F-16XL, 79, Vista and other Xperimental F-16s?
-
FIrst you will have to deliver accurate flight model data and avionics data… no possible data, real facts… then maybe a second step comes…
-
Déjà vu?
:munch:
-
You don’t want anything to do with the j79 engine…underpowered and problematic.
-
Well, where does one get data on the F-16XL? Or any for that matter?
-
You could try asking NASA nicely … not holding my breath though.
-
What would be the point any of these…?
F-16XL was terribly weak to F-15E…
The TVC cannot be modeled with current code as I know…
Even if would be possible what is the point in a non combat F-16 variant?
What were the capabilities of F-16 '79 comparing to any F-16 Block version? -
What were the capabilities of F-16 '79 comparing to any F-16 Block version?
Epic suckage (so to speak)
-
with BMS 2.0 and sp4.2 we had F16 XL version
-
What were the capabilities of F-16 '79 comparing to any F-16 Block version?
This was an export proposal for a downgraded F-16A before the US allowed the real one to be sold.
• Performance, cost & capabilities should be between those of the F-5E and F-16A
• Multirole design (but optimized for the air-to-air role) and deliberately limited strike capabilities
• Payload/range performance had to be substantially inferior to that of contemporary fighters in the US inventory
• Deployment and maintenance had to be easier.The modified J-79 turbojet gave it more weight, less range/endurance and less power in about 95% of where you wanted it. It was actually faster at 40,000 ft where the turbojet made more power, but this was of no tactical use really.
-
F-16XL was terribly weak to F-15E….
Pretty poor logic to argue against it, since going by that, why do any of us fly F-16s, as the F-15E does ground attack better than them.
The Flight Performance Data however is a reasonable argument, and as far as I’m aware, we don’t have any for the XL.
-
Wasn’t all bad according to someone on the program….
_During the F-15 Strike Eagle vs. F-16XL competition (1982), both airplanes carried 12 Mk-82 as a standard of comparison. Where the SE could manage 0.95, the XL moved out to 1.10 mach at 2000 ft with only one engine. With its fly by wire and highly swept low aspect wing, the ride at low altitude was much smoother than the SE. Not saying the XL was overall superior to the SE, but there were things it could do better and cheaper.
The Strike Eagle prototype was a standard F-15 of the day, so likely had a 220. Certainly an upgraded engine would have given it more performance, but the same engine would have fit in the XL, so both airplanes would have benefited from it._
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=29175&p=319523#p319523
-
The Flight Performance Data however is a reasonable argument, and as far as I’m aware, we don’t have any for the XL.
There are a few bits kicking around but nothing like a dash whatever AFAIK.
-
If so much classified data is there that we can’t get our hands on, how did we make the AIM-9X and other advanced weapons for 4.33?
-
…and you really think those are 100%, right?
-
Wasn’t all bad according to someone on the program….
_During the F-15 Strike Eagle vs. F-16XL competition (1982), both airplanes carried 12 Mk-82 as a standard of comparison. Where the SE could manage 0.95, the XL moved out to 1.10 mach at 2000 ft with only one engine. With its fly by wire and highly swept low aspect wing, the ride at low altitude was much smoother than the SE. Not saying the XL was overall superior to the SE, but there were things it could do better and cheaper.
The Strike Eagle prototype was a standard F-15 of the day, so likely had a 220. Certainly an upgraded engine would have given it more performance, but the same engine would have fit in the XL, so both airplanes would have benefited from it._
http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=29175&p=319523#p319523
The book Red Eagles (America’s secret Migs) described that the F-16XL performed poorly against Mig21’s and the F-15E did much better in comparison. Apparently this was one of the deciding factors that made the F-15E come out on top.
-
BMS is targetting high realism and each version set the realism higher. So there is no point to include experimental planes.
-
Hi.
I was just wondering since this is an F-16 based sim, can we have some experimental F-16 variants. Some of them like these……
F-16XL…
And more variants if possible and if ok
BMS team will not do an F-16XL nor an F-16BLK60 nor a F-16A cockpit.
-
The book Red Eagles (America’s secret Migs) described that the F-16XL performed poorly against Mig21’s and the F-15E did much better in comparison. Apparently this was one of the deciding factors that made the F-15E come out on top.
That’s right……both F-16XLs were underpowered even with the GE-100 and you can see why Typhoon (near similar in weight) got 2 engines to give it adequate T/W.
F-16XL-1 that was used in the flight testing Vs the F-16A had the same PW-200 engine as the F-16A but was a lot heavier going on the test flight weights (+6000 lbs empty) and carried about 5,750 lb more internal fuel at full fuel weight. The AoA limit was increased to 29 degrees and it had a better ITR and a better roll rate (as claimed in Red Eagles). However even with 2 x tanks and 6 x MK-82s on both, the F-16A retained far more energy…so in some 1v1 BFM with a MiG-21F-13 it should have lost.
-
Vista would not work well…
-
TVC can be roughly hacked through modifying pitching moment (Cm) and other coefficients. (https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?26249-MIG-29OVT-AFM-Mod)
Right now we do have the code as in AV-8B, but I don’t think it worth the time to incorporate it into the flight control system in order to simulate a real TVC.