What's new

Pakistan F-16 Discussions 2

. .


what in the......hell???

its almost an entirely different bloody craft! I like it though. Delta wing design looks fantastic

according to sources, this project was known as SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuvering Program)
 
. .
what in the......hell???

its almost an entirely different bloody craft! I like it though. Delta wing design looks fantastic

according to sources, this project was known as SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuvering Program)

The program was initially funded by the manufacturer, and involved conversion of two FSD F-16A's. In late 1980, the USAF and General Dynamics agreed on a cooperative test program, with the Air Force providing the third and fifth FSD F-16s (A-3 (#75-0747) and A-5 (#75-0749)) for modification into F-16XL prototypes.

The fuselage was lengthened with 56 inches (142 cm) to 54 feet 1.86 inches by 'inserting' 2 new fuselage sections at the junctions between the three main fuselage sub-assemblies: one 26 inch (66 cm) section was inserted at the rear split point, and a 30 inch (76 cm) section at the front one. However, the rear 26in section, was not a continuous segment from the bottom to the top. Below the wing, a 26 inch segment was inserted just aft of the main landing gear, above the wing the segment was still 26 inches long, but inserted 26 inches farther aft than the segment below the wing. This made the section look like a backward "Z". The fuselage lengthening enabled the tail section to be canted up 3 degrees, necessary to prevent the engine nozzle from striking the runway during take off and landing.

The XL has no ventral fins for the same reason, but evidently did not need them, since the XL stability characteristics are in general superior to that of the F-16.

The engine inlet was only affected by the rear lower fuselage 26in extension, since the 30in forward fuselage extension was applied to the upper fuselage only. As a result, the F-16XL engine inlet is 26in longer than on a standard F-16A.

The wing planform was altered in a cranked-arrow delta wing (120% larger than the original F-16 wing), with extensive use of carbon composite materials (in the upper and lower layers of the skin) to save weight. Weight savings in the wings alone amounted to 600lbs. or 272kg. The wing is of multi-spar design with the leading edge sweep angle ranging from 50º to 70º, and is 2,800lbs (1,179 kg.) heavier than the original. The increase in internal volume (both by lengthening the fuselage and expanding the wing) allowed for a 82% increase in internal fuel capacity, while the increased wing area allowed the incorporation of up to 27 stores stations. Despite the apparent lengthening of the fuselage involved with the program, the new XL designation does NOT stand for "extra large".

Through wing planform improvements and camber optimizations, the final configuration offered a 25% improvement in maximum lift-to-drag ratio over the F-16 supersonically, and 11% improvement subsonic. The handling of the F-16XL was reportedly quite different from that of the standard F-16, offering a much smoother ride at high speeds and low altitudes. The configuration had matured into a very competent fighter with a large wing that allowed low-drag integration of large numbers of external weapons
 
.
i guess it was merely a prototype and was never formally inducted in American or other services
 
.
i guess it was merely a prototype and was never formally inducted in American or other services

yes indeeed. the F16 XL project never entered military production and was onoly confined to prototpes which later on were transferred to NASA.
for those who are intrested in this subject here is the link to study:
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article1.html
i hope it will help.
moreover wikipedia, like always present thorough but not reliable enough knowledge on the subject:
General Dynamics F-16XL - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

regards!
 
. . .
The F-16XL was developed from the existing F-16 to study supersonic laminar airflow and sonic boom research.

Though appearing very much like the F-16 Fighting Falcon base model, the F-16XL was designed as a very different aircraft. The F-16XL was a conversion model development designed to study the effects of laminar airflow at supersonic speeds along with research into the causes and effects of sonic booms. Two such models were conceived with S/N 75-0749 being the single-seat aircraft and S/N 75-0747 as the twin-seat version.

The F-16XL retained the general look of the base F-16 Fighting Falcon but was in fact four feet longer than it's predecessor. The double delta-wing area was substantially dominant in the overall design, accounting for increased drag, lift and additional hard points stationed throughout the underside of the aircraft. Models were tested with the traditional wingtip mounted AIM-9 Sidewinder short-range air-to-air missiles as well as a plethora of drop bombs and other air-to-air medium range missiles. Testing with the F-16XL began in 1982 and continued on a decade later.

Incidentally, the F-16XL was designed to serve a dual purpose role and not only deliver scientific data but to also compete against the F-15E "Strike Eagle" dedicated multi-role derivative of the F-15 series - eventually losing out to the McDonnell Douglas modification. Only two F-16XL aircraft were ever produced as prototypes


 
. . .
forward-swept wing.....reminds me of Sukhoi-37 prototype

Ya..but this Aircrafts didnt became reality..only remained till drawings.The engineers at General Dynamics studied several designs, including one with canards and an aft-mounted wing. The final design submitted to DARPA used the landing gear and most fuselage components of the traditional F-16, yet it had a slightly lengthened and strengthened fuselage to allow the forward-swept wing to be attached, since the new wing was slightly larger than the traditional wing.

The SFW/F-16 was rejected by DARPA in January of 1981 in favor of the Grumman 712 (an F-5/F-20 derivative), later designated the X-29A. The decision was mainly a political one, as many thought that the test-scene at NASA was heavily dominated by General Dynamics' F-16s (AFTI, CCV, F-16XL). Another much-cited reason was that "One could only learn so much from a single airframe", though in retrospect, ongoing experiments with the F-16 seem to prove this wrong. It is interesting to note that the chosen design, the X-29A, consists for about 16% of F-16 components, including the Fly-By-Wire Flight Control System.

After the F-5 airframe was chosen for this project, all development into this version halted.
 
. . .
Back
Top Bottom