The General Dynamics F-16XL is a derivative of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, with a cranked-arrow delta wing that is over twice the size of that of the standard F-16 wing. It was entered in the U.S. Air Force's Enhanced Tactical Fighter (ETF) competition but ultimately lost to the F-15E Strike Eagle. Several years after the prototypes were shelved; they were turned over to NASA for aeronautical study.
In 1977, the F-16XL started out as the F-16 SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype) at General Dynamics Fort Worth. Under the leadership of Harry Hillaker (father of the original F-16), the original goal of the program was to demonstrate the applicability of Supersonic transport technologies to military aircraft.
Working closely with NASA's Langley Research Center, the company invested significant Internal Research and Development (IRAD) funds for wind tunnel testing and that led to the Model 400. As seen in the supersonic wind tunnel model at right, the Model 400 featured all moving wing tips for roll control and an all moving vertical tail. These surfaces were actually the horizontal tail surfaces from the F-16A. These surfaces were later dropped as they did not provide adequate control at low speed, high angle of attack. Also, there would have been no provision for wing-tip mounted missiles.
In 1977, the F-16XL started out as the F-16 SCAMP (Supersonic Cruise and Maneuver Prototype) at General Dynamics Fort Worth. Under the leadership of Harry Hillaker (father of the original F-16), the original goal of the program was to demonstrate the applicability of Supersonic transport technologies to military aircraft.
Working closely with NASA's Langley Research Center, the company invested significant Internal Research and Development (IRAD) funds for wind tunnel testing and that led to the Model 400. As seen in the supersonic wind tunnel model at right, the Model 400 featured all moving wing tips for roll control and an all moving vertical tail. These surfaces were actually the horizontal tail surfaces from the F-16A. These surfaces were later dropped as they did not provide adequate control at low speed, high angle of attack. Also, there would have been no provision for wing-tip mounted missiles.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment