All F-16 documentary and video related here!!!!
-
Strike Package - Documentary on Air Force Fighter Pilot training
-
Nice Imagery, horrible soundtrack
thanks for sharing!
Uwe
Horrible soundtrack? Sail by Awolnation? Tune rocks dude, wtf are you talking about? It’s much better than the techno dance crap i usually hear on most jet fighter promo vids.
-
F-16 Fighting Falcon Voice Command System
-
Horrible soundtrack? Sail by Awolnation? Tune rocks dude, wtf are you talking about? It’s much better than the techno dance crap i usually hear on most jet fighter promo vids.
To each his own I guess. :neutral: I wonder why people feel the need to underlay a soundtrack at all, as if the moving pictures weren’t exciting enough?
Uwe
-
To each his own I guess. :neutral: I wonder why people feel the need to underlay a soundtrack at all, as if the moving pictures weren’t exciting enough?
Uwe
I guess man. TBH i’m not really an Awolnation fan, but that’s a great tune in my opinion…what’s not to like? Great fat/huge drum sound…soulful vocals (i actually thought he was black til i saw the video)…even some dynamic vocal melody and harmony at the end (“sail with me into the niiighhht”…i’m not surprised it was a minor hit, it had all the calling cards of a hit (this is coming from a dude who’s favorites include Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath and Jimi Hendrix). Anyway, sorry for harping on music for some F-16 vid, but it’s pretty cool if you give it a chance lol.
-
F-16 Thrust Vectoring Test Program
-
-
I was aware of this while the test program was still pretty new. Read about it in Aviation Week. As I recall, this could have been installed in F-16s for about 1 million bucks per unit, whether they were new production or existing airframes. The test examples used GE engines but an equivalent system could be made for P&W engines as well.
It always seemed to me that it was a big mistake NOT to adopt it and deploy it to the whole operational F-16 fleet.
We’d have had superagility in the fleet over 20 years ago if it had been given the green light.
This is a true 3D thrust vectoring system, too, not a more limited 2D system like is installed on the F-22.
It would be nice if BMS were to include an MATV flight model as a flyable aircraft. For controls, I think it could be integrated simply by giving the existing flight controls a lot more authority and changing the flight model to remove/modify all existing AOA limits on the appropriate axes.
For lateral control, think of adding huge control authority to the rudder. For vertical control, add huge control authority to the stabilators.
I think that would be the general idea for a suitably modified flight model.
-
A nice HD video of a Danish F-16 shooting down drones during exercise:
-
Came across this on the DCS forums. Nice entire flight HUD and Gopro Cockpit from Norway
http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/114647/se-hele-f-16-flyturen-fra-4-vinkler/12
-
-
Nice F-16 Cockpit footage over South Korea.
Also nice as terrain reference, looks very simular to what we have in BMS.Cheers Obi1
-
Air Warriors: F-16 Fighting Falcon (2015)
-
I was aware of this while the test program was still pretty new. Read about it in Aviation Week. As I recall, this could have been installed in F-16s for about 1 million bucks per unit, whether they were new production or existing airframes. The test examples used GE engines but an equivalent system could be made for P&W engines as well.
It always seemed to me that it was a big mistake NOT to adopt it and deploy it to the whole operational F-16 fleet.
We’d have had superagility in the fleet over 20 years ago if it had been given the green light.
This is a true 3D thrust vectoring system, too, not a more limited 2D system like is installed on the F-22.
It would be nice if BMS were to include an MATV flight model as a flyable aircraft. For controls, I think it could be integrated simply by giving the existing flight controls a lot more authority and changing the flight model to remove/modify all existing AOA limits on the appropriate axes.
For lateral control, think of adding huge control authority to the rudder. For vertical control, add huge control authority to the stabilators.
I think that would be the general idea for a suitably modified flight model.
Not to pollute this thread too much… but I heard a great criticism of thrust vectoring. The argument went along the lines of: watch the air show videos, and what you see is that the bird sweeps the nose around, however it looses all energy and pretty much comes to a halt… not a great place to be with no energy in a middle of a knife fight… not a good position to be in at all…
-
Not to pollute this thread too much… but I heard a great criticism of thrust vectoring. The argument went along the lines of: watch the air show videos, and what you see is that the bird sweeps the nose around, however it looses all energy and pretty much comes to a halt… not a great place to be with no energy in a middle of a knife fight… not a good position to be in at all…
It depends, actually. Some aircraft bet a lot on nose pointing abilities in dogfights (F-18, Mirage) for getting a quick missile shot opportunity and ending the fight early. Thrust vectoring can definitely help there
Now, an F-16 fights mostly best with good energy management and not really nose pointing. So from a Viper pilot standpoint, all this looks silly, but it is just a different philosophy
Also, apparently, thrust vectoring can definitely be helpful at supersonic speeds.
-
I think there are some advantages……high altitude supersonic maneuvering is vastly improved on the F-22 apparently. The X-31 dominated the legacy Hornet in very slow speed / post stall dogfights.
However despite the years of research in the 80s/90s on the F-14/15/16 MATV/18 HARV/ X-31 it only ended up on the F-22A (western side) so you have to question its actual value. Probably more useful at high altitude…whereas in a close in dogfight the idea was great in the 70s but by the mid 90s it seems to be a case of let the missile do the turning instead. -
In war many times in personal aspect ended to soldiers throw helmets to each other or end up using your bare hands to kill the other.
Tech might fail supplies might run out and you are left alone.So the df always comes as an option or you will be forced to join one unless you order your pilots to chicken out (yea I know they call it retreat and it’s a strategy to survive and live to fight another day) always early cause you know that the other side is way better on df.
So only let the missile do the job with a multi million instrument?Even if it goes to year 3015 and war exists as a meaning, bare hands will still be instruments for death.
-
-
-
New simulator video of the F-16V
http://www.janes.com/multimedia