It really looks like the XL was meant to fit the same role as the F-15E, so it's not completely unfair for it to lose out (taking ATF & the Nighthawk aside). However, I think the USAF would've benefitted in cost reduction long-term with the XL more than the Mudhen. Sure, XL is a redesign, but it has one less engine to worry about & still has a lot of modular features already in production. Not to mention training less people as WSOs. The XL would've benefitted the US more especially today, while the Mudhen was the clear premium choice back then.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Good points and the XL would have been a lower cost option long term. Also I think the XL would have had huge success as an export fighter - given that the F-16’s sales record to date.

@TheRibbonRed

4 жыл бұрын

@@PilotPhotog oh, definitely. What country wouldn't love a relatively low-cost, high-performance multirole? Heck, if XL were exported, I think my country (Indonesia) would've chosen them over the Flankers. I can say that for certain with other Asian countries like Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

@@TheRibbonRed exactly and thanks for sharing! I think there was/is? a need for the XL.

@ssranon

4 жыл бұрын

USAF often goes for whatever the most expensive option is. E.g., F-22 vs F-23, the more expensive F-22 is chosen, even though the cheaper F-23 was faster/stealthier than the F-22 and almost as maneuverable. For F-15E vs F-16XL, the more expensive F-15E is chosen. There are a lot of examples of this. Might be a good subject for a video someday? :)

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

@@ssranon An excellent idea, thanks for commenting.

So many brilliant engineers, so many incredible achievements, so much potential for advancement, lost in the noise of management, accounting and politics.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Well said and thanks for commenting!

@somerandomguy9942

4 жыл бұрын

And all that great skill went to what? Disappearing billions of tax $ in a hole so we can develop better methods of killing other humans. I just think the US could have achieved something greater with 50 years of tax dollars than building countless weapons that no one wants to actually use...

@DonMeaker

4 жыл бұрын

@@somerandomguy9942 The world is greatly improved by the non-random killing of certain very deserving humans. That improvement is worth a vast amount of money, and the ability to do that killing made room for a future that actual people might want to live in.

@meintingles4396

3 жыл бұрын

Yf23, ah56 cheyenne, lockheed xh-51, Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche, all of them... Sad. The good news is that we MAY be getting the YF-23 is Japan can buy it, and the Comanche is basically the Bell 360 Invictus.

@robertstack2144

2 жыл бұрын

@@somerandomguy9942 well in tune with the REAL WORLD. yes that's the way things are. Look what just happened by this misguided government. Almost 85 Billion in weapons including the high Tech Apache, left in Afghanistan. Unfortunately this will come back to give someone a rabid bite. Probably us

I worked on the F-16’s at Luke AFB in the early 80’s and fell in love with them, my all time favorite Jet. The XL was the icing on the cake, I was so disappointed when it didn’t go into production. One of the Greatest Fighters ever!! I went on to work on the F-15’s at Bitburg AB in Germany a few years later. I sure do miss working on that Jet.(The F-16)

@apegues

4 жыл бұрын

Tony Wilson, The F-15 is a great Jet no doubt, for me it is the looks and performance, it’s a small sexy hot rod. Working on the F-15 is easier, lots of room to get to things but I liked working on the -16 regardless probably because of the way I feel about it.

@rexmann1984

4 жыл бұрын

@@apegues fast, cheap, maneuverable, what's not to love about it? I might have just been a Marine Grunt but if I was gonna get put in a fighter it'd be the F16 hands down.

@martinleicht5911

4 жыл бұрын

Gotta luv Bitburg!!🍻

@johne.osmaniii7217

4 жыл бұрын

I wonder, ... if the F-15’s, & 16’s were that popular, even for the ground crews to get excited about them, will the F22’s & F35’s will be that popular, this many years down the road, ...or maybe, there could be some types of variants with the more current technological advancements available in todays markets, ... wing structures could be followed, or variegated, along with better engine advancements, ... kind of maybe like putting the current gatling gun on the Wrights prototype bi-wing, ...lmbo!

@binderbinder6920

4 жыл бұрын

Have experience both with the Luke 16s and SJs 15Es, the 4th’s 15s were the superior aircraft for survivability and overall. Also some experience with F4 WWs and the switch over the the 169ths 16s. Interesting is the only thing I have to say. I honestly think the 16 pilots just have a bit of fatalism as part of their training. I think at the end of the day, if there is a good chance of being shot down, the air force would rather lose a 16 than a 15.

The XL lost because the F-15E was the better plane with a greater payload. The E model max take-off weight (I witnessed) was 88,000 lbs. Still, the XL is pretty cool. The eagles were also able to super cruise with the GE 129's.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and the F-15E is an amazing platform, I’ve done a video on that as well. I think the XL could have found a market as an export fighter, for nations that wanted a long range multi role fighter/bomber.

@mpeugeot

4 жыл бұрын

@4one14 absolutely, the best platform isn't always the best choice. The fact is that it's more expensive to operate an F-15E (Pilot and WSO alone doubles the operation cost in crew). So the lower the available budget, the more sense the F-16XL makes. It's like buying a Ferrari 488 vs a Ford GT 500. The Ferrari is more capable, but the GT 500 gets 95% of the capability for around 2/3's the cost.

@dam1041960

4 жыл бұрын

@@PilotPhotog nope! Because of better aircraft in the works...... Std. F16 is better for acm. F15e can handle higher payloads. In the end the right choice was made.....

@piotrd.4850

4 жыл бұрын

Again, go for Hi/Lo combo.

@aaronsanborn4291

3 жыл бұрын

Not to mention the Strike Eagle maintains the excellent air to air capability and other characteristics of the F-15C...no F-15 model has ever been lost in air to air combat since its introduction to service. An Isreali pilot also managed to fly and land his F-15 after a mid air collision during training with only one wing on the aircraft.

Remember building monograms 1/72 scale of this kit back in the 80s !! Man it looked great 👌

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

After making this video I am really thinking of picking up a scale model kit, thanks for commenting!

@matthayward7889

4 жыл бұрын

One of my favourite kits as a kid!

@stonefree1911

4 жыл бұрын

Me as well. Love this plane.

@DJNitreBlue

4 жыл бұрын

Painted it up red white and blue to match Mack Maloney's Wingman. Had to kit bash to get all the hard points installed as it didn't come with all of them.

@jdewitt

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed, this is a beautiful plane!

Remember, when the F-15 was first built, by 1975 McDonnell Douglas had shown an improved version with conformal tanks and the ability to carry a very substantial bomb load. That made it very easy for McDonnell Douglas in the late 1980's to start building the F-15E quickly.

@piotrd.4850

4 жыл бұрын

Fuel And Sensor Tactical (FAST) packs were not only conformal fuel tanks - look at Silent Eagle.

@rogerramjet6134

5 ай бұрын

That was their plan - because they knew the F-111s were retiring. For night / weather deep strike, the F-15E was exactly the right choice. However, from that point on all future F-16s ought to have had the XL wing. 70% increase in combat capability for 2.5% total lifetime cost of ownership - who gives that up? Just reduce your buy by 2.5% (buy 97 instead of 100) if you have an absolutely hard fixed budget, you would still get 68% more combat capability.

@rogerramjet6134

5 ай бұрын

@@piotrd.4850 Shhh!

It should've been built, but now it's in Ace Combat 7

@SephirothRyu

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed!

@Ferrislilly

Жыл бұрын

Is it really?? Awesome I just started playing

@endykun

Жыл бұрын

it's a blast to fly too, along with the F-15 STOL/MTD.

@MJ_21-C208

Жыл бұрын

It's also in VR chat in the world called F-16XL Nevada Air Base.

@ranggars_

11 ай бұрын

@@Ferrislilly its a dlc

F-16XL on Gallows F-20: "First time?"

@miletello1

4 жыл бұрын

#underrated

@Sean2002FU

4 жыл бұрын

Point!

@Ecthaelyon

4 жыл бұрын

Excellent comment!

@dfgiuy22

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

@RalphReagan

4 жыл бұрын

Lol

I was stationed at Carswell AFB in Texas in 1983-85, we shared the runway with General Dynamics. My shop was right across the street from Base Ops and one day i was eating lunch when one of the F-16XLs took off. We hadn't heard anything about them flying any F-16s that day, let alone one that we had never heard of!! The pilot put on an awesome show over the base and the factory. Then later that afternoon, he flew another demonstration, and then another and... This went on every day for about 2 weeks and then the plane was gone. He was flying the exact same demo each time. I never saw it again, but later that year, i had changed station and went to Portugal for a tour. While there, I found a VHS copy of a Popular Mechanics episode at our base library. It was the F-16xl demonstration at the Paris Air Show from the summer of 1985. It was cool to finally see a pro shot video of the show and to watch the interview with the test pilot. I was able to buy a copy of the episode and have it some place in storage bins. It was a VERY cool aircraft to watch fly!!

They should go ahead and build them. We don't have enough of the F22 raptors

@danieltynan5301

2 ай бұрын

Given the extra range and time in flight less F 16s would have been needed. This logic should be applied to the F-35.... And not bother with a 6 th generation replacement for the F22

The F-16 started it's career it was cheap, fast, and maneuverable.... It flew circles around the F-4 during demonstration flights... A great fighter and in my personal opinion they shouldn't have put bombs on it. I don't know if the F-15 gets stress fractures, but i have worked on the blocks, 30, 40/45, block 15 with block 50 upgrades, and another block. The block 30 looks like hell with beef ups all over the backbone and on the wings. The block 40's were starting to get the same factures as well. It looks like they fixed the fuselage fracturing at block 50 and later, but the wings are still leaking at the same places as the block 30 and 40. I believe this is from the weight on the wings from the bomb and external tank loads more so than maneuvering. But hey I'm just a maintainer not an engineer/designer... If they had built the XL with modern avionics and RAM coatings to replace the F-16 instead of the F-35, I would have been for that. The costs would have been extremely lower than the F-35 with about the same payload and better performance. I read a news story that a F-16D model (talk about a handicap) could out dogfight a F-35 but the excuse was given with the avionics suite on the F-35 it doesn't need to dogfight. Right, I heard of that one before in history when the DoD bought the F-4 without a cannon. Then had to put one on it during Vietnam war to survive since the AIM-7 dubbed "the great white hope" had a very poor success rate. As a kid I loved the F-16XL, it looked cool. Since I've added years to my life since then I understand why it was not built/used. They needed the best weapons platform and the F-15E provided it without building a new assembly line (money) or waiting for an engine to be designed/built(time/depot or home station mods).

@FirstDagger

4 жыл бұрын

You are mistake in regards to the F-35 vs F-16D dogfight, the F-35 flying didn't have her avionics tuned yet and the ENTIRE POINT of the fight was to tune it! It wasn't a competition. F-35 outperforms the Viper in every single aspect and pilots who have flown both attest to the F-35 not being a worse dogfighter, she even has a better Alpha. It really sounds like you have to do some reading up on the F-35 and performance of modern missiles. I concur on the F-16XL wing being what the current F-16 should have become, then again the F-16 also should have gotten her Agile Falcon upgrade.

@Tankrat6

4 жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger No aircraft flies with it's avionics off, pilot still needs navigation, altitude, radios, and especially either the F-16 or the F-35, the fly by wire or light systems are avionics. You must be talking about the "sensor suite" as it is dubbed. Well the ATP, the sniper pod, is a self contained version of the that "senor suite" of the F-35. It is currently being used on the F-16 and other platforms. It provides a F-16 the same AIM-9X launch/targeting options as the F-35. When I talk about dogfighting, I'm not talking about who sees who first wins where the "sensor suite" potentially rules but head to head maneuvering dogfight. Where turn rate, rate of climb decent, thrust to weight ratio, and wing loading are the deciding factor outside the pilot's skill.

@FirstDagger

4 жыл бұрын

@@Tankrat6 ; All control surfaces are controlled by the avionics and those have to be developed and tuned. "No aircraft flies with it's avionics off" And where have I stated as such? We are talking about an aircraft that was still in development and I am sure you know that the FBW computer limits what the pilot can do with the aircraft. Not to mention that the F-35 at that point wasn't rated to the G limit she currently is. The problem are old timers like you who have been in the industry and service and fail to have an understanding of how complex the development of an aircraft is, YOU are thinking from the point of your already developed F-16. Also I rather take the word of pilots who have flown both the F-35 and F-16 that the dog-fighting isn't an issue in the F-35. Sniper Pod, which I am sure has a G-Limit and adds drag. Sensor Suit, please look up EODAS and just how revolutionary of a system that is, you cannot just retrofit that into Legacy Fighters. Did you know that the F-16D during that dogfight also ran out of gas despite having bags? Finally again, every single performance parameter of the F-35 outperforms the F-16 and F/A-18.

@Tankrat6

4 жыл бұрын

@@FirstDagger well first thing first.... I read your post 4 times before responding and to me it read "turned off... so it can be tuned" Of course the F-16D ran out of gas, it carries about 1500lbs. less fuel than a C model, they sacrificed 80% of the F-1 tank to put the second seat in, just like they sacrificed fuel load for the B and C models of the F-35 for the marine and navy requirements. F-35 has a more efficient engine than the F-16 It also carries more fuel than a F-16. It's the same story between the F-4 and the F-16 before General Dynamics won the contract to build the F-16. You are correct the F-35 is a complex aircraft to make, having to work in aluminum and composites, the shape for both performance and reduced radar cross section at all angles, and then throw in the the hydraulics, electrical, fiber optics, and fuel systems into the mess. The Aircraft is so complex that they had to create a career field (job position) in the USAF just so the ground crew can communicate with the F-35. It's so complex that the F-35A's gun doesn't doesn't shot straight and on lot 9 and newer lots off the assembly line are not allowed to use it due to cracking of the surrounding structure/molding and the gun mounts are misaligned (reported in Feb 2020). it's so complex that the pilot can not make the decision whether to continue the mission because of a system fault. When the computers report there is a fault that will hamper the mission and then they automatically sets the navigation to home base. The pilot has no choice. F-35A is so complex that the computers talk to all the parts on the aircraft. So the jet tells you the x part is bad, you change x part with a Technical Order approved alternate. The jet checks it's self after your done and the tells you, you have the wrong part installed, I'm not flying unless you put the right one in. Yes it is a complex aircraft to make and maintain. Most of the 600+ issues reported last February I hope will be fixed, but the troubling one for me is the pilot's choice being taken away. The sniper pod was developed from the same technology as EODAS was. Yes there is limitations to it, like the aircraft not having the 360 view and some of the bells and whistles the F-35 does. It does have a helmet display system and is used in both air to ground and air to air combat. It doesn't take much off the g rating just like the lantern pods did... but like all aircraft they are G rated by the loads they carry not the maximum achievable rating they can withstand. I digress, originally I'm trying to say the F-35 has no hope to win versus a F-16 in a knife fight. Yes it the F-16 block 50 and below don't have a chance in hell against the beyond visual range capabilities of the F-35 but in close in dogfighting the F-16 can out turn a F-35. So one on one and start the fight with high speed pass and turn to fight I say the F-16 wins due to it has a higher thrust to weight ratio, faster turn rate, and a faster climb rate than the F-35. And this comes from a guy who thinks the F-15E and the A-10 are better bombers than the F-16 ever could be. *cough cough* F-16 had no air to air kills while the A-10s did during desert storm in 91

Been a fan of this airframe for over 30 years. Best video I've ever seen of it. Kudos to the team who put this together.

@rogerramjet6134

5 ай бұрын

Still a fan. They just committed to building a bunch of F-15EX units to "bridge the gap" as our old aircraft are retiring faster than we can build F-35s. The intent in a war with Russia/China was to use them as "missile mules." They had to make a special modification to the F-15 to carry up to 8 air to air missiles - the F-16XL carried 16 standard. So, for the same cost of purchase and operational costs, you could have 2 F-16XL "missile mules" airborn with 32 missiles for the SAME cost as a single F-15EX with 8.

Personally,, I've always believed this aircraft was one of the greatest opportunities lost....it's speed, payload, and range made it top dog.....in fact with a modern avionics package, and some " low observable " additions it would be a force to be reckoned with even today........

@michaelgautreaux3168

4 жыл бұрын

It went the way of the (X)YF8U-3, & YF-23! Damn huh. Be safe 🦊

@Siddich

4 жыл бұрын

but one engine for so much wing? 🤔 i dont know

@Sean2002FU

4 жыл бұрын

@@erincarson8998 wow! Tailless!.....I guess we will see!

@mikebudzinski3879

4 жыл бұрын

@@erincarson8998 i liked the 23 also

@michaelgautreaux3168

4 жыл бұрын

@@erincarson8998 ubetcha, but I ain't giving no ground to the phantom. No sir 😉 be safe 🦊

The comment. "Good idea at the wrong time." Said it all. Had the design been around when the F16 was originally selected, it would have won hands down. The F15E was always going to be an additional weapons carrier for targets designated by stealth aircraft be they F22 or whatever. Therefore cost was always going to be the deciding factor. The F15 being no slouch and cheaper would have had my vote too.

@DonMeaker

4 жыл бұрын

A key part of aircraft program costs is startup- the F-15E with a hot production line had a big cost advantage over the F-16XL that would have required a new production line, or at least extensive modifications to the F-16CD lines that were open at that time. One might hope that future US fighter designers realize that designing fighters for long range might be a better approach than designing short range fighters, and adding drop tanks.

@rogerramjet6134

5 ай бұрын

It's still a good idea for any new build F-16s - but those would cut into our exports of F-35s!

@gusgone4527

5 ай бұрын

@@rogerramjet6134 Probably but even so, a sales is a sale. Choice is not bad thing.

@rogerramjet6134

5 ай бұрын

@@gusgone4527 True - but it is also not inconceivable that they could have produced both variants (XL, original). As the video pointed out, it is modular construction and all the other systems would be identical.

@gusgone4527

5 ай бұрын

@@rogerramjet6134 Agreed.

Very well done. More complete than any TV documentary on the XL's. Thanks!

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Wow, thanks! Very much appreciated and thanks for commenting.

The F-16XL is like the younger brother of the f-16 who’s a super jacked meat head who can’t get a job

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Underrated comment lol

@davidburke4360

4 жыл бұрын

There was no need for an extra long-range F-16 because in air refueling was available also the new Block 70 F-16 has conformable fuel tanks that increase the range it also has a stronger airframe. It's an F16 on steroids... Better everything...

@rapid13

3 жыл бұрын

@@davidburke4360 Can't refuel in contested airspace; the additional combat range matters. And the fast pack conformal tanks could be fitted to the XL just as readily.

@davidburke4360

3 жыл бұрын

@@rapid13 Either way it didn't get the green light Look into the F-20 Tiger shark another great plane that had great performance but couldn't get buyers.

@rapid13

3 жыл бұрын

David Burke I’m well aware of the F20. I remember reading about it in Jane’s back when it first flew.

Looks like SAAB Draken... way ahead of it’s time

@negergreger666

4 жыл бұрын

William Hedrick for real, my first thought too (before it was mentioned in the video). Like a Draken with 30 years of technology improvements. I suppose that aircraft exists in a way though, as the SAAB Gripen.

@artruisjoew5473

4 жыл бұрын

Fundamentally different wing and airfoil design, lift body design and engine configuration. Draken is nothing like it besides very vague visual similarities.

@fastdude2002

4 жыл бұрын

Albert Moore look at your comment. Who’s stupid now? Lol.

@Karl-Benny

3 жыл бұрын

@@artruisjoew5473 Except the US studied the Draken before Making the F-16

The F-16 is an inexpensive (by comparison to other air frames) system and the XL variant would have made an interesting Bomber.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for commenting

While this aircraft looks good on paper, there are several reasons why this and so many other promising planes don't make it. This one in particular: while a double delta wing does increase low speed performance from the normal delta wing, it still lacks the unmatched low speed control ability of a traditional configuration like the f-16 already has. Take the French Mirage for example, it can out turn the f-16 at any speed around above 470kt, but go much slower it becomes impossible for the Pilot to get the nose to the adversary because the control surface begins to buffet, at the same time, (I have no idea if the engineers got around this) at high speeds past Mach one, the shockwaves from the form of the body and nose also begins to buffet the controls. Delta wings also can require different training (BFM and ACM) as a f-16 can rate fight and and aircraft such as this can only win dogfights with altitude. Simply put, there are reasons the U.S. does not use canard fighters or delta wings in most military aircraft.

I always thought the f16 was a pretty plane, love the XL.

@PilotPhotog

3 жыл бұрын

Somehow they were able to make the F-16 even better looking, thanks for commenting!

Awesome video keep up the good work

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks! Will do!

When Japan wanted to design the F-2 the XL should've formed the basis of it instead of the standard variant.

@andrewmoore7022

2 жыл бұрын

The F-2 was based off the agile falcon not the standard variant.

My dad worked at General Dynamics and then lockheed in fort worth from 1986-2017. So I had posters of these aircraft all over my walls.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

That’s awesome and thanks for sharing! He must have some interesting stories to tell.

Great video history of one of my favourite versions of the F-16. I definitely learned some new things about the two XL jets that I wasn't aware of and also why it lost out to the F-15E. Thanks!

When I was in boy scouts we took a trip to Edwards and we got a very revealing tour we got to touch and sit in the aircraft one of the was the F-16XL it was very good looking plane.

@edenbendheim

4 жыл бұрын

It's. So. Ugly

Looks like a fighter bomber multirole fighter

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Indeed and thanks for commenting!

Never finished my Revell model of it, but i always loved the shape. In MS FSX i had a lots of fun with it.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

I’d love to build a scale model of it, thanks for commenting!

I remember seeing an experimental version similar to the F16XL with twin engines, more squared variable geometry inlets, and thrust vectoring, shown on a TV program years ago. I thought; "DANG that is a beautiful aircraft!' But then never heard anything more of it. The program was about "Experimental" aircraft that the USA was/had been using to develop their aircraft. They showed some from WW2, Korea and Vietnam war eras, but then they showed an F16 very similar to the F16XL, but with twin engines, squared variable geometry inlets, and had 1rectangular thrust vectoring exhaust nozzle and 1 round thrust vectoring nozzle. I thought that was strange until the announcer said: "The aircraft was being used to develop thrust vectoring technologies and other top secret projects.". Then they showed it with both exhaust nozzles rectangular with thrust vectoring, and then showed it with both exhaust nozzles round with thrust vectoring. I do not know if it is the same aircraft model or different aircraft model. Before you say it was the Eurofighter, the jet that was shown on the TV program did NOT have forward canards like the Eurofighter. Another Experimental F16 had half a delta wing and half regular wing. That, the TV program said was testing the lift developed by the delta wing compared to the regular wing. I cannot remember the TV program's name.

@PilotPhotog

3 жыл бұрын

Thanks for commenting, could it have been the X-33: kzread.info/dash/bejne/ioucqMmjadbIido.html

Like all good ideas that have been proven to excel, politics and hidden agendas still prevail in the Defense Department.

@Woody-nc1ru

4 жыл бұрын

aaaaaamen

@LRRPFco52

4 жыл бұрын

Not in this case. The F-16XL didn't have the power at the time. If they could have made a carbon fiber wing with a GE F110-GE-132, it might have had a chance, but those technologies didn't exist in mature form for another 2-3 decades. The F-16XL would have been a much better platform for everything the USAF uses the Viper for, since F-16s are limited in range/endurance due to low internal fuel capacity. F-16XL would make a great interdiction/strike, CAS, and Wild Weasel/SEAD platform. The F-16 small wing is its biggest weakness in how the Air Force uses it-primarily for those things listed above. They don't employ it as a daytime point defense Lightweight Fighter, as those types of fighters were made obsolete by US radar and all-aspect missiles.

This is a fabulous aircraft and I can’t believe no one bought them.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for commenting!

@spartanx9293

4 жыл бұрын

This is an ugly aircraft because it uses Delta wings

@skeletonwguitar4383

4 жыл бұрын

@@spartanx9293 *Saab, Eurofighter and Dassault would like to have a word with you.* Keep hatin'.

@spartanx9293

4 жыл бұрын

@@skeletonwguitar4383 The eurofighter typhoon and gripen are ugly the rafale is ok my issue isn't with those companies I just don't like delta wings

@spartanx9293

4 жыл бұрын

@@skeletonwguitar4383 all those companies could have easily made swept wing designs

I got access, as a GDFW employee in 1986, to the test flight hangar where this aircraft was kept. Just me and my supervisor. The aircraft then was sporting the Keith Ferris deceptive paint scheme. Always wondered why it wasn't selected by the USAF. Made total sense to me. Thanks for the detailed analysis of this one of a kind Fighting Falcon.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you and I really appreciate your comment from someone who was close to the program! I was a bit surprised at how few videos there were on the XL and hope I did the program justice.

This was a beautiful aircraft and is one of my favorites! Thanks for making the video, it was great.

Great video . I remember those days when I hoped the F16XL would go into production . A beautiful and very capable airframe .

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for commenting!

I built a model kit of this plane.

@rileymcree7668

4 жыл бұрын

Who’s the kit by

@gonzo4218

4 жыл бұрын

I believe that in my youth (40 yrs. ago) Monogram made this in 1:48 scale as well. Box-art in the red-white-blue livery.

@gerardbroek1943

4 жыл бұрын

Monogram also made a 1:72 scale XL. I got one as a kid, built it and played with it. Now I have the 1:32 scale from Revell in a box, partially completed. Life comes in the way of finishing it. I am painting it in the NASA colors. Put in some upgrades from the boxkit on ejection seat etc.

That was a really fantastic video and research! Thank you for sharing! Subscribed!!

well researched and presented. I really enjoy your work! Keep it up!

Ace combat, that's all i'm gonna say.

I know the XL don't have a 'complete' delta wing,but I love delta wings planes.It always look like they mean business. Draken,Gripen Mirage 3 and derivatives

A key technology of the F-16XL was the ability to reload each weapon hardpoint in only 30 seconds, with multiple hard points being able to be reloaded at the same time. This would greatly reduce ground vulnerability during quick turns.

This was on aircraft that should have been built! Add thrust vectoring from the F16VISTA to this and this plane would have been in a league of it's own. It would take on even the Mig 27-29 etc,....

The more i look at it, the more i see the Saab Draken...

@dimesonhiseyes9134

4 жыл бұрын

Or the avro arrow

@shenghan9385

3 жыл бұрын

True

@jaevanceamendanio2683

3 жыл бұрын

Same here.

@Neilarmeweak550

3 жыл бұрын

I agree, but most European fighters, (Draken, MiG31, Typhoon, Rafale, Every Sukhoi since the SU-27) look a lot better then American fighters. American fighter look soo fucking boring they're all just GREY and they dont really have a defining feature than would make someone either excited or scared to see it.

@drianmortiz9375

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely 👍

I remember reading about this as a kid and thinking it was the coolest fighter jet I'd ever seen. Coolest of course being the F-16.

I remember seeing the XL for the in High School Air Force Junior ROTC. I fell in love with the design, it is my favorite delta winged fighter followed by the SAAB Draken.

When I worked out at Edwards AFB I had the opportunity to see this beauty fly. I knew people who worked on the project at NASA. Super cool jet. It is now on display at the flight museum at Edwards AFB.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

That must have been a sight to see - thanks for commenting and sharing!

Interesting thought with new export versions getting those shoulder mounted conformal tanks etc.. that the XL with supercruise would have a chance at a revisit in the export market. Loved the old multi grey stripe and false cockpit paint. If memory serves me there was also a lizard green camo similar to the early F15E demonstrator.

@PilotPhotog

3 жыл бұрын

Indeed and if I come across any pics of that cammo I will post on my community page. Thanks for commenting!

@justinavery8664

3 жыл бұрын

@@soulsphere9242 👍you are correct sir. I mis-remembered it. Looking at my old "GREAT BOOK OF modern Warplanes tome. It was the Hill AFB test paints on a few F16A, F16Bs.

The 16xl looks like the little brother of the Eurofighter Typhoon

@Karl-Benny

3 жыл бұрын

more like the SAAB Draken which they studied before making the F-16

@Alex-co7cq

3 жыл бұрын

100% the Draken

@user-ii2jo4nh4j

3 жыл бұрын

Bruh

@Shredxcam22

3 жыл бұрын

It looks like a progression of the f 102 and f 106

@tlshortyshorty5810

3 жыл бұрын

@@Shredxcam22 could it have been called the Delta Dirk?

What a beautiful plane! Another could-have-been wonder.

Ive always been fascinated by the F-16XL yet i did not know the F-16XL this well and i find it almost a crime that this almost perfect fighter in all categories wasn't put into full production...also can we take a moment to appreciate how awesome the name "fighter mafia is"

@katherineberger6329

7 ай бұрын

Unfortunately, what the "Fighter Mafia" wanted was a light day fighter with minimal onboard tankage, two basic revolver cannons, two Sidewinders and nothing else. Weather radar only, barely enough fuel to make it back to base after you jettisoned its tip-tanks, and not the slightest capability for BVR combat. In other words, they wanted an American version of the MiG-21, which would have been instantly dated and incapable of competing with the Russian Su-27 and MiG-29 that came out just a few years later.

@SuperDiablo101

7 ай бұрын

@@katherineberger6329 correct me if i am wrong but that sounds similar to the F-5 platform which I'm not 100 familiar with

Now this looks like an aircraft. And I bet it flies like one too

That looked like a fighter jet worthy of being in the Ace Combat franchise.

@nickkorkodylas5005

4 жыл бұрын

It was in AC3.

@forcexjr1566

4 жыл бұрын

J-Work's Oh yes! I do remember seeing it in AC5

Cool video. Kept me interested the whole time. The F16 was my favorite when I was a kid.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it and thanks for commenting!

I love this so much! This is treasure. Thank you, my subscription was worth it.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks for subbing!

Would love to see what the super hornet looks like with a double delta wing.

Looks like the US had it's own 'Eurofighter' fighter.

@thesirmaddog8209

4 жыл бұрын

This was before the Eurofighter came to be

@Akuu820

4 жыл бұрын

Looks more like a SAAB to me.

@manuelmamann5035

4 жыл бұрын

gripen you mean. eurofighter is more related to the f15

@user-do5zk6jh1k

4 жыл бұрын

@@manuelmamann5035 Very different aircraft. This was a low altitude bomber (oversimplication, but whatever). The Typhoon is an air superiority fighter.

@user-do5zk6jh1k

4 жыл бұрын

@@Akuu820 Yeah. That cranked-delta

So well informed. An excellent video. Thank you and please do more!

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Will do!

Very interesting, especially the discovery of laminar flow with active pumps at super cruise. Thanks for sharing.

Nice video as always instant like

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you so much!

single engine. But it would have been cheaper and been useful.

@aidan11162

4 жыл бұрын

Not initially. It had some basic parts in common with the regular f16 but it had a huge number of differences that would have made it much more expensive to produce than the f15e

@AvengerII

4 жыл бұрын

Wouldn't have been as good a dogfighter as the regular F-16 and would have been more expensive to support, too. The wing-loading on the XL was less but the plane was also less maneuverable than the production F-16s because the engine had to carry that extra bulk and the engine back then really wasn't enough for the weight growth. Even the 28,000lb thrust F110 wasn't enough to make the F-16XL a competitive dogfighter. Now, with a 40,000lb thrust engine in service it might work better as a straight fighter but the XL and any late 1980s production version would have been a fighter-BOMBER as opposed to fighter-bomber. Not as good a "swing fighter" as the standard F-16. There were problems with the existing XL design that would have impacted its bombing capability, too. There were at least 2 hardpoints that were not useable when carrying the large fuel tanks the XL used to extend its range. Those hardpoints were overlapped by the fuel tanks when the tanks were installed. The F-16XL was further away from production than the F-15E which had been flying in prototype form since the late 1970s and had a decent production basis for it in the F-15D. Easier to restress and develop the F-15D into the dual-role F-15E than the F-16XL into the F-16E/F which would have needed LOT of work to become a production plane. Sorry, but that's the reality. They made the better choice with the F-15E.

@bestamerica

3 жыл бұрын

hi W... ' F-35 need to add twin jetmotors are better than single jetmotor

@warrenholmes3311

3 жыл бұрын

But, the AF at one point, cooked up the scheme (AND THEY TRIED TO IMPLEMENT IT AS WELL) that the A-10A was finally going to be killed off and the F-16 (albeit with some modifications, one of them being a slightly armored belly) was going to replace it. All the pilots that I came into contact with, said, that (at the time, the change WAS GOING TO HAPPEN) they felt sorry for the troops on the ground because instead of 'loitering around' the new CIS Falcons would see just one inbound pass and then rather than to tempt fate, they would simply RTB. They had NO confidence in the F-16 to be able to take a beating like the A-10 could (and has shown that it has had the ability) to do.

Nice video with clearly explained of specifies of F-16 XL aircraft 👍

Great Video....very enjoyable

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Looking back in the American aviation industries inventory , u can not overlook so many missed opportunities like F-16 XL and YF-23 ...

@TeamSexyPaintball

4 жыл бұрын

and the x-29

@user-vu3jg6nf5o

4 жыл бұрын

@@TeamSexyPaintball also, F-20 as an excellent replacement/evolution to the F-5's very successful series ..

@bret9741

4 жыл бұрын

Yes.... but remember when this aircraft was being considered. The Air Force was dealing with budget issues and keeping commonality among the F-16 Fleet makes a lot of sense. I think the XL, as a heavy fighter bomber made more sense doing so in the f-15 platform. I’ve always preferred twin engine aircraft even when carrying passengers.

@user-vu3jg6nf5o

4 жыл бұрын

@@bret9741 U know, i may agree abt budget issues concerns, if it yields a correct decision, else, there is no point of building 89 twin-engine a/c in a cost of 156 single-engine a/c, to accomplish the same mission out there . This is how the "objective of budget" must be dealt with .

@xpeterson

4 жыл бұрын

Anyone can say that x aircraft that wasn’t produced would have solved all our current issues. People claim that the X-32 would have solved all the cost overruns of the F-35. It could just as easily have costed more. You can say anything about an alternate reality without the real world stats to back up what you say.

Im liking these new visuals

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Lots of work but worth it :)

Fascinating! I'd never heard of it before.

This was my fav plane as a kid, I even did a project about the XL at school 😂

At the time the military was moving toward the consolidation of roles in it's equipment and vehicles. The HUMVEE for example was supposed to replace half a dozen previous army vehicles with a single all purpose machine. It makes sense that the Pentagon would choose an established airframe that required little to none modification to fill the role. It's very similar to the attempt to replace the A-10 with the F-35. A transition that has yet to bear fruit.

@PilotPhotog

3 жыл бұрын

Great point and thanks for commenting!

The key Generals and Congressmen were ex-F-4 drivers pro-McDonnell-Douglas and anti-single engine. That's all it took.

@valenrn8657

4 жыл бұрын

F-15E has a higher potential for growth e.g. duel 29K engines which improves sustained turn rates and acceleration. Later F-15 Advance enables the high angle of attack capability due to existing tail design (i.e. stabilizers extending beyond the engine nozzles) and digital FCS upgrade.

@carlsonloggie

4 жыл бұрын

With a single-engine, you are in a single-engine emergency from the moment you take off.

@eaglekeeper7737

4 жыл бұрын

@@carlsonloggie Totally agree.

@teddy.d174

4 жыл бұрын

A big part of these decisions comes down to politics.

@mannyb7949

4 жыл бұрын

Ron.......ahhh, got it, time and again, political and corporate preferences play a big role in the development of weapons, how many of those went to work for MD later on?

Very interesting and informative. Well Done!!!

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it!

Great presentation on such a special bird!!!!!

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you much appreciated

great video, thanks too bad it never made it in to production, the F16 has got to be one of my favorite jets!!! mike

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thanks Mike glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for commenting!

A more stealthy constructed F-16XL would be relevant today. If powered by the GE F110-129 it would be a real killer with a high altitude capability (with a new canopy). This configuration would be the perfect aircraft for Fighter Interceptor Squadrons along the ADIZ. This aircraft super-cruised very well, and could fly a long way FAST on less fuel with that engine.

@toasty_7233

2 жыл бұрын

are you speaking from a standpoint that it would be better in a dogfight or just in general

Excellent aviation video about F-16 XL Clearly explained its characteristics

I made a flying model YF-16. I am looking forward to building an F-16XL. Thanks for the video. It really helps me with my research.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Awesome glad you enjoyed the video and best of luck on the XL build.

Again a really good video. Coming to your discord soon

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you and looking forward to it!

I remember this plane flying around the Ft worth and Weatherford Tx areas back in the 1980s.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

That must have been quite a sight to see and thanks for commenting!

@1perveysage

4 жыл бұрын

It was. I at the time thought it looked very cool.

Seems like there was a lot of potential there. I would have really liked to see it go into production. I remember reading about this aircraft back in the early eighties and being fascinated with it. Darn good looking plane too.

Enjoyable video. Lots of good information. Keep up the good work.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

The F16XL would later show in up production as it's, unrelated but spiritual successor, the Typhoon.

Thank you I never knew they existed!,

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

You’re welcome glad you enjoyed the video and thanks for commenting.

Nice video with clear explaining thanks 👍may be returning to surface and flying with additional programs and changing others ...in future

@PilotPhotog

3 жыл бұрын

Glad it was helpful!

I know a lot of people are arguing that the YF-23 should have been put into production over the Raptor, but you're forgetting the acquisition mentality at the time. The ATF program also included the Navy through their NATF program, which was looking for a replacement for the F-14. The F-22 would have been able to be navalized for carrier usage while (I forget all the technical reasoning) the YF-23 either couldn't or shouldn't have been navalized. This was a major point in the decision-making process. We all know, of course, what happened - politicians wanted to fight wars in the middle east instead of preparing for America's next Cold War against an empowered China. So here we are, still producing F-15 airframes in 2020. The USAF got a much smaller piece of the Raptor pie than they wanted, and the Navy didn't get a slice at all.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Well said and thanks for commenting - in case you haven’t seen it here is the video on the F-22 where I mention the Navy’s involvement : kzread.info/dash/bejne/i3Wcs858e9yWn7Q.html

This is definitely one of those aircraft that everyone wishes had gone into production, not only did it look awesome but it had incredible potential. It's a shame there could only be one winner. The only other fighter prototypes that I think most would agree missed their calling as well are the F-20 and YF-23. The XB-70 would also make the list as a bomber.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed thanks for commenting!

I’m dreaming of an updated F-16 in the XL format, with the thrust vectoring system from the VISTA program.

@PilotPhotog

3 жыл бұрын

That would be amazing!

Thank you very much for a video that I consider to be very well done! You disseminated the available information in a clear, concise manner while exercising vocal restraint. Your approach to this project lends itself to ease of understanding the variables encountered throughout the many phases of the F-16 research and development stages. If you're so inclined, there was also an F-16 prototype that made use of thrust vectoring technology with some interesting results. Again, thanks for a great video!

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you much appreciated - I conduct extensive research to make this videos and I am considering making a separate video about the thrust vectoring F-16 as well.

Nice narrating. Informative also. No one else has told this story as well.

Magnificent delta wing single engine fighter. The Production line should reopen.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for commenting!

Could've been built for export to offset cost of future designs.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for commenting

@kdrapertrucker

3 жыл бұрын

If the U.S. services do not buy it, then most foreign air forces won't buy it either.

I liked the way this video was put together. Succinct and interesting!

That was cool, nice work😎

Before I watched this I thought the aircraft was ugly, but after seeing all those hardpoints!! That thing could fly Mach 2.0 and had 21 hardpoints? I also love the idea of the F-16XL being a companion to the updated F-15E similar to the F-15 & F-16. Great video.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you and yes, F-15E and F-16E (the planned designation had the XL gone into production) would have been amazing.

@prius_power

4 жыл бұрын

I’m pretty sure it was 27 but maybe I misheard

Pity they didnt put it onto production, beautiful fighter.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for commenting!

I was there when it flew. Same day Thunderbird No:1 rolled out of paint shop. Great times.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

What an awesome sight that must have been, thank you for sharing!

Love your work. From london, UK.

Well the F-15 is still to this day undefeated in actuality war hours.

@FMChimera

4 жыл бұрын

Comparing this to the F15 is laughable. Very different birds.

@manwithnoname691

4 жыл бұрын

@@FMChimera ok? My comment was what they was saying in the video so...

@manwithnoname691

4 жыл бұрын

@@FMChimera look before you leap

@GBLynden

4 жыл бұрын

That is my thought too

@arklight1670

4 жыл бұрын

That's only down to training. IE how much can you afford to pay for combat training and flight hours. ie most of those kills are by Isreals Airforce.

The F-16 XL wing area would make it a GOOD BOMBER. But it absolutely would lose too much agility to be a “fighter” if you take away the rear control surfaces. The F-16 XL and F-16 might be a nice pair of fighters, but the F-35 is superior to both. The F-35 allows for 5th generation support aircraft in ways the F-16 can’t.

Awesome video, great info, and research

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I appreciate your comment. Working on a Top 5 fighters that should have been produced video next. The XL is on that list.

@satchpersaud8762

4 жыл бұрын

@@PilotPhotog the avrow arrow was a awesome plane, and so was the f23 maybe those might hit the list...

I had the opportunity to work on the XL program briefly in the 80's. Shame they didn't go into production. Neat planes.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed and thanks for sharing!

With more “Cowbells” the F16XL would have won hands down.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Yes! What this plane needs is more cowbell! Thanks for commenting

I think that they thought it looked so European, so they shut down the project.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

An interesting take, thanks for commenting

All I gotta say is...the paint scheme on the 849 is bloody sexy :D

Really good stuff, pilot! And it should be noted, the YF16 AND the YF-17 BOTH won the LWF competition. In the ETF competition, it was a no-brainer. The F-15 was already battle proven and in production. And as you say, cost. Which is usually the answer for ANY government program. Research and proto airframes would never have been subjected to live fire; that's reserved for phase outs. These two were special.

@PilotPhotog

4 жыл бұрын

Thank you and indeed I am glad they were spared the “Q” designation, they were indeed special aircraft.