KJ_Lesnick
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 13 February 2008
- Messages
- 1,042
- Reaction score
- 111
This is kind of an academic question, but what geometric changes would have been necessary to have prevented the F-16 from having the deep-stall tendency?
I have intended to ask this question, in fact I tried on Airliners.net but I couldn't get any answer as I was simply explained that the deep-stall problem could be recovered from -- I already knew this -- I wanted to know from a simply hypothetical standpoint what physical characteristics would have kept the chine from developing such an extreme pitch-up tendency around 50-60 degrees alpha (I was told that some other high alpha airplanes had an advantage in their wider rear fuselages, though the F-16's rear fuselage with the chine-shelves seem wider than the F-18's).
The only thing I could think of is for the chines to have been slightly rounded-off in the front (look at the F/A-18's chine vs the F-16's chine)...
KJ Lesnick
I have intended to ask this question, in fact I tried on Airliners.net but I couldn't get any answer as I was simply explained that the deep-stall problem could be recovered from -- I already knew this -- I wanted to know from a simply hypothetical standpoint what physical characteristics would have kept the chine from developing such an extreme pitch-up tendency around 50-60 degrees alpha (I was told that some other high alpha airplanes had an advantage in their wider rear fuselages, though the F-16's rear fuselage with the chine-shelves seem wider than the F-18's).
The only thing I could think of is for the chines to have been slightly rounded-off in the front (look at the F/A-18's chine vs the F-16's chine)...
KJ Lesnick