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

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

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
800
Thank you very much, pity the 16 is missing some parts. Very interesting for sure.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
358
Wow Mark, those are great and will definitely be in my book. The F-15 and F-18 were obviously demonstrating the wing design that would have been used on their SF-1302 design. I really like the way it looks on the modified F-15, though. Were these from a research document or just stand alone? It would be nice to know the relative performance specs of each design. Those are definitely a great find.

In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
668
Sundog said:
In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.
It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,985
Arjen said:
Sundog said:
In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.
It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.

There are three drawings. Middle is based on F-18. Bottom is based on F-16 (that looks like a friggin' spaceship).
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,594
Reaction score
1,728
sferrin said:
Arjen said:
Sundog said:
In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.
It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.

There are three drawings. Middle is based on F-18. Bottom is based on F-16 (that looks like a friggin' spaceship).

Expand the first one all the way. The first note across the top reads "F-18 FWD FUS WITH 15 IN LONGER RADOME" just above the line "F-15 INLET" The lettering is clear -- this is a bit of a Frankenstein design.

Comparing with F-15 line drawings confirms it, IMO. For starters, the canopy isn't an F-15 canopy, which would have two frames and extend much further behind the pilot's headrest. It's clearly an F-18A/C canopy. The forward fuselage is also narrower than an F-15. The reprofiled/extended radome throws it off a bit, but definitely F-18 bones here.
 

Mark Nankivil

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,669
Reaction score
690
Hi Sundog -

These were standalone prints in a collection donated to the Museum. Tell me more about your book!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Retrofit

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Messages
603
Reaction score
131
Strange mini-missiles (SM) on the wing-tips of the F-16 look-alike!
Any clue on their complete identity?
Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

  • Missiles SM.JPG
    Missiles SM.JPG
    71.3 KB · Views: 512
  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    12.9 KB · Views: 593

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,767
Reaction score
1,985
TomS said:
sferrin said:
Arjen said:
Sundog said:
In fact, now that I've really looked at the one using the F-15 inlets, main structure box and modified vertical tails, it is interesting that they used an F-18 forward fuselage on it.
It looks like an F-15 forward fuselage to me.

There are three drawings. Middle is based on F-18. Bottom is based on F-16 (that looks like a friggin' spaceship).

Expand the first one all the way. The first note across the top reads "F-18 FWD FUS WITH 15 IN LONGER RADOME" just above the line "F-15 INLET" The lettering is clear -- this is a bit of a Frankenstein design.

Comparing with F-15 line drawings confirms it, IMO. For starters, the canopy isn't an F-15 canopy, which would have two frames and extend much further behind the pilot's headrest. It's clearly an F-18A/C canopy. The forward fuselage is also narrower than an F-15. The reprofiled/extended radome throws it off a bit, but definitely F-18 bones here.

Agreed. Was focused on the intakes. Also, the drawing indicates it based on the F-15 ???
 

Arjen

It's turtles all the way down
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
2,802
Reaction score
668
TomS said:
Expand the first one all the way. The first note across the top reads "F-18 FWD FUS WITH 15 IN LONGER RADOME" just above the line "F-15 INLET" The lettering is clear -- this is a bit of a Frankenstein design.
That will teach me to take a proper look at drawings. Thanks!
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,594
Reaction score
1,728
sferrin said:
Agreed. Was focused on the intakes. Also, the drawing indicates it based on the F-15 ???

Well, to be fair, it is mostly based on the F-15 -- the inlets, most of the center fuselage and engine nacelles (with a section spliced in between the forward fuselage and the original center fuselage), the vertical tails, the propulsion system, main landing gear and a good deal of the mechanical systems.

It's pure speculation, but I'd guess they needed a slightly finer forward fuselage to make the aerodynamics work, so they grafted on the closest available alternative. If they had been serious about building a demonstrator from existing parts, the F-18 would have been a better candidate, since it looks like it needed less surgery.
 

tigercat2

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
In doing some research on the F-16XL, it seems that it improved on the original F-16 in many ways. I know that it lost the competition for a strike fighter to the F-15E, but wonder why the USAF/Lockheed/other countries did not pursue this design. With the thousands of F-16s in use worldwide, it seems that it would be possible to modify a standard F-16 to the XL design, or build them from new. The XL had sigificantly more range that a standard F-16, and could carry a great many more bombs, perhaps twice as many as a standard F-16. I suppose cost would have been an issue, but you would getting almost 2 for 1.


Wes W.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
800
For myself, I wonder about the potential agility of the XL but many that may have been interested would become F-35 client nations and these have much more profit potential.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,873
Reaction score
358
Foo Fighter said:
For myself, I wonder about the potential agility of the XL but many that may have been interested would become F-35 client nations and these have much more profit potential.

That was addressed further up thread. See here.
 

tigercat2

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Thanks so much for re-directing my post to this most informative one concerning the F-16XL/SCAMP.


Wes W.
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,904
Reaction score
800
Sundog said:
Foo Fighter said:
For myself, I wonder about the potential agility of the XL but many that may have been interested would become F-35 client nations and these have much more profit potential.

That was addressed further up thread. See here.

Thank you, much appreciated.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,710
Reaction score
1,777
 

Similar threads

Top