second set of cross sections it appears it has anhedral.

As for the canopy change, the canopy is the same on the single variant and the second seat variant (fwd position), so they could have made it different for commonality between the two variants. Perhaps they also had more stringent bird strike requirements. I like the look of the Navy two seater versus that of the standard F-16B/D/F.

Regarding the landing gear, even the USAF complains that the main landing gear is a problem area in terms of maintenance on their F-16s. I can only imagine it would have been more so on the navy variant. In fact, it would seem to me it would almost make sense to make a replacement main gear for the F-16 based off of the Gripen's main gear geometry, which seems like a more robust design to me.
 
I'm pretty sure it was a Navy requirement - think about the wind velocity on a carrier deck and just how big the standard F-16 canopy is - would make for a great sail. Bird strikes in a Marine (as in ocean) environment may also be an issue.

Sundog - I find it interesting that you mention the Gripen as I just saw a drawing or model showing a proposed change of the main gear placement for future Gripen variants - supposed to allow for more internal fuel and additional pylons.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
These are two drawings of Vought's 1600. I hope they're clear enough to be of value to some. Source is Vought Aviation Historical archives


[Image removed - better copy later in topic - Admin]
 
They were clearly unsure about the design. The 1600 has the F401, 1601 has the F100 and the 1602 has longer-span folding wings (note that the 1600 does not have a wing fold). And despite the Hornet's problems, I'm sure the Navy was glad they weren't flying a single-engine carrier jet with an early-1980s F100. :eek:
 
Sundog said:
Regarding the landing gear, even the USAF complains that the main landing gear is a problem area in terms of maintenance on their F-16s. I can only imagine it would have been more so on the navy variant. In fact, it would seem to me it would almost make sense to make a replacement main gear for the F-16 based off of the Gripen's main gear geometry, which seems like a more robust design to me.
Click to expand...

Hay Sundog

You have to keep in mind that the original F-16A was designed as a ‘Lightweight Fighter’ – hence its landing gear would have been adequate for the job (1 x 20mm cannon, 2x Aim-9's), except for the fact that the USAF elected to turn this excellent lightweight fighter into a bomb-truck, without beefing up its original landing gear.
What with airframe strengthening, more avionics, heavier weapons loads (and their support avionics) and conformal fuel tanks etc……..
This has come back to bite them unfortunately!

Regards
Pioneer
 
The 1600/1601 designs were Vought's navalized version of the F-16 as they were teamed up with General Dynamics for the program, eventually won by the F/A-18. Also look at:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1335.15.html

HTH! Mark
 
Mark Nankivil said:
The 1600/1601 designs were Vought's navalized version of the F-16...
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark. That would explain the resemblance :-[

So, ... that forward-opening canopy was a shipboard consideration?
 
saturncanuck said:
Hmmm....???

The Boeing F-16 "Stratohawk"?
Click to expand...

Possibly, if Boeing had been free to pick the name. But General Dynamics didn't pick the name either.

In 1976, the Department of the Air Force had organized a "Name-the-Plane Contest" for the F-16 at MacDill AFB in Florida. The winning entry was submitted by TSgt. Joseph A. Kurdell, the Photo Sensor Shop Supervisor for the 1st TFW A&E sqn.

On May 11th, 1976, TSgt. Kurdell received an official letter from the Department of the Air Force, congratulating him for submitting the prize-winning entry in the "Name-the-Plane Contest", winning him a free dinner at the MacDill NCO Mess.

TSgt. Joseph Kurdell explains where he got the inspiration for the name:

'Prior to being stationed at MacDill AFB, Tampa, Florida and after a short tour in Korea, I was teaching at the Photographic Engineering School at Lowery Air Force Base in Colorado.

Being in the vicinity of the Air Force Academy, my family and I used to visit there quite often especially during their football seasons. As you probably know the Falcon (the bird species) is the school mascot, so this is where I got the idea from when given the opportunity to name an aircraft. '

The name "Fighting Falcon" also helped distinguish the F-16 from the "Falcon" series of business jets from French manufacturer Dassault.
Click to expand...
http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html
 
Several Vought projects resembled the F-16, but none so much as the V-1601!
 

Attachments

  • vought-v1100.jpg
    vought-v1100.jpg
    16.5 KB · Views: 1,516
  • vought-v1601.jpg
    vought-v1601.jpg
    43.9 KB · Views: 1,646
Could it be that Vought and GD were in cahoots (spelling ?) with each other against the USAF YF-17 to USN F/A-18 program?
 
The 1600 series designs were indeed in conjunction with GD - Vought's expertise with Navy work was why GD picked them. Probably did not hurt they were just a few miles away either. Northrop did the same in teaming up with McDonnell Douglas.

Vought handled the Navy qualification work for Lockheed on the S-3 Viking since Lockheed did not have the requisite experience in house. Makes one wonder how Lock-Mart will fair with the F-35 trials....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Yes, V-160x are all versions of the F-16. V-526 is an original Vought design - obviously quite similar to the F-16 in some respects, but quite different in detail design. Wings and tails are quite different for example.
 
I came across a couple of photos of Vought/GD Model 1600 series models during this visit at Vought. Sure would look nice on my mantle...

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • xModel 1600 & 1601 models.jpg
    xModel 1600 & 1601 models.jpg
    281.2 KB · Views: 1,721
  • xModel 1601 model.jpg
    xModel 1601 model.jpg
    309.8 KB · Views: 1,580
Thank you mark - those images made my day enjoyable!
 
Greetings All -

A nice cutaway of the Model 1600 - better resolution version of the one posted earlier by Elider....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • Vought Model 1600 & 1601 Data.gif
    Vought Model 1600 & 1601 Data.gif
    297.2 KB · Views: 1,270
  • Vought Model 1600 cutaway.gif
    Vought Model 1600 cutaway.gif
    88.5 KB · Views: 1,684
Overscan posted this one earlier in the topic
Here is a color version of the 1600 in VF-41 markings.
Vought Archives.

bill
 

Attachments

  • 1600-VF-41.jpg
    1600-VF-41.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 1,511
Couple more from Vought Archives
 

Attachments

  • 1600-VF-41a.jpg
    1600-VF-41a.jpg
    33.2 KB · Views: 1,456
  • CDA_NFA.jpg
    CDA_NFA.jpg
    44.6 KB · Views: 1,602
1601 artist concept

Vought Archives
 

Attachments

  • 1601-a.jpg
    1601-a.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 2,231
G'day gents

I have just come across this picture of a studied missile configuration for the
"pre-series F-16 prototypes"
Click to expand...
at the web site 'Hightechweb'
It also states
'Leto was tested podtrupove rails for Aim-7 Sparrow, which is adl'achcilo wing and the inner rails to be suspended an additional fuel tank'
Click to expand...

Add to this the Vought / General Dynamics 'twin wing-tip Aim-9 Sidewinder missile configuration' studied for its Model 1600 & Model 1601 carrier-based derivative of the F-16?

Does anyone have more of a translation of this into English, as well as more information and pics of this weapons arrangement?

Regards
Pioneer
 
:)

Translation of the mentioned chapter: The first pre-series F-16 prototypes were tested with the possibility of unconventional weapons arrangements. Flight tested were underfuselage hardpoints for missiles AIM-7 Sparrow, which unloaded the wing and the inner hardpoints were suspended for additional fuel tanks. Another interesting idea was not realized in practice, the twin pylon on wingtip for two missiles AIM-9. It was planned to be used mainly in maritime version of the F-16, developed in collaboration with Vought.
 
Good Day All -

From a General Dynamics publication covering the artwork of in house artist Bob Cunningham, a nice cutaway of the V-1600.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • xGD-LTV Model 1600 Cutaway.jpg
    xGD-LTV Model 1600 Cutaway.jpg
    135.9 KB · Views: 1,759
OMG, that's a precious piece of art on a interesting subject. Many thanks Mark!

Antonio
 
is there a reason why the navalized LWF dropped the wingtip pylons for ones underslung on the wings?

given the YF-17and the F-18 that came out of it had wingtip pylons, it seems odd their competitor would change the weapons layout.
 
Did it have folding wings? If not it might have been to reduce its span by a few more inches.
 
No folding, and yes it reduced wingspan from 33ft 10in to 33ft 3in. 1600 actually had more wing area too. 1601 had the original F-16 wing on at least one drawing.
 
why not build it with folding wings though? was 7inches less width really going to make that much of a difference?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom