I think the XL, along with the YF-23, were the greatest western designs never to go into serial production. Both were simply astounding aircraft.

@patta8388

3 ай бұрын

Excuse me, Sir, I'd like to talk about the F-20

I got to lay hands on the F-16XL at Edwards Air Force base bact in 1982 along with several test and research aircraft. It was such a wicked looking design

I will readily admit that I am biased towards the F-15 platform as I work on em and such, but the F-16XL showed such promise and amazing capabilities. The NASA test variants had incredibly tiny holes in the wing's leafing edge, to allow small amounts of bleed air to form a cushion. These holes allowed the F-16XL to achieve supercruise, which was and is an amazing capability.

@darrellseike3185

4 ай бұрын

I always wondered how the design achieved super-cruise before more efficient engines came to be. Great info!

@HALLish-jl5mo

4 ай бұрын

I always find it amusing how bad the US is at supercruise. In almost every respect their aircraft are the absolute panicle of military aviation, and then they get to supercruise its this almost unknown technology. Meanwhile Britain and France put it on an airliner in the 60s, because everything else supersonic had it.

@Istandby666

4 ай бұрын

For a single engine jet, I choose the F-16. For a twin engine, I choose the F-15. In the non stealth category.

@Istandby666

4 ай бұрын

​@@HALLish-jl5mo The F-15 super cruised in the 70's.

@HALLish-jl5mo

4 ай бұрын

@@Istandby666 The prototype English Electric Lightnings super cruised in 1954, and most subsequent European supersonic jets could also do so. The US managed it by 1955 when they upgraded the F-104, but just... Couldn't keep it up. By the F-15 there were two super cruising passenger aircraft (Concorde and late model TU-144s), so another super cruising fighter wasn't exactly impressive.

Best plane they never put into production. I built a 1/32 scale F-16XL and that cranked arrow wing looked super cool!

@Hey_MikeZeroEcho22P

4 ай бұрын

'darrell'....... I'm going to build ..... Several -16XLs, but in 72 scale..... I hope you stay tuned as I get ready to make these models sometime next month.

@frankleespeaking9519

4 ай бұрын

The YF-23 was the best looking us fighter to lose a competition.

@thelandofnod123

4 ай бұрын

@@frankleespeaking9519 Spoken like a man who has never seen an X-32. Excuse me, I’ll be under my bridge if anyone needs me.

@hipoman8087

4 ай бұрын

Great promos yes but I have seen and read about the B-70 VALKYRIE. 6 engine Mach 3 bomber. Also not produced but 2. 1 still exists in USAF AIR MUSEUM in Dayton OH. Next to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. 4 HUGE hangers filled with old to modern aircraft. FREE !!❤

People forget that even in 1976, McDonnell-Douglas showed the potential of what became the F-15E with the addition of conformal fuel tanks and also the aiblity to carry various types of payloads. As such, the F-15E was almost an "off the shelf" modification of the F-15D, which lowered production costs per plane.

@ziggystardust4627

3 ай бұрын

The F-15E also had twice the thrust of the F-16XL, to try and carry the same payload. Gen. John Michael Loh, the F-16 program manager for the USAF at the time of its creation, and one of the great champions of the lightweight fighter concept, was no fan of the F-16XL.

It makes complete sense why the Strike Eagle was selected but I agree that the 16XL would have made an excellent complimentary aircraft, especially for export.

First the F15 Active and now the F16XL? The hits keep on coming!:)

From 1984 - 1992, I grew up around Edwards Air Force Base. My biological father worked there and at Groom Lake aka Area 51. I miss Edwards Air Force Base. I was lucky to have had the life I've had.

Great stuff mate, looking forward to more content

No, this is just more KZread mythology. The XL was originally designed to explore improved supersonic L/D and allow for super cruise. The airplane did not achieve its super cruise goals. It would probably have been somewhat more maneuverable at supersonic speed, but at subsonic speed it had more induced drag and therefore lower sustained turn rate than the original F-16, which after all had been intentionally optimized for maximum sustained turn performance. The XL was later entered in the ETF program, but this was not its original purpose. The super cruise goal was forgotten when carrying bombs. It would have been a good strike aircraft, but the F-15E was less expensive, less risky, and more capable in some ways. The XL was not produced for sound reasons.

@ziggystardust4627

3 ай бұрын

Most aircraft that get lauded as killer "what-if" designs retain their image because, never having been put into production, no one ever sees what their warts were, and what bumps their programs would have hit. The biggest reason the YF-23, another Internet-favorite "what if" was not selected was because Northrop Grumman had expended most of its goodwill with the USAF during B-2 development problems, and the USAF was not as confident in their ability to deliver.

@soulsphere9242

Ай бұрын

One of the few accurate comments about the F-16XL. Of course, you won't get all the upvotes as people don't want accurate information.

@gort8203

Ай бұрын

@@soulsphere9242 It continues to amaze me how people latch on to myth and misinformation and then refuse to accept actual facts when presented with them. It seems to be related to social media and the internet becoming the predominate form of information exchange for the masses. It's ironic that internet was projected to make us smarter because all the information in the world would be easily accessible, but it seems misinformation is what multiplies and spreads like disease.

Has nearly similar wing as the SAAB 35 Draken, a "few" years older.... Have two in 1/48, both the XL and XL-2, planned for "what ifs"....

Yeah it's crazy how much wing loading and fuel capacity increase when you remove the negative lift tail and extend the main wing. GD had a good idea here and it's a shame we never got any F-15E was the better choice though. Large draggy tails are bad for turning but really good for when a major source of lift disappears

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

The F-16 doesn't really have any more of a 'negative lift ' tail than the XL. That is the whole point of relaxed static stability and the aft center of gravity. The idea was a wing with higher lift to drag ratio at supersonic speed to allow super cruise on the same thrust. It didn't really pan out. On top of that It would have been inferior during subsonic maneuvering. We didn't get any because we need this airplane.

Great video, The F/18 HARV would be a great follow up to the previous videos about technology demonstrator aircraft

The f15e was chosen over this for a reason. I don't know why people keep going on about a delta f-16.

@epikmanthe3rd

4 ай бұрын

Because it *looks* cool and was a genuine upgrade over the F-16. The F-15E was the better option, no doubt, but the F-16XL had a wing planform that was both unique and effective. The F-16XL is just the more visually striking aircraft.

@HenryKlausEsq.

4 ай бұрын

Like you and the USAF we agree the F15-E was the superior platform and remains so to this day with the EX, but if the XL was available for purchase as a variant it could have filled a special niche. Single engine multirole has its place, a stopgap until the common adoption of the F-35 even. Finally, it looked cool AF. Performant cool things are cool.

Super nice bird❤😮...sad that they never build in masses..😢

Excellent stuff, as usual!

This is the version i wish would have made it to full production

Thank you very much for such nice decument👏👍🌟

Super good stuff I like you guys to style a lot keep it up

Excellent narrative and information. Why this aircraft was not put into service is beyond me.

@acidgambit8138

4 ай бұрын

Why? It was explained in the video. Came down to cost

Love this thing. Looks menacing. Thanks for sharing.

Great review. TY :)

yes, it was. Its that simple. F-16XL was a BEAST of a plane, its absurd we didnt produce it. 1:43 that is one beautiful young woman, good grief.

This is what the Japanese F2 should have been, instead of that twice as expensive near identical F16 they made.

@gerardchan3453

3 ай бұрын

That would have definitely contained the PLAAF even with their new J20s.

Alright...if I like the first two videos I've watched from a channel then I should probably subscribe. Done. The narration is excellent by the way.

Never heard of it. Fascinating!

another bit on cost is that all 16 bases would need their hangers modified to hold the larger wingspan while 15 bases would not.

I have no idea. However, she's a damn beautiful bit of engineering.

Thank you

Reminds me of the Saab Grippen.

An Air Force of F-16XL and YF-23 would be badass

@forcexjr1566

3 ай бұрын

This is Wizard 1. The Demon Lord has entered the net. -Ace Combat 0

Terrific video. I've always thought that the XL would have made a great choice for equipping the ANG's air-defence squadrons. Very Saab Draken-like, isn't it?

The swedish Draaken and Viggen, build by Saab, are also very interesting aircrafts. Specially in this content!

This design in making a comeback as the F36 Kingsnake.

SUPERIOR!!!! This is Probably the Most Shorten, Concise Narration of the F-16XL with a little historical background, the way it flew with weaps and comparison of (then) F-16A, as well as competition with the F-15Es...... It could STILL be something ( I wish ), where older -16s could be converted Into XLs!! I ALSO plan on building F-16XL(s)....{ yeah more than one [1] }, they are small 1/72 scale, but I HOPE that you'll like them when I build them next!! Stay Tuned!!

Imagine if they’d kept the XL, and today combine it with the much more powerful engine, AESA, other avionic advances (to the F16V or F16E level)! That’d truly make a Super Viper/Falcon!

one of the most dashing aircraft forms ever made in all time, whether in delta wing or conventional wing form. as if the F-16 showed its aggressive, fast, agile and intimidating character. Even compared to 5th generation F-22s, the F-16 still looks terrifying when it appears in the air and elegant when parked in its hangar.

On a given thrust level, enlarging the wing area degrades acceleration.

I listened to an interview of Gen. John Michael Loh, the USAF Lightweight Fighter and F-16 program office head, so one of the fathers of the F-16, along with John Boyd. He was rather against the idea of the F-16XL, which he felt was an attempt to over-grow the F-16. He pointed out that it was non-competitive with the F-15E, which is not surprising, as the F-15E has twice the engine to carry the same payload. It's in the Aviation Week Check 6 podcast, Feb 9, 2024, about 24 minutes 30 seconds into the podcast.

Still sad to think the F16XL lost, but you can understand the air force's choice of picking the F15E too, because it would be a much easier conversion as well it the F15E having 2 engines, providing extra security for safety. But I still think the F16XL should've literally replaced current F16 models. Same with the YF23, being better than the raptor in every aspect except for maneuverability. Two of the greatest designs and probably the best looking too. Missed opportunities occur far too frequently.

Such a sexy lookin' aircraft. Would've made a great, lower-cost strike plane if it went into full production and enjoyed the accompanying economies of scale. The big problem with this airframe (and it isn't really mentioned in this video) is that, once involved in a close-in dogfight, it suffers the same issues all delta-wing configs have; mainly, you'll win the first and maybe even the second turn, but the drag invoked by that giant wing area eventually saps your energy... and in a dogfight, Energy Is Life.

It looks amazing..uk

Nice video. Dubious in regards to the max speed of the Strike Eagle, not sure any 4th gen fighter in the US inventory has even come close to Mach 2.5 with the possible exception of the F-111.

@SpawnofChaos2010

4 ай бұрын

@@baronvonslambert Yeah and to reach such speeds is no mean feat. I'd wager 90% of Eagle pilots have never even reached Mach 2 over the course of their careers. Yes it might be possible but its certainly not happening while performing combat operations. EDIT: I'm aware that speed is relative and practically no air combat takes place above Mach 1 and where it does, only briefly. It just raises my eyebrows when top speed is mentioned when it comes to fast jets, as the numbers listed aren't relevant.

The Mirage 4000 of the US, both would've been amazing jets, but yet government decide the bad one

I think one of the main issues was that it kinda removes the main advantage of the f16, basically that 2 circle performance. But if course it did, it's a multirole aircraft, that's not really its point. But removing that kinda defeats the purpose if the aircraft being a light fighter. The strike eagle was just more viable for the role being larger and having 2 engines.

LCA Tejas is using its design benefits without any problem as of now

Right On

I love the F-16XL. Just the amount of payload it could carry, Coupled with today's BVR range missile tech? This would have been a ground OPFOR's nightmare, try defending against 12 guided bombs or 16 hellfire missiles consecutively being launched by this plane in the span of minutes.

@ImpendingJoker

4 ай бұрын

It didn't carry Hellfires, those shown were Mavericks.

The crazy thing with the F-16xl, is how it didn’t just become a production model of F-16 anyways.

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

Not crazy, logical. It was a very different airframe, would have been expensive, and was not needed. The correct choice was made.

@Appletank8

4 ай бұрын

Even if you didn't take the retrofit route, you'd need to make almost a completely new production line for it. Compared to the F-15 which just worked as is, that was a big ask.

@ImpendingJoker

4 ай бұрын

Not really they did it with the F/A-18E/F. There is very little in common with the legacy Hornet. Even when the Army started to buy the 'Mike' model Blackhawk, they started out refitting 'Limas' to the new standard but found it was cheaper to build them new. The same would have been true for the XL, and it was very much needed, it's why there was a competition. Your logic is flawed. @@gort8203

@ImpendingJoker

4 ай бұрын

Not really they did it with the F/A-18E/F. There is very little in common with the legacy Hornet. Even when the Army started to buy the 'Mike' model Blackhawk, they started out refitting 'Limas' to the new standard but found it was cheaper to build them new. The same would have been true for the XL, and it was very much needed, it's why there was a competition@@Appletank8

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

@@ImpendingJoker Nobody was talking about refitting existing F-16s into XLs, they would have been all new airplanes if produced. They would have been more expensive than the F-15E, had more development risk, and offered no performance advantage over the F-15E. A new fighter-bomber was needed quickly, but the XL was not needed.

in hindsight, the F-16 became such a workhorse fighter/bomber that it was a mistake not to buy both the strike eagle and XL. they should've just converted all future F-16 orders to XL.

I would have liked to have seen the F-16XL powered by twin engines. The F-16XL, from the lessons learned from the F-16 would have been an outstanding addition to America’s aviation lineup. 👍🏻🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸👍🏻

I want one!

And if the F16XL was chosen over the f15e, there would be videos all over the internet of “what could have been”. The f15e will go down in history as one of the most long lasting war horse jet ever built. Second only to the f4.

the legendary fighter jet

This plane need should be made again. It would sell damn well

@gort8203

4 ай бұрын

I wasn't made then, there were only two prototypes that failed to sell the concept. No reason to build it now.

crazy that so many F-16s were built after this far better design was proven

F-20 Tigershark, Mirage 4000, and the F-16XL are all tragedies of the 80s.

I knew of it's existence and cannot see why it was never put into production. I think it would have been a great asset today with the SU 57 and China s J20 both being on larger scale

Somewhat unpopular opinion : F-20 Tigershark takes the cake as the perfect fighter jet design in the 1980s. However, I do believe that the F-16XL with canards should have bought in as as adversary aircraft to better simulate the PLAAF's J-20s and J-10s.

Australia should build this as it would prove useful even today

@PiDsPagePrototypes

4 ай бұрын

Everything it did, still wouldn't have replaced the F-111, and the F-18-G's would still be a better choice for the same reasons as the XL lost out to the F-15. The XL would have been superior to the F-35's in every way though.

@thelandofnod123

4 ай бұрын

@@PiDsPagePrototypesUmmmmm, no, the XL would not be better than the F-35 in all respects.

@PiDsPagePrototypes

4 ай бұрын

@@thelandofnod123 Speed, fuel capacity, range, range at speed, load capacity,... Being delivered on time and on budget wouldn't happen though, not for any aircraft supplied from the US.

@thelandofnod123

4 ай бұрын

@@PiDsPagePrototypes Ability to survive a modern BVR fight with a near peer adversary? This is what the F-35 was produced for. Having the undisputed post merge fighter in your fleet is irrelevant if it can’t get there. All fighters are a comprise in needs, the XL simply isn’t needed or indeed wanted in Australia’s modern battle space. The balance of platforms in the RAAF is almost perfect with what’s available, save for Strike Eagles in place of Super Hornets perhaps (cost is the issue there).

@jayteeb1

4 ай бұрын

@@PiDsPagePrototypes I agree with you and it's main advantage would be similar to the Japanese F2 and the Korean FA50 F16 based aircraft. It would also boost our air fleet

Mil vezes mais bonito!!!

Imagine F-16XL build with F-16 bl.70 tech and this new air intake.

27 hardpoints, wow

I happened to see this aircraft. What is really weird about it is the two wings are different. Not sure when it was they changed it, some of the shots in this video you can see the two different wings and in some they are clearly both the same. I thought it was my imagination at first, but when you see the real airplane it's clear as day.

I’ve argued for years that though the Strike Eagle deserved to win, the XL should’ve become the basis for the F-16C, as the increased capability it provided was too good to have passed up. Unfortunately the end of the Cold War ended a lot of things.

As much as I hate the original f-16 and love the f-15 the XL looks so much cooler and addresses all the problems with the f-16, both performance and looks.

The wing looks similar to the SAAB J35 Draken

I saw this plane at Edwards AFB when there for an air show and was hopeful it would be produced, but it was not to be.

The fuselage transform into Mitsubishi F 2

I remember this XL in the 70s. Fantastic idea, but for whatever reason, I believe mostly because of Nationalistic hubris and sense of superiority, USAF never liked delta wing fighters.

Imagine a modernized f-14 given a delta wing configuration. Now that would be interesting too. Build it around a 30mm gau. Make it into a multi-role craft and upgrade it with a stealth kit upgrade later on. In essence a interim craft that may evolve into a fully supported platform. Reverse swing wings that can fold into the main delta wing to add as a further maneuverability asset design.

@gsamov

4 ай бұрын

The more I read this the more it sounds like an Ace Combat plane

Strange they did hold the design so when new f16s needed built they would just build the f16xl. Considering how much better it was to the base model.

لكن فى النهاية تم إختيار الاجنحة المائلة المرتدة الى الوراء الاقرب الى المثلث مع الاحتفاظ بتصميم شكل الجناح المعتاد المستطيل تقريبا المثلث شبه مثلث الافضل من اجراء مناورة والتفاف ودوران كما فى السوخوى 35 وميج 29 وهو موجود على اف15/16/18ولا يعنى ان اليورو الأوروبي مقاتلة مثلثة الجناح كما تيجاس الهندية سيئة للغاية من المناورة الرشيقة بل تستطيع الى حد ما يستبدل الطيار قلة رشاقتها بستايل وطرق اخرى مناوراتية

Yes it was. It lost the competition to the F-15 though, one of the best fighting aircrafts of all time. The regular F-16 is an all time sales success globally as well, in a time where the AF didn't struggle for air superiority. It eould have been nice to se the AF commissioned part of their jets to the XL

I still believe planes with a dedicated tail section are more maneuverable than a pure delta wing.

the longer range would have been good for you aussies....kind of important in the pacific....its cost was good too. single engine less probs but for a pacific power maybe not so good that redundancy is important. the ngad will prob be alot like this plane in some ways.

If theyd at least offered it as a package upgrade to international buyers, i think it would still be in many of those militarys today. It just screams this is its ultimate rendition. It would be lengendary platform by now. Sad.

It's coming back as the King Snake. Let's hope they add forward canards like the Gripen, Rafael, and Euro Fighter.

@horusmorus5588

4 ай бұрын

Source on that because the f16xl is definitely no loner in development

Makes me wonder if they'll revisit the concept when it's time to replace the F-16.

They could still produce an F16XL for export purposes. Provided they don’t want to sell that country (or that country is too poor) an F35

Seems these two could be easy additions to DCS?

Is it me or others too, That I see HAL Tajes, looks like a smaller version of the F-16XL.

The F16 with Saab-35 wing.

Planes in actuality: I can pull 9G's pretty handly, but please keep at a maximum of 6 to not stress my wings too much. Planes and Pilots in WarThunder: I don't care 17g's sustained hell yeah

Definitely a missed opportunity along with the F-20 Tigershark, YF-23 and the TSR2 as they say money talks... and the beancounters look at the cost in Dollars Pounds etc... when it may turn out that the more expensive option in the long run works out cheaper and more efficient...

So much for “Not a pound for air to ground!”

We could have that today! Come on.

Wizard 1 (in a YF-23): > Wizard 5 (in a F-16XL):

Who ever cancelled it needs to be let go. The F-16 is still in demand. The XL would have been a excellent long range version. Add the conformal tanks, who knows how much more it would have flown. And given that munitions are getting smaller and smarter, the XL would have been a great bomb truck for air forces that can't afford the top of the line fighters. Even the united states air force is having budget issues. Something more capable and cheaper can fill many roles.

4:00 Eurofighter, if F18 was modified would look like Dassault Rafale,

The modifications needed is what done it in eh?

Unfortunately they could not squeeze a second motor into the airframe .

It looks like a Saab Gripen.

The F-16XL looks like a Typhoon! So therefore it _must_ be good... 😉

Imagine an F-16XL with a modern engine and new materials.

@lboogy3139

4 ай бұрын

Thrust vectored

nice design, should be better and cheaper than the F-35 starfighter 2

Young f16 said: when I grow up I want to be a Draken

Actually the F16XL is still being evaluated. A replacement for the A10 has not been selected yet. The F16XL has the same number of hard points. The A10 has been tested over the past year in the pacific as a MLD launch platform. The A10 is too slow even with its range advantage. Plus there are too few airframes left. The F16XL or its new version would fit that role even better. Which ever one would be cheaper. Probably the F16XL as it used a standard F16 fuselage that added a plug. There are many in the boneyard that could be retrofitted. That could reduce the cost significantly.

The American Rafale is a wonderful concept.

@christopherchartier3017

4 ай бұрын

I’m no way does it resemble the Rafael

@ImpendingJoker

4 ай бұрын

It does but it was years ahead of the Rafael.@@christopherchartier3017

@ImpendingJoker

4 ай бұрын

You've got it backwards. The Rafale is the French F-16XL. The XL was first.

Next one should be Boeing Bird of Prey