MAKO69 186 Posted August 26, 2014 TICO 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhcGMp7gHgA Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+daddyairplanes 8,662 Posted August 26, 2014 Enjoyable show. Saw them at Pope AFB open house backnwhen the Hogs were still stationed there. All performers cruised ovrr military housing on Bragg during the practices Thurs and Fri of that week, although the Hogs came in the lowest! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 864 Posted August 27, 2014 The J-79 has its own distinctive sound. I could identify those planes flying over while I was still inside a hangar. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 27, 2014 Can you imagine though if the F-16/79 program had continued?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 27, 2014 Can you imagine though if the F-16/79 program had continued?? I'd rather not Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted August 27, 2014 Can you imagine though if the F-16/79 program had continued?? I'd rather not Why not, it worked for the IAF's Kfir. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 27, 2014 Why not, it worked for the IAF's Kfir. Even if they fixed the smoke issue and not looking at the likely poorer fuel consumption ( thus shorter range ) - the lower T/W coupled with the fact that it's a turbo jet means far worse acceleration/performance in vital parts of the envelope. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 864 Posted August 28, 2014 If you wanted a Mach 2+ interceptor for a good price, the F-16/79 was a great option. Pure turbojets are better at higher speeds than turbofans. At Mach 2, the F-16/79 was actually better than the F100 -> higher top end meant higher thrust/weight. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MigBuster 2,861 Posted August 28, 2014 If you wanted a Mach 2+ interceptor for a good price, the F-16/79 was a great option. Pure turbojets are better at higher speeds than turbofans. At Mach 2, the F-16/79 was actually better than the F100 -> higher top end meant higher thrust/weight. If you wanted a Mach 2 interceptor - then you may as well have stuck with the F-104C - M2 was never a realistic or practical combat speed for the F-16. At high alt and high Mach pure turbojets should be better but this is offset by fuel endurance somewhat - at usable combat speeds it was inferior. The following link also gives a thrust output figure for M2 - but outside of the F4 HDFM manual I dont have the dynamic thrust tables to compare. http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article12.html Even with Combat Plus, performance of this new version of the J79 was significantly inferior to the F100, and Combat Plus could only be used for short periods of time when specific operating conditions were met: the engine had to be running in full AB, compressor inlet temperature should not exceed 15°F (-9°C) and certain combinations of high speed / low altitude would result in excessive internal pressure build-up (due to high airflow involved) and would place extremely high strain on the engine casing. Combat Plus was eventually fitted to Israeli Kfir C-7 aircraft, which were powered by a J79 variant. .......... The main drawback of the uprated J79-GE-17X, however, is its military power fuel consumption, which is far higher than that of the F100. This was not considered to be a mission-critical factor, as the FX requirement restrained the range of the export fighter (limited strike capability). Another modification was the mating of the engine to the fuselage-mounted gearbox in the F-16, driving generators and hydraulically pumps. This problem was solved by adding a transfer gearbox to the powerplant. ........ However, most air arms were less than enthusiastic about the F-16/79. Not only was the F-16/79 less powerful than the standard F-16A/B, it was also significantly heavier because of the additional thermal shielding that had to be carried. This made the performance of the F-16/79 distinctly inferior to that of the F-16A/B. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MAKO69 186 Posted August 28, 2014 If the unit cost per f-16 was cheaper it would have worked out, and if your going to intercept a flight of bombers or strike aircraft well who cares what you have for a power plant as long as you can intercept said flights. Who squashed the program General Dynamics? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted August 28, 2014 (edited) It was the clearance of the standard F100 engine for export everywhere that killed it. If you could get a regular F-16A w/F100, why would you want the 79 variant? Answer: you wouldn't, no one did, and the program died from neglect. The project was only started because of countries like Taiwan that wanted the F-16 but were initially barred from receiving the F100 engine. That also killed the F-20. The F-20 was a good competitor to the 16/79, but couldn't beat the F100 version on the world stage. Edited August 28, 2014 by JediMaster Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
