Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Musket104" data-source="post: 50215" data-attributes="member: 2372">The essence of Boyd's energy maeuverability concept is that the airplane that can transition form one maneuver the and dump / recover energy the quickest&nbsp; - doing it faster than the bad guy - will win.&nbsp; That takes light weight (low wing loading) and lots of thrust.&nbsp;&nbsp; The LWF / F-16 was optimized from the outset with that in mind. A well-aft CG with Fly-Through-Computer (aka Fly-by-Wire) stabilty augmentation was essential. There were, however some regimes where a deep stall could be encountered.As an airplane gains strucural weight in order to carry more &quot;stuff&quot;, wing loading goes up and maneuverabilty suffers.&nbsp; Each square foot must produce more life and induced drag increases as well. An engine can be upgraded only so much.&nbsp; There was an idea in the 80's to refit the F-16 with a &quot;big wing&quot;, as part of a mid-life update,to restore some of the lost agilty but it did not get too far.The CL-1200 (?) Lancer project had the wing the F-104 should have had all along.&nbsp; The -104 gould go like stink in a straight line (low form or parasite drag), but try a tight turn and that little wing generated lots of energy-eating lift induced drag.An airplane of the F-104 / F-4 generation took a LOT of altitude to recover after departing controlled flight!In 1977 at the Point Mugu air show, I recall seeng a prototype F-17 execute a pull up to the vertical, slow to zero knots, do tail slide and recover to level flight&nbsp; - all within about 5,000 ft.&nbsp; Back in &quot;the day&quot; -&nbsp; THAT was spectacular!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Musket104, post: 50215, member: 2372"] The essence of Boyd's energy maeuverability concept is that the airplane that can transition form one maneuver the and dump / recover energy the quickest - doing it faster than the bad guy - will win. That takes light weight (low wing loading) and lots of thrust. The LWF / F-16 was optimized from the outset with that in mind. A well-aft CG with Fly-Through-Computer (aka Fly-by-Wire) stabilty augmentation was essential. There were, however some regimes where a deep stall could be encountered. As an airplane gains strucural weight in order to carry more "stuff", wing loading goes up and maneuverabilty suffers. Each square foot must produce more life and induced drag increases as well. An engine can be upgraded only so much. There was an idea in the 80's to refit the F-16 with a "big wing", as part of a mid-life update,to restore some of the lost agilty but it did not get too far. The CL-1200 (?) Lancer project had the wing the F-104 should have had all along. The -104 gould go like stink in a straight line (low form or parasite drag), but try a tight turn and that little wing generated lots of energy-eating lift induced drag. An airplane of the F-104 / F-4 generation took a LOT of altitude to recover after departing controlled flight! In 1977 at the Point Mugu air show, I recall seeng a prototype F-17 execute a pull up to the vertical, slow to zero knots, do tail slide and recover to level flight - all within about 5,000 ft. Back in "the day" - THAT was spectacular! [/QUOTE]

Verification