• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Delta wing F-16s: SCAMP, F-16XL, Falcon 21 and more

RAP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
435
Nice pic of early XL in red/white/blue markings. Notice smaller tail.
 

Attachments

  • F-16XL rwb.jpg
    F-16XL rwb.jpg
    222.2 KB · Views: 1,613

Retrofit

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
603
Reaction score
131
Some details about NASA's SCIF (Supersonic Cruise Integrated Fighter) researches.

From: Applying Slender Wing Benefitsto Military Aircraft, by Edwards C Polhamus. NASA Langley research Center, Hampton, Virginia.


[Edit - Removed link to illegal website - Admin]
 

Attachments

  • SCAMP.jpg
    SCAMP.jpg
    27.4 KB · Views: 1,285
  • SCIF 4 & 5.jpg
    SCIF 4 & 5.jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 319

codeone

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
56
Reaction score
7
Not much on this site related to the design studies that led to the F-16XL. That or, I'm not good with the search engine. The SCAMP project led to the XL. We just posted an early configuration drawing of SCAMP on our Aviation Archeology gallery

Larger version here:

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=2483

--C1
 

Attachments

  • 19781215_F16_SCAMP 400-1_SP.jpg
    19781215_F16_SCAMP 400-1_SP.jpg
    33.3 KB · Views: 466

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,757
Reaction score
4,425
I think this is the right topic Eric :)

Scan is very low contrast, something like this would be better:
 

Attachments

  • 19781215_F16_SCAMP_400_1_1267828237_2564-ed.jpg
    19781215_F16_SCAMP_400_1_1267828237_2564-ed.jpg
    367.4 KB · Views: 563

LowObservable

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
172
Quite different from the XL... I think because the XL as flown was aimed at the near-term Dual Role Fighter requirement, so it had the stretched fuselage and more conventional controls (fixed inboard LE, fixed outers with LE flaps, F-16 vertical stabilizer).
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
226
The all-moving wingtips would resurface in Lockheed's Innovative Control Effectors (ICE) studies. I wonder if the same people were involved or they just reused data.
Other curious thing, to me, is the landing gear placement. This indicates the cg, and hence the center of lift, were pretty far forward. Meaning the centerbody must have contributed a lot to lift (eyeballing it, but it looks just as much as the wing). This is to be expected in blended designs, but the extent is surprising (at least to me).
 

overscan (PaulMM)

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
12,757
Reaction score
4,425

Attachments

  • L-81-4631.jpg
    L-81-4631.jpg
    378.9 KB · Views: 274
  • L-80-9126.jpg
    L-80-9126.jpg
    346.6 KB · Views: 186
  • L-80-9107.jpg
    L-80-9107.jpg
    320.9 KB · Views: 238
  • L-80-9122.jpg
    L-80-9122.jpg
    326.8 KB · Views: 261
  • L-80-9124.jpg
    L-80-9124.jpg
    345.9 KB · Views: 244
  • L-80-9121.jpg
    L-80-9121.jpg
    366.4 KB · Views: 240
  • L-80-9108.jpg
    L-80-9108.jpg
    306.3 KB · Views: 208

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
593
Seems NASA has been busy posting a lot of new stuff on their server... Been quite a while since I last visited.
Seems also that someone has been very busy digging up all this marvelous stuff for us. Thanks Paul!
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
358
Notice that model also has the advanced inlet, not the standard version. Nice pics. The fins on top of the Küchemann carrots are interesting as well.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
751
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
General Dynamics F-16XL model by Precise found on eBay.

URL:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PRECISE-GENERAL-DYNAMICS-1-72ND-F-16XL-DISPLAY-DESK-MODEL-VERY-RARE-/111104469299?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item19de57a933
 

Attachments

  • $T2eC16hHJGUFFh9SrjdkBR)hmYpetg~~60_57.JPG
    $T2eC16hHJGUFFh9SrjdkBR)hmYpetg~~60_57.JPG
    195.3 KB · Views: 1,000
  • $(KGrHqNHJBsFGz)hO07uBR)hmYV+Z!~~60_57.JPG
    $(KGrHqNHJBsFGz)hO07uBR)hmYV+Z!~~60_57.JPG
    193.4 KB · Views: 1,039

JFC Fuller

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
2,609
Reaction score
980
LowObservable said:
My understanding at the time was that, as promising as the XL was, the two-seat version did not match the range/payload of the F-15E. Also, it really needed the Increased Performance Engine but the USAF was not out of the woods on the basic F100 at the time, and saw that as high risk.

Going back through various GAO and CBO documents from the time it is clear that the F-15E won the ETF competition, to replace the F-111 in TAC, because it was the better aircraft. It was also true that higher up-front R&D costs would be required for the F-16XL but apparently this would have been, to some extent, offset by lower aircraft purchase costs. However, initially the Air Force wanted the F-16XL as well and the development of an F-16F to begin in FY87 and enter production in FY89 was pencilled in. The idea was to split F-16 production between the C/D and the F variant with the F variant progressively taking a larger share of production so FY92 would have seen 120 F variants procured versus 96 C/Ds. It was then suggested by Congress that funding the F-16F might prove detrimental to the funding of the ATF (and at the same time the USAF was cutting back ambitions more widely anyway) and so it disappeared into the archives.
 

datafuser

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
125
Reaction score
21
Anyone seen the deleted picture of the Falcon 21++, which was supposed to have a new fuselage carrying AMRAAMs internally?


Below are from a Senate hearing on 22 April 1991.
 

Attachments

  • f21pp-deleted.PNG
    f21pp-deleted.PNG
    82.6 KB · Views: 1,002
  • falcon21pp-1.PNG
    falcon21pp-1.PNG
    66.9 KB · Views: 981

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
156
JFC Fuller said:
LowObservable said:
My understanding at the time was that, as promising as the XL was, the two-seat version did not match the range/payload of the F-15E. Also, it really needed the Increased Performance Engine but the USAF was not out of the woods on the basic F100 at the time, and saw that as high risk.

Going back through various GAO and CBO documents from the time it is clear that the F-15E won the ETF competition, to replace the F-111 in TAC, because it was the better aircraft. It was also true that higher up-front R&D costs would be required for the F-16XL but apparently this would have been, to some extent, offset by lower aircraft purchase costs. However, initially the Air Force wanted the F-16XL as well and the development of an F-16F to begin in FY87 and enter production in FY89 was pencilled in. The idea was to split F-16 production between the C/D and the F variant with the F variant progressively taking a larger share of production so FY92 would have seen 120 F variants procured versus 96 C/Ds. It was then suggested by Congress that funding the F-16F might prove detrimental to the funding of the ATF (and at the same time the USAF was cutting back ambitions more widely anyway) and so it disappeared into the archives.


AF pencilled in the F because as always, they wanted everything. I do recall another factor back in the ETF competition for which someone please correct me if I'm misremembering.

When the ETF program started Congress supported it with the proviso that the ETFs would come out of existing F-15/-16 planned totals, they would not be additional aircraft. The F-15 airframe required minimal modification/development to produce the -15E, while it would cost massive amounts to bring the F-16 proposal into service, plus at the time the F-16 ETF absolutely required more thrust which at the time meant the F110, whereas the -15E could get by with the F100 until Pratt could increase thrust to match GE. So, the selection of the F-15E was a no-brainer.

Accurate?
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
1,213
something SCAMPish being tested at Langley
NASA photo from CodeOne magazine
 

Attachments

  • 023.jpg
    023.jpg
    683.3 KB · Views: 1,449

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
358
Has anyone found any information on why they switched from using the horizontal tail as the all moving vertical tail to the standard vertical tail? i.e., was it a performance issue or merely a cost issue? Also, I don't think it has been noted in here that, although the it lost the then new strike fighter competition, it was actually designed as a replacement for the F-106.


Also, according to people who worked on the program at F-16.net, the F-16XL flew to Mach 2.0 at 50K ft during testing where it was still accelerating and still climbing, but they limited it there to keep from embarrassing the "customer."
 

famvburg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 24, 2011
Messages
343
Reaction score
14
Which one used the horizontal tail interchanged with the vertical? I don't think I have seen that. I thought I read years or even decades ago that the F-16 (and F-17) were supposed to replace the F-104. I wouldn't have thought either would have been capable of replacing the F-106.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
358
famvburg said:
Which one used the horizontal tail interchanged with the vertical? I don't think I have seen that. I thought I read years or even decades ago that the F-16 (and F-17) were supposed to replace the F-104. I wouldn't have thought either would have been capable of replacing the F-106.


It's in this post on page one. the third image down;
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,909.msg7202.html#msg7202


I believe it was just one iteration before the one built, the one I'm referencing, but earlier versions had it as well. It had the variable geometry inlet and the all moving vertical tail which was just one of the F-16A horizontal tails.


The F-16XL's performance was quite comparable to the F-106's, only it was much more maneuverable and being new, would have had much more advanced systems. Also, as shown throughout this thread, it had an excellent ground attack ability as well.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
403
NASA Langley's youtube page..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuRze7_l8fk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFpBiXl5XAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM2KYcslfQ4
 

fightingirish

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
2,458
Reaction score
933
F 2275 Smoke Winder 3/22/1979 F-16XL
Film donated by the Ryan Aeronautical Company to the San Diego Air and Space Museum in the 1990s
From the archives of the San Diego Air and Space Museum. Please do not use for commercial purposes without permission.
https://youtu.be/5k13bOlRVK0
Code:
https://youtu.be/5k13bOlRVK0
 

RyanCrierie

Crazy Researcher
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2006
Messages
848
Reaction score
141
Website
www.alternatewars.com
I found a photographic collection at an antique show today consisting of two boxes of photographic images from the working archives of the "Reserve Officers Association" (I think) magazine in the early 1990s.

Everything was all from the pre-desktop publishing days, with markups and requests for enlargements, etc.

Most of it was....meh, but there were a few goodies, like these F-16XL shots.
 

Attachments

  • F-16XL_Formation_SHRUNK.jpg
    F-16XL_Formation_SHRUNK.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 312
  • F-16XL_Image_SHRUNK.jpg
    F-16XL_Image_SHRUNK.jpg
    609.4 KB · Views: 335

JimK

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
56
Reaction score
9
FREE NASA ebook: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf
 

hesham

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
27,611
Reaction score
4,574
JimK said:
FREE NASA ebook: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf

The SCIF-4.
 

Attachments

  • 2.png
    2.png
    451.1 KB · Views: 1,669

RAP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
435
JimK- Great find on the NASA F16XL book, thanks!
 

SteveO

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 24, 2007
Messages
419
Reaction score
102
Wow, a free F-16XL ebook, nice find! Thanks for sharing that link JimK.
 

Firebee

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Apr 1, 2011
Messages
100
Reaction score
2
Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but does anyone know of anywhere to get a print copy of the book? The usual NASA pages don't seem to have any on hand. I fear I've missed any chance for a reasonably-priced copy, and I much prefer a nice permanent paper version.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,309
Reaction score
403
Flow Analysis of the F-16XL Aircraft at Transonic Flow Conditions

https://www.scribd.com/document/331290250/Flow-Analysis-of-the-F-16XL-Aircraft-at-Transonic-Flow-Conditions-pdf
 

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
203
Reaction score
351
Thought I would post this into the .......and more section of this thread. From the GD model shops I had this in 2 configurations of which I kept the more interesting and traded the other one. Solid resin and a tad bigger than the large Precise XL that you can see to the right. Enjoy. ( I should have dusted the shelf)
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2584 2.jpg
    IMG_2584 2.jpg
    1.7 MB · Views: 1,185

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
520
Interesting. I knew only this photo (in the first post of this topic by Matej) about this plane

index.php
index.php
 

RAP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
435
Very nice Allysonca!
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
520
There are some 3 views on the net, but no one is resembling. The wings are not the same or the tailplanes are fanciful. It's more "what if" than realistic 3 views from the model.

Another photo of the F-16U

1zok8.jpg
 

allysonca

ACCESS: Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2011
Messages
203
Reaction score
351
I wonder how many interactions of this F16U there were. The one I traded to Geo. Cox had a different intake arrangement and was sans tail.......
 

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
520
Another photo of the Model 400.

Found here :

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Delta_wing
 

Attachments

  • General Dynamic Model 400.jpg
    General Dynamic Model 400.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 459

Deltafan

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
520
Oups, post mistake (repeting of the last) :-[
 

Attachments

  • General Dynamic Model 400.jpg
    General Dynamic Model 400.jpg
    52 KB · Views: 424

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
690
Good Day All -

Here's some McDonnell Douglas drawings for using the F-15, F-18 and one of the F-16 as a demonstrator. Recent donation to the Museum from Don Athlen.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • zMcAir Supercruise Demonstrator GA - F-15 with AST Wing Aug-10-79.jpg
    zMcAir Supercruise Demonstrator GA - F-15 with AST Wing Aug-10-79.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 896
  • zMcAir Supercruise Demonstrator GA - F-18 with AST Wing Aug-7-79.jpg
    zMcAir Supercruise Demonstrator GA - F-18 with AST Wing Aug-7-79.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 843
  • zF-16 Supercruise Derivative GA - McAir Drawing Feb-6-79.jpg
    zF-16 Supercruise Derivative GA - McAir Drawing Feb-6-79.jpg
    779.2 KB · Views: 795

Similar threads

Top