WT Forums

Lets say the F-35 gets canned for budget reasons. How would a F-16XL upgraded with the block 60 gear compare to the eurocanards?

"Nobody ever won a war dying for their country. You win wars by making the other son of a bitch die for his." - George S. Patton.
My motto: pacis per vires

the XL runs rings around everything above mach 1. If it had thrust vectoring it would have no real weakness anywhere in it's flight regime. There's nothing special about a canard anymore now that we have unstable designs UNTIL you throw in thrust vectoring.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Canards do lovely things to RCS!

Ben, I think you're 23 years too late

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Canards do lovely things to RCS!


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

yes apparently as the USAF seems to want nothing to do with them <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

It's time for the old joke where two aerodynamicists are arguing about the best position and orientation of a canard control surface when a third greybeard aero expert quips "The best place for a canard is on the competition's airplane." Hey, I still think it's funny. I guess you had to be there.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
the XL runs rings around everything above mach 1. If it had thrust vectoring it would have no real weakness anywhere in it's flight regime. There's nothing special about a canard anymore now that we have unstable designs UNTIL you throw in thrust vectoring.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's a semi-tailess delta. It's got all the strengths/weaknesses of that genre, e.g. Mirages, F-102, F-106. They have good climb, speed and acceleration, but terrible turn performance.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Canards do lovely things to RCS!
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't see it being any more of a problem than a tailplane. It can be successfully integrated, but why? And isn't "canard" French <img src=newicons/spit.gif border=0 align=middle> for "joke"?

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
the XL runs rings around everything above mach 1. If it had thrust vectoring it would have no real weakness anywhere in it's flight regime. There's nothing special about a canard anymore now that we have unstable designs UNTIL you throw in thrust vectoring.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It's a semi-tailess delta. It's got all the strengths/weaknesses of that genre, e.g. Mirages, F-102, F-106. They have good climb, speed and acceleration, but terrible turn performance.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Above Mach 1 nothing on the planet will turn with the F-16XL, the cranked arrow wing is MUCH more than just a "semi-tailless delta". It increases by 50% or more the supersonic turn performance of the "normal" F-16.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Above Mach 1 nothing on the planet will turn with the F-16XL, the cranked arrow wing is MUCH more than just a "semi-tailless delta". It increases by 50% or more the supersonic turn performance of the "normal" F-16.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I assume you are excepting the F-22 from that comparison, since it is on the planet now. I would classify the F-22 as a tailed delta that is also very slippery supersonically and has higher thrust/weight than the XL. There is nothing magical (or new, i.e. Saab Draken from 1950's) about the cranked arrow. The XL gets the performance you describe by lowering wave drag compared to the normal F-16 and, along with the >100% greater wing area (with only a tiny incrase in span and frontal area), it improves transonic/supersonic turn (induced drag is probably improved also). Maybe that isn't so hard to do because the basic F-16 is probably not too good at it anyway. Subsonic, the XL is probably not as good as the normal F-16 because it has astronomically more wetted area drag. It's one of those trades that is difficult to assess. You really need to look at the entire performance envelope to see if it is appealing overall. The XL does look very pleasant though.



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

Agreed on the Draken, it had excellent low speed performance as well as high speed performance but the geometry of having the intakes in the wing root kept it from exploiting it's wing as well as it could have since much of the forward leading edge is very rounded. The XL gets it's performance advantage from the great amout of leading edge sweep and the vortices that creates over the rest of the wing not just larger area. Looking at charts you can see how most planes loose a lot of turn capability above mach but apparently the XL does not.

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://publish.hometown.aol.com/boomer0400/images/fal_avatar02.jpg" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.