sell aircraft with Aircraftbargains.com
aircraft for sale
sell aircraft
aircraft for sale

Advanced Search
New Listings
Forums
Dealer Login
Services
Contact
Home

corner

corner

LIST AIRCRAFT BY:

FORUMS:

ADVERTISING:

CONTACT:

SERVICES:


  AVIATION TOP 100 - www.avitop.com Avitop.com

Welcome to Aviation Forum Sign in | Join | Help
Search  

Re: F-16XL and F/A-18E comparison

  •  12-01-2004, 3:50 PM

    Re: F-16XL and F/A-18E comparison

    Here's some updated numbers on F-16XL

    F-16XL:
     Empty wt: 28,500
     Max T/O wt: 48,000
     Max internal fuel: 12,951
     Max weapon load with max internal fuel: 6,549

    Max weapon load is based on max T/O wt, minus empty wt, minus full fuel wt.  Weapon load can be traded for fuel load on a pound for pound basis till weapon load reaches 15,000 lbs.  (The XL's max external stores load is listed as 15,000 lbs, which can be a combination of weapons and/or external fuel)

    The F-16E (formerly F-16C block 60) which is what the UAE will get (eventually) reportedly has a max T/O wt of 50,000 lbs.  Don't know yet what its empty weight is, but with conformal tanks as standard, it will have increased fuel capacity, so weapon load at max internal fuel may not change all that much.  In any event, it is approaching the weight class of the F-18C Hornet (56,000 lbs).

    The "E" model SuperHornet, unlike the "E" model Falcon is a physically larger aircraft.  Increasing the wt of the same size Falcon is going to increase wing loading, which is going to adversely affect performance and maneuverability when it is heavily loaded.  It also forced Lockheed to add conformal tanks and dorsal avionics pods to the aircraft, items not conducive to maintanability and which increase drag count.  The SuperHornet retains over 90% commonality with its predecessor while increasing internal avionics volume over 35% and internal fuel capacity over 33%, without having to resort to problematic conformal tanks and avionics pods.  So it seems to me the Navy took a better approach than the Air Force in scaling up its strike fighter.

    On the other hand, the XL's stretched fuselage and much larger wing would have addressed many of those same issues rather elegantly.  But testing showed the cranked arrow wing to have unusually high transonic drag rise.  It was pretty good subsonically and really good supersonically, but the aircraft had trouble accelerating through mach 1.  And that was clean.  Accelerating beyond mach 1 with external stores in level flight became rather problematic.  And the whole point of the XL design was to make the Falcon a better ground attack platform.



View Complete Thread
Aircraft Wanted Engines and parts Avionics Employment Partnerships

Advanced Search
New Listings
Forums
Login
Services
Contact
Home



©Copyright 2004 Aircraftbargains All Rights Reserved
For more information feel free to Contact Us