An American officer spoke about the F-16C Block 50 fighter, capable of taking off at a speed of 120 km / h

The F-16 is one of the main fighters of the United States, its allies and partners. In total, over 4600 machines were produced, the users of which were 30 countries. To represent the capabilities of the aircraft in the US Air Force, a demonstration team Viper was created. It includes an F-16C Block 50 fighter, nicknamed Venom after the anti-hero from the Marvel universe.

Major Garrett Schmitz spoke about this fighter for The Aviationist. As he explained, for the purpose of performing demonstration flights, this aircraft has a non-standard configuration compared to the F-16 with the usual loading of fuel tanks and a set of weapons, as well as a special engine with increased thrust, which, as indicated, turns it into a "sport" version of the fighter. . In particular, these differences make it possible to take off at a speed of 120-130 km / h instead of 156 km / h and switch to supersonic flight without using afterburner.

F-16 of the Viper team has turned from a light strike vehicle into an all-weather multi-role fighter

- indicates an American officer.

As explained, even in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft can continue to fly due to the presence of an EPU emergency power unit running on hydrazine.

The F-16 uses the EPU as a last resort, allowing the pilot to direct the aircraft to safety for landing or ejection.

- noted in the press.

Schmitz explained why MRLS launchers are permanently located at the ends of the F-16's wings: they provide stability to the aircraft, which increases when they are loaded with missiles. Without MRLS, wing resonance is possible, which would lead to flight speed limitations.

This version of the American fighter has significantly greater maneuverability than the classic F-16 variants.

Comments

[zenion]

Either they frighten them with saucers, their planes fly, then they fall to the ground.

[Pete mitchell]

in the event of an engine failure, the aircraft can continue flying due to the presence of an emergency power unit EPU

The author, for the article plus, the popularization of aviation is a useful thing. For the semantic load - minus. To complete the picture, explain why the epushka is needed and what provides

[dauria]

popularization of aviation is a useful thing.

I agree. Then instead of

Without MRLS, wing resonance is possible, which would lead to flight speed limitations.

would write humanly "bending-torsional flutter." And they explained on the fingers why it is necessary to carry weights closer to the leading edge.
I'll try it myself, maybe the educational program will suit someone. The wing is like a board pulled out of a stack of boards - you can sit on it and swing. Elastic vibrations (bending) will dampen if you do not push off with your feet in time. You can’t push off with your feet in the air, but there is a tricky thing - the wing not only bends, but also twists. How ? And everything is simple. We swing up, we pass the neutral, the elastic force changes sign, slows down. But there is inertia, we continue to crawl up. And here the focus - the center of mass and the center of rigidity do not coincide, the wing twists. And the oncoming stream immediately "takes advantage of this" and pushes down. Everything repeats at the bottom. We push with our feet off the ground on our board at the top and bottom. (There is another type of bending-aileron. There, by inertia, the aileron neutral flies due to backlash and also “pushes with its feet” in time)
Let's load the wing tip by moving the center of mass closer to the center of rigidity - and change the equations by shifting the occurrence towards higher speeds. Hope it helped at least someone.
By the way, this is how Antonov solved the problem of horizontal tail flutter - he brought the heavy keels forward.

[km-21]

You probably correctly understand the mechanism of formation of a torsional flutter, but you do not explain it quite correctly. It is much easier to imagine the wing as a structure containing a power beam inside, on which aerodynamic elements of the skin and mechanization are hung. Since the trailing edge of the wing is divided into segments of the controls, it does not participate in providing the longitudinal rigidity of the wing. Thus, all rigidity is concentrated along the leading edge. And if so, then when transverse oscillations of the wing occur, the movement of its trailing edge always lags in relation to the leading one. Consequently, when the wing deviates from the neutral position, it also twists. Moreover, the twist creates a positive resonance coefficient, since when moving up, the twist increases the angle of attack, and when moving down, it decreases. As a result of this extremely unpleasant pattern, the buildup amplitude increases, and can increase to such an extent that the structure cannot withstand and collapses.

[White man]

Thanks to you and Dauria! Comments like this are what keeps me personally visiting this site.

[Mouse]

Straight ... advertising is everything!

[Real Pilot]

Yes ... No luck for those who, out of habit, want to drain the sludge from the emergency hydrazine power plant for testing. Joke.

But this installation is essentially auxiliary (APU), that is, it is capable of supplying air to the turbine and power supply to the devices. It won't fly...

It all looks like a completely familiar version of the manufacture of special versions of aircraft for setting records, participating in air shows and for special tasks.
Usually they lighten the design, pump the power plant, etc.

I remember the American Hercules transporter, which was equipped with rocket boosters to land on the stadium and take off from it to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980. Not only accelerating, but also braking boosters. But, since the plane burned down during the tests, the operation did not take place.

[Flanker692]

I watched a video about an F-16 emergency landing somewhere over the states. We flew in a group, one of them seemed to have a fuel pump power failure, switched to a backup system with this hydrazine and landed on a civilian airfield. The flight commander, while still in flight, contacted the ground tower and warned them not to approach the landing aircraft without breathing apparatus.

[Aviator_]

I remember the American Hercules transport ship, which was equipped with rocket boosters in order to get into and out of the stadium to rescue hostages in Iran in 1980.

Yes, if the "Hercules" had not burned down, then nothing would have happened anyway - the entire American special forces then hardly got out of their intermediate landing in the desert, and even the helicopter was killed.

[tralflot1832]

The F 16 is of course a good single-engine aircraft, but 670 aircraft were lost as a result of flight accidents. The Americans are especially lucky, once they even managed to crash on the C171 into which the parachutists were loaded. As I understand it, ERU is an emergency engine that generates energy when the main engine fails. launch, without power supply, the computers go out and the plane wants to fly tail first.

[yuriy55]

An American officer spoke about the F-16C Block 50 fighter, capable of taking off at a speed of 120 km / h

In 1979, academic officers were shown a (then secret film) about the F-16. The landmen present vied with each other to discuss the declared characteristics and agreed that the USSR did not have such a single-engine fighter (there was a special attitude / attention to air-to-air missiles). Among twin-engine MiG-29s (according to tests and characteristics), it was a worthy adversary for the F-16.
Again, the disputes were over electronics, and the district air defense representative said that the S-300 would take this "falcon" in any form ...
Not so long ago, Roman Skomorokhov published an article:
F-16 War Falcon: How Good Is It Apart from the Numbers?
https://topwar.ru/175917-boevoj-sokol-f-16-nastolko-horosh-esli-ne-smotret-na-cifry.html
Almost everything is said there.
In reality, there were (practically) no combat clashes between US pilots (NATO, Israel) and our flyers. We can only judge that the United States managed to sell the world more than 4 thousand different modifications of the F-16, now they are supplying the F-35 (and very fruitfully) ...
What can you say?
S-400, S-500, S-550 - the best air defense systems in the world ...

[Lt. Air Force stock]

Quote: yuriy55

(special attitude/attention was to air-to-air missiles).

And what about rockets? Aim-120 only began to be developed in 79, adopted only in 91. Sparrow would hardly have been surprised by our scientists.

[AML]

Quote: Operator_L

You haven't seen what tricks the Su-75, known as the Checkmate ("Checkmate"), performs yet! However, no one saw them, but they say! But to do as the F-16C Block 50 did - anyone can, but to say and not to do - only our fighters can do it, that's it!

Suffer.

[Eug]

Some kind of fantasy ... to fly on the APU? I understand that the APU can and should maintain pressure in the hydraulic system for some time to ensure controllability, but to give thrust sufficient for flight is more like an illiterate translation ... and in terms of speed - it’s more likely not km / h, but that’s all - miles - with a conversion factor of 1,6. This is more or less plausible.

[Capt cook]

Well, the RU-19 on the An-24 gave out its share of thrust. Why is this not possible on the F-16?

[Eug]

Theoretically, it is possible, but here the question is in specifics, namely, in aerodynamic quality. How far could the An-26 fly under the RU-19 thrust in terms of time and range? If these figures for the F-16 meet the requirements of the customer, then why not? But, as for me, the smaller the aircraft, the less the advantages of such a decision.

[Capt cook]

Ru-19 added 800 kg of thrust to the main engines. On takeoff, it helped a lot. But he ate the same kerosene, and his independent work, .. I can’t even imagine the failure of two engines at once on the An-24 ... Probably, he could help a little.

[Eug]

In addition, on such a small aircraft, as for me, saving space is much more important than additional thrust and the inevitable increase in size and weight (nozzle) associated with this. Pressure in the hydraulic system - yes, emergency power supply - yes, and the need for additional thrust specifically for the F-16 is questionable. Unless this is the requirement of the customer.

[demiurg]

They modestly kept silent about the flight range at supersonic without afterburner.
F-16 and the usual without hanging tanks almost never fly. And with a forced engine along the course of kerosene, in general, for 20-30 minutes of flight.

[Skitalex]

Zero maneuverability. Great car, but very far from ours.

[Tomcat_Tomcat]

In particular, these differences allow you to take off at a speed of 120-130 km/h instead of 156 km/h

in my opinion, kilometers per hour and knots were confused here (in the USA it is customary to measure the speed of an aircraft in knots). Then it will be more or less true, take-off 156 knots (290 km/h), the "record" one has 130 knots (240 km/h). Landing at the F-16 is about 220 km / h (118 knots).

[Baron pardus]

Somewhere I have already heard all this ... Oh yes, When the Americans sold the Aircobra to the British. And it turned out that on production models both the speed is lower, and the rate of climb and maneuverability, the British, of course, immediately "What the hell?". and the Americans, with downcast eyes, said that the performance characteristics were supposedly for the demo version. Lightweight, without weapons, with carefully polished surfaces and almost hand-assembled motor. Nothing surprising. The F-16 was ALWAYS supposed to be a fighter. From it for so many years they made a fighter attack aircraft (idiocy, IMHO). Naturally, if the structure is lightened so that it can withstand not 8000 kg of ammunition, but, say, 6000 kg, then the aircraft will feel better, but, if so. LTH will increase. Well, if you also shove the engine more abruptly, then, of course, the more performance characteristics will increase. NORMAL Block 50, even without BC at all, CANNOT supercruise. Even if Vuklan is unscrewed from him. I have another question for the author. What kind of MLRS did he put on the F-16? When I served in the US Armed Forces, the MLRS M270 had nothing to do with the Air Force or the F-16. It was an all-terrain vehicle with a box on it, and in a box there were 12 NURSs the size of a telegraph pole and caliber 227mm (EMNIP). What is this MLRS launcher on the F-16 wingtips. There are PU / rails for AIM-9 or AIM-120.

[Eug]

But ours "squeezed" out of the Airacobra even more than in the demo version, by a completely non-obvious decision ... sensibly judging that the resource moved in 200 hours with the weak flight data of the aircraft in the war is extremely redundant (they will be shot down much earlier), ours began to exploit Cobra at high engine speeds, thereby reducing the resource to 50 hours, but dramatically increasing flight performance ...

[Lelik76]

Schmitz explained why MRLS launchers are permanently located at the ends of the F-16's wings: they provide stability to the aircraft, which increases when they are loaded with missiles. Without MRLS, wing resonance is possible, which would lead to flight speed limitations.

Ordinary anti-flutter weight. We have the same thing on the Su-35, 34, 30SM family, the launchers also perform the function of cargo, nothing surprising.

[agond]

The video left the impression of rooted shooting, 2-3 seconds and a 180 * turn