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

[Retrofit]

Some details about NASA's SCIF (Supersonic Cruise Integrated Fighter) researches.

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


[Edit - Removed link to illegal website - Admin]

 

[codeone]

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:

<title> | Code One Magazine</title>

www.codeonemagazine.com

--C1

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I think this is the right topic Eric

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

 

[LowObservable]

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]

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)]

Quite nice spin model of the F-16XL with different loads. Note first picture shows earlier version of wing with straight edges, no Küchemann carrots and all-moving wingtips and all pictures appear to show an all-moving vertical tail.


http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/20-Foot_Spin_Tunnel_(645)_Models_and_Tests_A-M

 

[Stargazer]

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]

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]

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

 

[JFC Fuller]

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]

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.

 

[F-14D]

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]

something SCAMPish being tested at Langley
NASA photo from CodeOne magazine

 

[Sundog]

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]

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]

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]

NASA Langley's youtube page..

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

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

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

 

[fightingirish]

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.

View: https://youtu.be/5k13bOlRVK0

https://youtu.be/5k13bOlRVK0

 

[Sundog]

Nice find!

 

[RyanC]

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.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Nice pics, thanks for sharing.

 

[JimK]

FREE NASA ebook: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf

 

[hesham]

FREE NASA ebook: http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/elegance_in_flight.pdf

The SCIF-4.

 

[RAP]

JimK- Great find on the NASA F16XL book, thanks!

 

[AeroFranz]

Ditto, VERY nice find

 

[SteveO]

Wow, a free F-16XL ebook, nice find! Thanks for sharing that link JimK.

 

[Firebee]

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]

Flow Analysis of the F-16XL Aircraft at Transonic Flow Conditions

Flow Analysis of The F-16XL Aircraft at Transonic Flow Conditions PDF | PDF | Computational Fluid Dynamics | Aerodynamics

Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site.

www.scribd.com

 

[allysonca]

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)

 

[Deltafan]

Interesting. I knew only this photo (in the first post of this topic by Matej) about this plane

 

[RAP]

Very nice Allysonca!

 

[Dsadow]

How about a 3 view of this???

 

[Deltafan]

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

[link broken - Admin]

 

[allysonca]

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]

Another photo of the Model 400.

Found here :

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/Delta_wing

 

[LowObservable]

Harry Hillaker on the left.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

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

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thank you very much, pity the 16 is missing some parts. Very interesting for sure.

 

[Sundog]

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]

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.