50 years of the Lockheed Martin F-16
Thread Starter
50 years of the Lockheed Martin F-16
On this day 1974, the first albeit accidental, YF-16 took off for the first time
So this year's theme at RIAT is the 50th anniversary of the F-16
cheers
So this year's theme at RIAT is the 50th anniversary of the F-16
cheers
Last edited by chopper2004; 21st Jan 2024 at 01:19.
The following 2 users liked this post by chopper2004:
Top Answer
21st Jan 2024, 17:37
Salute!
As a charter member of the first F-16 squadron in the world, I love the plane,,,even the ugly ones that have evolved decades later. Had to report to 16th TFTS before July 1979 to have my retirement plaque with the 'Charter Member" inscription.
The FBW computers were analog, so changing the "gains" for the rate and amount of control surface movement needed new electronic components. Of course, the good news is stuff happened instantly, and not dependent upon time-sharing, multi-tasking and processor speed and so forth. Anyways, the gains were too high for that first flight, and I must praise the pilot. Then, shortly after, another pilot slid to a halt on grass there at Ft Worth when the gear did not some down(need more form this incident, but seems something jammed and better to slide to a halt than other options).
I am forced to say that the plane was the easiest one to fly your first hop, and that includes the WW2 ones I learned in back in the 50's. Any teen that flew a conmputer program could have gone around the pattern easily if they could get the motor started and electronics working. The HUD would be the secret along with a gentle "touch" on the stick.
Gums recollects....
As a charter member of the first F-16 squadron in the world, I love the plane,,,even the ugly ones that have evolved decades later. Had to report to 16th TFTS before July 1979 to have my retirement plaque with the 'Charter Member" inscription.
The FBW computers were analog, so changing the "gains" for the rate and amount of control surface movement needed new electronic components. Of course, the good news is stuff happened instantly, and not dependent upon time-sharing, multi-tasking and processor speed and so forth. Anyways, the gains were too high for that first flight, and I must praise the pilot. Then, shortly after, another pilot slid to a halt on grass there at Ft Worth when the gear did not some down(need more form this incident, but seems something jammed and better to slide to a halt than other options).
I am forced to say that the plane was the easiest one to fly your first hop, and that includes the WW2 ones I learned in back in the 50's. Any teen that flew a conmputer program could have gone around the pattern easily if they could get the motor started and electronics working. The HUD would be the secret along with a gentle "touch" on the stick.
Gums recollects....
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,809
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Nice Video … “A few bugs to be sorted, guys”. What a successful aircraft!
The following users liked this post:
Administrator
I am old enough to remember the General Dynamics produced it, originally. 
The following 3 users liked this post by T28B:
What went wrong on the "taxi test"? FBW issues?
gains ain't all gains.
Great plane, good design is timeless.
Great plane, good design is timeless.
The following users liked this post:
Evertonian
Don't know if its still the case, but I remember reading that GD used economies in producing the prototypes. Things that spring to mind; L and R horizontal stabs were identical, and that some of the wheels were borrowed from the B-58.
Salute!
As a charter member of the first F-16 squadron in the world, I love the plane,,,even the ugly ones that have evolved decades later. Had to report to 16th TFTS before July 1979 to have my retirement plaque with the 'Charter Member" inscription.
The FBW computers were analog, so changing the "gains" for the rate and amount of control surface movement needed new electronic components. Of course, the good news is stuff happened instantly, and not dependent upon time-sharing, multi-tasking and processor speed and so forth. Anyways, the gains were too high for that first flight, and I must praise the pilot. Then, shortly after, another pilot slid to a halt on grass there at Ft Worth when the gear did not some down(need more form this incident, but seems something jammed and better to slide to a halt than other options).
I am forced to say that the plane was the easiest one to fly your first hop, and that includes the WW2 ones I learned in back in the 50's. Any teen that flew a conmputer program could have gone around the pattern easily if they could get the motor started and electronics working. The HUD would be the secret along with a gentle "touch" on the stick.
Gums recollects....
As a charter member of the first F-16 squadron in the world, I love the plane,,,even the ugly ones that have evolved decades later. Had to report to 16th TFTS before July 1979 to have my retirement plaque with the 'Charter Member" inscription.
The FBW computers were analog, so changing the "gains" for the rate and amount of control surface movement needed new electronic components. Of course, the good news is stuff happened instantly, and not dependent upon time-sharing, multi-tasking and processor speed and so forth. Anyways, the gains were too high for that first flight, and I must praise the pilot. Then, shortly after, another pilot slid to a halt on grass there at Ft Worth when the gear did not some down(need more form this incident, but seems something jammed and better to slide to a halt than other options).
I am forced to say that the plane was the easiest one to fly your first hop, and that includes the WW2 ones I learned in back in the 50's. Any teen that flew a conmputer program could have gone around the pattern easily if they could get the motor started and electronics working. The HUD would be the secret along with a gentle "touch" on the stick.
Gums recollects....
Last edited by gums; 21st Jan 2024 at 18:02.
The following 15 users liked this post by gums:
I think the USAF missed a trick by not ordering the F-16XL (E) instead of the standard model from the mid 80s.
Yes the XL lost against the F-15E for the F-111 augmentation buy - it was too small to do that role.
But it would have been far more handy operationally than the standard machine as an interceptor and as a light attack machine
Essentially for trading in sustained turn rate - you got double the range/payload and less transonic drag.
Yes the XL lost against the F-15E for the F-111 augmentation buy - it was too small to do that role.
But it would have been far more handy operationally than the standard machine as an interceptor and as a light attack machine
Essentially for trading in sustained turn rate - you got double the range/payload and less transonic drag.
The following users liked this post:
Salute!
I would have loved to fly the XL in combat as an interdiction platform with great legs and payload, plus a competitive A2A capability. By the time the XL was flying and the Mudhen came along, USAF wanted the versatilty of the Viper a lot. And make no mistake, the Eagle mafia was still working to keep the plane in production. Some folks kept harping on the Viper not having a BVR missile, although it was gonna get the Slammer before the Eagle due to the data bus and such, even if the Viper radar did not have the mid-course update capability at that time.
The most depressing aspect of all the development programs from late 80's and 90's , IMHO, was the very long time to get the F-35 on the ramp. The F-22 not as depressing except for the reduced buy, but it got airframes flying and deployed more quickly than the F-35.
Gums sends...
I would have loved to fly the XL in combat as an interdiction platform with great legs and payload, plus a competitive A2A capability. By the time the XL was flying and the Mudhen came along, USAF wanted the versatilty of the Viper a lot. And make no mistake, the Eagle mafia was still working to keep the plane in production. Some folks kept harping on the Viper not having a BVR missile, although it was gonna get the Slammer before the Eagle due to the data bus and such, even if the Viper radar did not have the mid-course update capability at that time.
The most depressing aspect of all the development programs from late 80's and 90's , IMHO, was the very long time to get the F-35 on the ramp. The F-22 not as depressing except for the reduced buy, but it got airframes flying and deployed more quickly than the F-35.
Gums sends...
Salute!
I would have loved to fly the XL in combat as an interdiction platform with great legs and payload, plus a competitive A2A capability. By the time the XL was flying and the Mudhen came along, USAF wanted the versatilty of the Viper a lot. And make no mistake, the Eagle mafia was still working to keep the plane in production. Some folks kept harping on the Viper not having a BVR missile, although it was gonna get the Slammer before the Eagle due to the data bus and such, even if the Viper radar did not have the mid-course update capability at that time.
The most depressing aspect of all the development programs from late 80's and 90's , IMHO, was the very long time to get the F-35 on the ramp. The F-22 not as depressing except for the reduced buy, but it got airframes flying and deployed more quickly than the F-35.
Gums sends...
I would have loved to fly the XL in combat as an interdiction platform with great legs and payload, plus a competitive A2A capability. By the time the XL was flying and the Mudhen came along, USAF wanted the versatilty of the Viper a lot. And make no mistake, the Eagle mafia was still working to keep the plane in production. Some folks kept harping on the Viper not having a BVR missile, although it was gonna get the Slammer before the Eagle due to the data bus and such, even if the Viper radar did not have the mid-course update capability at that time.
The most depressing aspect of all the development programs from late 80's and 90's , IMHO, was the very long time to get the F-35 on the ramp. The F-22 not as depressing except for the reduced buy, but it got airframes flying and deployed more quickly than the F-35.
Gums sends...
Perhaps there actually was a valid reason, a short-coming or something behind it.
After all the money spent to develop the F-22, I could not understand the urgency to stop production. I would have hoped we would amortize those costs by purchasing hundreds. In the media, it sounded like it was discontinued because of the less expensive the F-35 - oops.
Perhaps there actually was a valid reason, a short-coming or something behind it.
Perhaps there actually was a valid reason, a short-coming or something behind it.
Sorry for OT. Back to the F-16. Still looking amazingly good and modern after 50 years.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
I think the USAF missed a trick by not ordering the F-16XL (E) instead of the standard model from the mid 80s.
Yes the XL lost against the F-15E for the F-111 augmentation buy - it was too small to do that role.
But it would have been far more handy operationally than the standard machine as an interceptor and as a light attack machine
Essentially for trading in sustained turn rate - you got double the range/payload and less transonic drag.
Yes the XL lost against the F-15E for the F-111 augmentation buy - it was too small to do that role.
But it would have been far more handy operationally than the standard machine as an interceptor and as a light attack machine
Essentially for trading in sustained turn rate - you got double the range/payload and less transonic drag.
cheers
The USAF originally envisioned ordering 750 ATFs at a total program cost of $44.3 billion and procurement cost of $26.2 billion in FY 1985 dollars, with production beginning in 1994 and service entry in the late 1990s. The 1990 Major Aircraft Review led by Secretary of DefenseDick Cheney reduced this to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996 and in service in the early-to-mid 2000s.
After the end of the Cold War, this was further curtailed to 442 in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review while the USAF eventually set its requirement to 381 to adequately support its Air Expeditionary Force structure with last delivery in 2013.
After the end of the Cold War, this was further curtailed to 442 in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review while the USAF eventually set its requirement to 381 to adequately support its Air Expeditionary Force structure with last delivery in 2013.
The 380(ish) is the number I recall from the BUR, (just under 400). And there was a lot of talk about why it was not going to be available for export.
However, funding instability had reduced the total to 339 by 1997 and production was nearly halted by Congress in 1999.
Although production funds were eventually restored, the planned number continued to decline due to delays and cost overruns during EMD, slipping to 277 by 2003
Although production funds were eventually restored, the planned number continued to decline due to delays and cost overruns during EMD, slipping to 277 by 2003
In 2004, with its focus on asymmetric counterinsurgency warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, the DoD under Secretary Donald Rumsfeld further cut the planned F-22 procurement to 183rocurement contract was awarded in 2006 to bring the number to 183, which would be distributed to seven combat squadrons; total program cost was projected to be $62 billion (~$87 billion in 2022) In 2008, Congress passed a defense spending bill that raised the total orders for production aircraft to 187.
The Viper, on the other hand, was very busy in Iraq.
Salute!
I would have loved to fly the XL in combat as an interdiction platform with great legs and payload, plus a competitive A2A capability. By the time the XL was flying and the Mudhen came along, USAF wanted the versatilty of the Viper a lot. And make no mistake, the Eagle mafia was still working to keep the plane in production. Some folks kept harping on the Viper not having a BVR missile, although it was gonna get the Slammer before the Eagle due to the data bus and such, even if the Viper radar did not have the mid-course update capability at that time.
The most depressing aspect of all the development programs from late 80's and 90's , IMHO, was the very long time to get the F-35 on the ramp. The F-22 not as depressing except for the reduced buy, but it got airframes flying and deployed more quickly than the F-35.
Gums sends...
I would have loved to fly the XL in combat as an interdiction platform with great legs and payload, plus a competitive A2A capability. By the time the XL was flying and the Mudhen came along, USAF wanted the versatilty of the Viper a lot. And make no mistake, the Eagle mafia was still working to keep the plane in production. Some folks kept harping on the Viper not having a BVR missile, although it was gonna get the Slammer before the Eagle due to the data bus and such, even if the Viper radar did not have the mid-course update capability at that time.
The most depressing aspect of all the development programs from late 80's and 90's , IMHO, was the very long time to get the F-35 on the ramp. The F-22 not as depressing except for the reduced buy, but it got airframes flying and deployed more quickly than the F-35.
Gums sends...
But the ANG units flying the F-16 as an interceptor also seemed to be crying out for the XL - lots of extra range - more payload and speed - what's not to like?
The Draken with a similar wing was only an interceptor by the swedes and as an interdictor by the Danes...
Salute!
Good points. Type.
OTOH, the roles and mission discussions played a role about going to production of the XL, especially when the Eagle mafia won the battle for the $$ with the Mudhen.
Without the endless deployments for interdiction and CAS that the Viper "enjoyed", the Guard and Reserve stateside units mainly trained for U.S. airspace sovereignty in the intercept role, and not for flying out 200 miles before the engagement.
I was not all that sold on the XL for CAS or CSAR, having flown 90% of my actual combat time doing that in the Dragonfly and Sluf. Then mainly interdection/SEAD at Red Flag in the Viper.
Thanks for all the comments, folks.
Gums sends...
Good points. Type.
OTOH, the roles and mission discussions played a role about going to production of the XL, especially when the Eagle mafia won the battle for the $$ with the Mudhen.
Without the endless deployments for interdiction and CAS that the Viper "enjoyed", the Guard and Reserve stateside units mainly trained for U.S. airspace sovereignty in the intercept role, and not for flying out 200 miles before the engagement.
I was not all that sold on the XL for CAS or CSAR, having flown 90% of my actual combat time doing that in the Dragonfly and Sluf. Then mainly interdection/SEAD at Red Flag in the Viper.
Thanks for all the comments, folks.
Gums sends...
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Eaarly RAF exchange _F-16
Salute!
Good points. Type.
OTOH, the roles and mission discussions played a role about going to production of the XL, especially when the Eagle mafia won the battle for the $$ with the Mudhen.
Without the endless deployments for interdiction and CAS that the Viper "enjoyed", the Guard and Reserve stateside units mainly trained for U.S. airspace sovereignty in the intercept role, and not for flying out 200 miles before the engagement.
I was not all that sold on the XL for CAS or CSAR, having flown 90% of my actual combat time doing that in the Dragonfly and Sluf. Then mainly interdection/SEAD at Red Flag in the Viper.
Thanks for all the comments, folks.
Gums sends...
Good points. Type.
OTOH, the roles and mission discussions played a role about going to production of the XL, especially when the Eagle mafia won the battle for the $$ with the Mudhen.
Without the endless deployments for interdiction and CAS that the Viper "enjoyed", the Guard and Reserve stateside units mainly trained for U.S. airspace sovereignty in the intercept role, and not for flying out 200 miles before the engagement.
I was not all that sold on the XL for CAS or CSAR, having flown 90% of my actual combat time doing that in the Dragonfly and Sluf. Then mainly interdection/SEAD at Red Flag in the Viper.
Thanks for all the comments, folks.
Gums sends...
Maybe you can answer this question please, can you remember any RAF exchange officers that first flew the F-16A back in the 80s. Pretty sure, there were one or two ETPS Test Pilot instructors who went over in the late 70s to fly the YF-16 (as wellas the new F-15A Eagle) according to Francis K Mason's book on Boscombe Down, The Testing Years,
I know of the current station command at RAF Lossiemouth flew F-16CJ in recent years on exchange
https://www.raf.mod.uk/our-organisat...f-lossiemouth/
and of course our head of Space Command,
https://hushkit.net/2020/11/20/flyin...-paul-godfrey/
cheers
Salute!
Only folks not from U.S. services in the first 2 or 3 years were the EPG ones from Belgium, Norway,Netherlands and Denmark. Our Israeli and Pakistan students were only with us for their checkout.
Gums sends...
Only folks not from U.S. services in the first 2 or 3 years were the EPG ones from Belgium, Norway,Netherlands and Denmark. Our Israeli and Pakistan students were only with us for their checkout.
Gums sends...
The following users liked this post: