General Dynamics and Vought Navalised F-16s to VFAX/NACF requirement

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I expect it was, otherwise why bother doing it?


1602 had larger span wings with a fold.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Merged topics

 

[hesham]

From JP4 April 1975.

 

[Bill S]

Two configurations for V-1601 in the Fighter Escort role along with a drawing of the unique wingtip mount dual Sidewinder pylon. VAHF archive.

 

[hesham]

Amazing drawings my dear Bill.

 

[RAP]

Very cool, thanks for posting.

 

[Bill S]

Several interesting things about this image.
1. Model 18 on the vertical does anyone know if this was a General Dynamics designation?
2. The twin AIM-9 mounting on the wing tips.
3. The AIM-9 mounted on the side of the intake. I don't recall seeing this in any of the drawings.


VAHF image.

 

[_Del_]

I've seen the twin Sidewinders on the wingtip in contemporary models, but the intake rails are new to me. Seems like a poor place in regards to potential exhaust ingestion.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Tony Buttler had Model 18 as "version of YF-16 submitted by Forth Worth to Navy VFAX competition, July 1974" alongside the Model 218. That makes it pre-date the V-1600.


The twin Sidewinder launchers were seen various times, intake Sidewinders not so much, there were the undercarriage bay door Sparrow mounts seen later though:

 

[Pioneer]

Several interesting things about this image.
1. Model 18 on the vertical does anyone know if this was a General Dynamics designation?
2. The twin AIM-9 mounting on the wing tips.
3. The AIM-9 mounted on the side of the intake. I don't recall seeing this in any of the drawings.


VAHF image.

Nice find! Nice pic Bill S
The pic looks like a frame from a film.
If so wouldn't this be a fascinating video to watch and hear!! Imagine hearing the design prospects of the Model 18 philosophy!!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Stargazer]

The pic looks like a frame from a film.

Not really. I think the black frame with rounded corners indicates a slide rather than a still.

 

[The Artist]

I agree with Skyblazer's points and I'd like to add that the image looks too clear - too sharp - to be from a 16mm film frame. They could have shot a film on 35mm but would it have been worth the added cost if it was not for wade release or for fine detail study of flight or hardware tests?

 

[Bill S]

Nice find! Nice pic Bill S
The pic looks like a frame from a film.
If so wouldn't this be a fascinating video to watch and hear!! Imagine hearing the design prospects of the Model 18 philosophy!!!

Regards
Pioneer

Sorry for the confusion, it is a scan of a slide.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

General Dynamics Model 18 from Aviation Week Archive. Sparrow missiles on wingtips.

 

[TomS]

And Sidewinders on fuselage cheek stations. Clearance issues, presumably. But why not hang it all on the wings in the first place?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Lower drag -plus leaves wing stations free for air/ground ordnance.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Good Day All -

A couple of recent scans of LTV drawings of the 1602A and 1602A-1.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Bill S]

Nice drawings, thanks Mark!

 

[RAP]

Really nice. Thanks for posting.

 

[Cjc]

So I've heard on other threads that the vought f-16 for the usn was a disaster during development, but no real details, So is it true?
Other sites say that there were no issues so. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[aim9xray]

What "development"? Only pre-design work was done; to support the proposal effort.

Full Scale Development (where the really hard work happens) was never accomplished as this design was not selected by the Navy.

Edited for clarity.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What "development"? Only pre-design work was done; to support the proposal effort.

Full Scale Development (where the really hard work happens) was never accomplished as this design was not selected by the Navy.

Edited for clarity.

The difficulty with turning the YF-16 into NACF was that it really needed to get bigger, but there was no easy path to get more power out of the F100, which was easier for the YF-17 with its not-yet-finalised J101 (F404) engines. In my opinion McDonnell-Douglas basically designed a new aircraft with a resemblance to the YF-17 while Vought tried to actually make a naval fighter derivative of YF-16 with the minimum of changes.

 

[Cjc]

What "development"? Only pre-design work was done; to support the proposal effort.

Full Scale Development (where the really hard work happens) was never accomplished as this design was not selected by the Navy.

Edited for clarity.

The difficulty with turning the YF-16 into NACF was that it really needed to get bigger, but there was no easy path to get more power out of the F100, which was easier for the YF-17 with its not-yet-finalised J101 (F404) engines. In my opinion McDonnell-Douglas basically designed a new aircraft with a resemblance to the YF-17 while Vought tried to actually make a naval fighter derivative of YF-16 with the minimum of changes.

Isn't that why they were planning on using the f-401 instead?

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

What "development"? Only pre-design work was done; to support the proposal effort.

Full Scale Development (where the really hard work happens) was never accomplished as this design was not selected by the Navy.

Edited for clarity.

The difficulty with turning the YF-16 into NACF was that it really needed to get bigger, but there was no easy path to get more power out of the F100, which was easier for the YF-17 with its not-yet-finalised J101 (F404) engines. In my opinion McDonnell-Douglas basically designed a new aircraft with a resemblance to the YF-17 while Vought tried to actually make a naval fighter derivative of YF-16 with the minimum of changes.

Isn't that why they were planning on using the f-401 instead?

Vought proposed F100, F401 and F101 versions, but F401 was effectively canned at this point as the F-14 was sticking with TF30, and F101 distinctly larger and optimised for a bomber, so there was no engine commonality to leverage. Perhaps a redesign around twin J101 engines would have had a better chance at success, but it would be hard to make it look like a YF-16 derivative. By contrast the F-18 used essentially the same engines with a minor thrust boost.

The V-1602 with F101 was closest to meeting the requirements of the three versions, but the YF-16 was smaller than the YF-17 to start with. This helped it win LWF/ACF, but was unhelpful for NACF.

 

[Avnut]

No mention has been made yet of the title "The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet" (ISBN: 9781557507754) by James P. Stevenson. Chapter 10 covers the development of the naval F-16 variant, see attachment. The Navy rejected the naval F-16 for the following points which are expanded upon the the chapter:

a) Tail angle clearance which would cause tail strikes when landing on the carrier
b) High approach speed to perform the "popup" maneuver
c) The fly-by-wire system was not acceptable without a mechanical back-up system
d) Sparrow requirement - having it verses not having it

The Navy played the F-111 game with requirements again.

 

[F-2]

With the F401 engine and big wing it probably would have been a beast.

 

[Cjc]

No mention has been made yet of the title "The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet" (ISBN: 9781557507754) by James P. Stevenson. Chapter 10 covers the development of the naval F-16 variant, see attachment. The Navy rejected the naval F-16 for the following points which are expanded upon the the chapter:

a) Tail angle clearance which would cause tail strikes when landing on the carrier
b) High approach speed to perform the "popup" maneuver
c) The fly-by-wire system was not acceptable without a mechanical back-up system
d) Sparrow requirement - having it verses not having it

The Navy played the F-111 game with requirements again.

I'm not seeing how all those weren't issues especially as the f-18 paradox is such a bad book i automatically think the opposite of what ever the book said.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

F-14 didn't meet the tail angle clearance requirement either. LTV did get Sparrow capability in there but it pushed things towards the F101 engine version.

However, the YF-17 was a better starting point for the Navy requirement than the YF-16 was. It was already bigger and it wasn't hard to get some thrust boost from the J101 engine redesign.

 

[BLACK_MAMBA]

No mention has been made yet of the title "The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet" (ISBN: 9781557507754) by James P. Stevenson. Chapter 10 covers the development of the naval F-16 variant, see attachment. The Navy rejected the naval F-16 for the following points which are expanded upon the the chapter:

a) Tail angle clearance which would cause tail strikes when landing on the carrier
b) High approach speed to perform the "popup" maneuver
c) The fly-by-wire system was not acceptable without a mechanical back-up system
d) Sparrow requirement - having it verses not having it

The Navy played the F-111 game with requirements again.

I'm not seeing how all those weren't issues especially as the f-18 paradox is such a bad book i automatically think the opposite of what ever the book said.

Where does the "bad book" reputation come from? Yes, it might not be the best idea to use it as sole source for reference material, but it seems quite good to me. Especially the chapter provided here seems quite spot on - it wasn't a Navy program so the Navy were fighting tooth and nail to make a naval F-16 variant fail.

But I agree with Overscan that the YF-17 starting point was better for what the Navy wanted. PP more or less also mentions it. The crux of that chapter is just it's ironic that (like multiple aircraft before it) they made exceptions or adjustments when it suited them (F-14 & 18), but weren't open to the same when it wasn't "their" program ala F-111B or F-16N. Not that the end products were bad aircraft at all.

 

[Cjc]

No mention has been made yet of the title "The Pentagon Paradox: The Development of the F-18 Hornet" (ISBN: 9781557507754) by James P. Stevenson. Chapter 10 covers the development of the naval F-16 variant, see attachment. The Navy rejected the naval F-16 for the following points which are expanded upon the the chapter:

a) Tail angle clearance which would cause tail strikes when landing on the carrier
b) High approach speed to perform the "popup" maneuver
c) The fly-by-wire system was not acceptable without a mechanical back-up system
d) Sparrow requirement - having it verses not having it

The Navy played the F-111 game with requirements again.

I'm not seeing how all those weren't issues especially as the f-18 paradox is such a bad book i automatically think the opposite of what ever the book said.

Where does the "bad book" reputation come from? Yes, it might not be the best idea to use it as sole source for reference material, but it seems quite good to me. Especially the chapter provided here seems quite spot on - it wasn't a Navy program so the Navy were fighting tooth and nail to make a naval F-16 variant fail.

But I agree with Overscan that the YF-17 starting point was better for what the Navy wanted. PP more or less also mentions it. The crux of that chapter is just it's ironic that (like multiple aircraft before it) they made exceptions or adjustments when it suited them (F-14 & 18), but weren't open to the same when it wasn't "their" program ala F-111B or F-16N. Not that the end products were bad aircraft at all.

The bad book reputation comes from it agnoring huge parts of its sources that don't fit his narrative, in this particular case just twisting pretty huge issues issues into non ones.

 

[vinsont21]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. Is there any reason the navalised F-16 design moved its wingtips missiles to hanging below the outmost racks? F/A-18 have wingtips missile as well and it doesn't seem to have any issue.

 

[MadRat]

I thought the navalized F-16 had an extension of the fuselage. F-8 was a skinny frame compared to YF-17 and the later F/A-18, yet held a large fuel storage capacity. The basic F-16 design was similar to A-7/F-8, but its short body limited onboard fuel. Perhaps it should have pushed for maximizing fuel, kept chin-racks for Sidewinder, and mounted fore-canards (rather than simplifying to a larger LERX) to maximize nose-pointing. More or less an off-shoot of F-8esque form, minus the tilt-wing, and going with the fore-canard for offsetting an obvious shift in weight from adding the radar. You could therefore retain Sidewinders on the chins without interfering with wing loads.

 

[Sundog]

Not sure if this has been mentioned before. Is there any reason the navalised F-16 design moved its wingtips missiles to hanging below the outmost racks? F/A-18 have wingtips missile as well and it doesn't seem to have any issue.

My guess is on the fixed wing version, no folding tips, it was done to minimize the span for storage on board the carrier. For the larger 1600 models, with the folding wings, it was probably done to minimize weight. The wing fold mechanism wouldn't have to be as robust as a result of not having the missile on the tip, which would make the wing fold lighter.

 

[Sundog]

I thought the navalized F-16 had an extension of the fuselage. F-8 was a skinny frame compared to YF-17 and the later F/A-18, yet held a large fuel storage capacity. The basic F-16 design was similar to A-7/F-8, but its short body limited onboard fuel. Perhaps it should have pushed for maximizing fuel, kept chin-racks for Sidewinder, and mounted fore-canards (rather than simplifying to a larger LERX) to maximize nose-pointing. More or less an off-shoot of F-8esque form, minus the tilt-wing, and going with the fore-canard for offsetting an obvious shift in weight from adding the radar. You could therefore retain Sidewinders on the chins without interfering with wing loads.

Actually, the standard F-16 has an outstanding internal fuel fraction as a result of the blended wing body.

 

[Albert Estes]

I have two original drawings of the V-1600 from LTV artist Merle Soule. Does anyone know a market for these? Please text me 214-793-8060

 

[Albert Estes]

I have two original drawings of the V-1600 from LTV artist Merle Soule. Does anyone know a market for these? Please text me 214-793-8060

 

[F-2]

Some performance info vs F-18

 

[allysonca]

Thought I had posted this here but don't see it... Sitting in my collection are a V-1600 and a V-1601 that I chased for quite some time..... A couple of my fav's to say the least. Now if they only a tad bigger!

 

[allysonca]

Several interesting things about this image.
1. Model 18 on the vertical does anyone know if this was a General Dynamics designation?
2. The twin AIM-9 mounting on the wing tips.
3. The AIM-9 mounted on the side of the intake. I don't recall seeing this in any of the drawings.


VAHF image.

I owned this particular model. It came from GD via a friend, and what makes this interesting was that it was constructed with a vacuum formed fuselage, so it was quite light. I've another F-16 in the same scale that is made the same way. When it came to me it was missing the dual side rails and a tad bit rougher in condition. No stand, it was a wheel sitter. Also note all of the other weapons on the table, and naaaaa, did not have them either.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Several interesting things about this image.
1. Model 18 on the vertical does anyone know if this was a General Dynamics designation?
2. The twin AIM-9 mounting on the wing tips.
3. The AIM-9 mounted on the side of the intake. I don't recall seeing this in any of the drawings.


VAHF image.

So - to be clear - Model 18 was a Convair (San Diego) led General Dynamics F-16 derivative for VFAX. It therefore has no direct relation to the V-1600/1601/1602 which were later in time and Vought led. No drawings of Model 18 have surfaced to my knowledge.