NASA F-16XL 1 - Test Flight Nation 2009

NASA Dryden Flight Research Center's F-16XL-1 on static display at the Edwards Air Force Base Test Flight Nation 2009.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• NASA
• F-16XL
• Dryden
• Flight
• Research

[craigdragon17]

For Christ sake somebody fly the damn thing, all it is doing is collecting dust!!!

[rampking1]

@MokomaSusi Remember back in school exams, to get credit for the correct answer...you had to show your work or thought process on paper.

If you want, I can show you a list of the many prototype/test stealth aircraft that it took to just get to the technology required for the F-117,B-2,YF-23,etc., you can't find this same developement work from China.

Pulled it right out of their magical hat ?

I know the J-20 is is not an exact duplicate of the YF-23, but the tech clearly came from outside.

[MokomaSusi]

@rampking1

J-20 is structurally very different when compared to YF-23.

[rampking1]

Why don't we ship this aircraft over to China to supplement their

J-10 ( Israeli Lavi-copy/F-16)

They can develope it alongside their Stealth YF-23 clone fighter.

Keep that technology transfer going !

[rampking1]

@wildwindsca The F-20 should have been sold to Taiwan and they wanted them, but we bent over and took it up the ass from the PRC.

Okay, give and take is part of the game, but we didn't get a damn thing from it.

Now, the PRC has more SU-27's and SU-27 copies than Russia and every store in the USA is flooded with "made in China"

My anger is towards our government, excuse me tone.

[wildwindsca]

@mobius1aic yeah but they already has one the F-15 E , and dont forget you have to keep all those mcdonnell douglas factory workers employed! point being it has more to do with politics , as opposed to just what you have aircraft wise. Look at the F-20, too close in performance to the f-16 and too good to just give away .

[AeroSharkTech]

@mobius1aic ...mobius1, isn't that from some video game? Anyway, "throw away plane" is a term used by the manufacturer and military to describe an aircraft with a service life of less than 4,000 hours. When the F-16 was introduced, it was so cheap that it was actually more practical to just buy a knew one than to pay to extend the service life. I am well aware of the current F-16 Spiral Upgrade Program. The F-16 is how I make a living.

[mobius1aic]

@AeroSharkTech Throw away plane? I don't think so, especially with all the upgrades and newer Blocks of F-16s. Yes, it was meant to be cheap in the first place, but not something to just throw away.

[AeroSharkTech]

@mobius1aic And then you'd take away the point of the F-16's existence in the first place. Cheap to operate. The F-16 is a throw away plane. The XL didn't have enough advantages over the original for any of the allied nations to produce large scale. It wasn't worth the extra money.

[mobius1aic]

Beautiful bird. Too bad that never reached production. I honestly think the original style F-16 design should've been cut off and everything from mid 80's on should've been XL type Falcons. Couple them with F119s, canards on the intake (maybe), 3D thrust vectoring, and the F-35 style intake, and you'd have one hell of a fighter bomber.