ADF to LWF: Evolution of the General Dynamics F-16

img_8745-jpeg.732319

1718963412888.png
Configuration 772 Alternate ADF based on Convair San Diego canard delta work

img_8746-jpeg.732320

Right / front to rear / left : Configuration 201C was perhaps smaller, YJ101 powered?. Confiiguration 401F-16 was almost the final YF-17. Configuration 401F-5 lost the rear chines for the tailplanes, then we see the rear of the 401A - the initial 401 versions were shorter and kind of dumpy.
img_8748-jpeg.732322

This is Configuration 785, part of the 780 series of baseline conventional designs, and then what looks like the actual final YF-16 layout from the LERX shape.
 
Last edited:
So, what has become clear is these are all Configuration numbers, not Model numbers.

Also the designs go in the sequence:

AVVFX - ADF - LWF

Known configurations I have drawings or model photos of are:

  • 200 Series
    • 201C
    • 205C
  • 400 Series
    • 401A
    • 401B (AVVX, ADF)
    • 401C (ADF)
    • 401F
      • 401F-0
      • 401F-2
      • 401F-3
      • 401F-4
      • 401F-5
        • 401F-5A
      • 401F-10
        • 401F-10A
      • 401F-16
        • 401F-16E
    • 401FS
    • 401FS-1
    • 403 (AFVVX)
    • 404 (this may actually be an FX Configuration 404)
  • 500 Series
    • 501 (AFVVX)
    • 503 (LWF)
  • 770 series
    • 770 (Alternate ADF)
    • 772 (Alternate ADF)
  • 780 series
    • 780 (Alternate ADF)
    • 785 (Alternate ADF)
    • 786
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
The inital twin tailed 401F design showed severe problems with directional stability at moderate to high AOA. It turned out that forebody flow separations and their resulting vortices were interacting with the vertical tails. Where the blunt forebody design had attempted to delay vortex formation, NASA Langley aerodynamicists suggested instead to try sharpening the strake leading edge to increase vortex strength, to dominate and stabilise the flow at high AOA. Over a three month period delta strakes were tested on 785 and its twin tailed 786 variant, while small canards, ogive and gothic strakes (and combinations thereof) were all tested out on the F401F series.The stability problems were basically resolved by the end of this period, though the detail strake design continued to be refined.

The 401F configuration went through many iterations. F-0, F-1, F-2, F-3, and F-4 were all basically twin tailed and tested different strakes, wing shapes and minor refinements.
Click to expand...
I am really liking the lines of the 401F-4...


overscan (PaulMM) said:
Slightly better version of the 786 pic. Completely wrongly labelled as Model 404, and contrasted to Model 205C supposedly as the actual F-16 design, which is wrong (but marks the second appearance of "205C" as a designation).

Source:

Robert C Stern, Warbirds Illustrated 017 America's Fighters of the 1980s, Arms & Armour Press.
Click to expand...
And this one.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
So, what has become clear is these are all Configuration numbers, not Model numbers.

Also the designs go in the sequence:

AVVFX - ADF - LWF

Known configurations I have drawings or model photos of are:

  • 200 Series
    • 201C
    • 205C
  • 400 Series
    • 401A
    • 401B (AVVX, ADF)
    • 401C (ADF)
    • 401F
      • 401F-0
      • 401F-2
      • 401F-3
      • 401F-4
      • 401F-5
        • 401F-5A
      • 401F-10
        • 401F-10A
      • 401F-16
        • 401F-16E
    • 401FS
    • 401FS-1
    • 403 (AFVVX)
    • 404 (this may actually be an FX Configuration 404)
  • 500 Series
    • 501 (AFVVX)
    • 503 (LWF)
  • 770 series
    • 770 (Alternate ADF)
    • 772 (Alternate ADF)
  • 780 series
    • 780 (Alternate ADF)
    • 785 (Alternate ADF)
    • 786
Click to expand...

My dear PaulMM,I can give the origins for all these stuff,

201 & 205,

- The Convair series which last known one was Model-118 AirCar continued and passing
with Models 200,201 & 218,up to Models 252,310,311 & 324

401,403 & 404,also 500,501,503,

- 1961 drawings or Models,began with Model-1,passing with Models 401 & 404,and up to Models
603 (VTXTS) and Model 643,and raising

770 & 772,also 780,785 & 786,

- 1961 Project or "P",from P-1 up to P-785 & P-786,and raising until 1974.



That's only specultions as in this topic,
 
Hesham, these are NOT "model numbers", but Configuration numbers. I said this IN THE POST you replied to and you simply ignored me.
The sources for all are General Dynamics documents.

In the topic you link to, I posted this already in https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/general-dynamics-aircraft-model-series.27156/#post-588303 and you replied and agreed!

In General Dynamics (Fort Worth), in the 1960s and 1970s at least, each program would number the various configurations developed with a three digit code and optionally letter suffixes.

Each "family" of related configurations for one program typically share the same first one or two numbers. So 780, 785, 786 are all variations on the same basic configuration.

Each program would have its own set of configuration numbers. General Dynamics FX related configuration known are 121,132,142,404,442. On the FX program these are typically referred to as FX-121, FX-132 etc.

On the LWF, sometimes the configurations are referred to as "AVFFX 401B" "ADF 780", "LWF 401F-16" etc, but more often just as "Configuration 786".

MacDonnell uses a similar system for the suffixes appended to their Model number.
 
Last edited:
My dear PaulMM,I didn't mean any ignoring to you at all,and I can't do that,I just want to explain from which
series they are came from,and I know they are a configurations,but this contrast and difference may makes
the readers ask,if they are the same sequence or not.
 
From my collection, a 1/20th and 1/40th YF-16. The 1/20th is a treasured piece and obtained from a dear friend that had it in storage for many, many, many years. It's one of two made and started like in the blue/white camo (my fave) and was damaged when being returned from a trade show. Boss said redo it in roll-out colors.... so here ya go! It also has an interesting construction....seems there was a large vac machine the then boss wanted to use thinking it would save time. Not even! My friend said they spent more time building an internal support structure than it would have taken to render it in resin. It is suprisingly lighter in weight given it's size when you pick it up. Enjoy.........
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0584.jpeg
    IMG_0584.jpeg
    2.2 MB · Views: 63
  • IMG_0206.jpeg
    IMG_0206.jpeg
    1.9 MB · Views: 55

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom