Jump to content

Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

F-16

Lockheed Martin needs to keep makimg the F-16 for the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.25 (talk • contribs)

  • Not likely going to happen with the F-35 coming into service over the next few years and years left on the jets the AF has already. -Fnlayson 00:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The U.S. Air Force has mortgaged everything to acquire the F-22. IMO they will also give up the F-35 if it means they can have more F-22s. They are falling all over themselves trying to reduce costs so that they can plow whatever congress will give them into the Raptor. IMO it is very short-sighted, but the Generals get paid the big bucks to make those decisions. --Colputt 23:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
U.S. F-16 production will be halted once the F-35 hits full production, no question, but it's not going to exit service anytime soon. The mainstays of the fifth-generation USAF arsenal, the F-22 and F-35, are both astronomically expensive, and even though the F-35 will be ordered in numbers sufficient to totally replace the F-16 that will take years.
I do understand the desire for the Raptor and, when it comes out, the F-35, even though they are more expensive. First off, you'll eventually be using two aircraft designs to fill the roles currently performed by 4; the F-15C and F-16 for air superiority, and the F-15E, F-16 and A-10 for strike roles. Both the F-22 and F-35 are multirole, though the F-22 will probably be used almost exclusively for air superiority (can't have a $120 million fighter exposed to AK-47 fire in ground runs; send the $40 million F-35 to bomb that army base). Second, the U.S. had been falling behind before the introduction of the Raptor; the F-14, F-15, F-16 and F/A-18A-C are all 30 years old or older, and Europe and the CIS have since introduced several fighters that threaten our air superiority capability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liko81 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be mistake to replace the A-10 with anything but new A-10s. Unless Lockheed can somehow incorporate the Warthog's massive cannon into an F-35, such a move would be counter-productive. And even if they did, the F-35 may not have the loitering and slow-speed maneuverability that make the A-10 so good at killing tanks. I know, I'm not completely on-topic with that, but I wanted to express my opinion. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
First, the F-15 may be old, but it still boasts an 104-0 combat record. Don't get me wrong, I completely understand your point that the F-15 is getting up there in age, and it's important to keep up with the competition...but it's hard to make a case against a jet that has yet to take a single combat loss from any enemy aircraft.
Second, the F-22 will almost certainly stick to air superiority once the F-35 goes into service. As the F-35 is basically a more conventional, tanked up, ground attack version of the F-22. Matter of fact, one of the reasons the F-35 is so much cheaper than the F-22 is because most of the F-35's technology....has already been developed and implemented in the F-22. Saving millions in r&d costs. ----Abalu

Ergonomics and Visibilty section

Apparently, someone has critical views of the Viper's features (such as the side stick controller). Unless someone can get verified sources for these claims, I'm going to request that these crticisms be deleted. - RaptorR3d 12:46, 9 July 2007

I've run across discussions on this on many occasions, I'm sure it won't be too hard to track down. Maury 21:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
It took three minutes :-) it starts here Maury 21:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
More: "Most research suggests that there is no significant increase in G tolerance until the seat is inclined 45 degrees." here This goes on to state talk about increased G tolerance in the F-16, but none of the quoted studies seem to suggest that such a thing actually exists (as opposed to presurized breathing systems, improved g-suits and dramatically improved training). fas is more specific, [the] "Benefit of the 30-degree reclining seat back has not been clearly established, and many pilots find it increases the difficult of checking their six o'clock position while in hard maneuvers." It goes on to talk about the ejection problem: "One drawback is that in order to avoid optical distortion in the bowless design, the conventional use of thick polycarbonate on the front to protect against birdstrike, and thinner polycarbonate for the rest of the canopy, cannot be used. Because the F-16 canopy uses thick polycarbonate throughout, it is not possible to eject by using the seat to puncture through the canopy." Maury 21:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Dang, I expected it'd be difficult to find references on that since it goes back to the early days of the F-16. Thanks Maury! -Fnlayson 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that article from the Navy pilot “F-16 vs. F-18” actually supposed to substantiate anything here? What another pilot says in an article like this is fine as a technical Point Of View statement, but he readily admits a little bias for the Hornet, since he learned to fly it first. I do not see why people are questioning the “Massive Seat Tilt”. The 30 degree recline is documented in many places as a design criteria for the airplane for G-tolerance. It may not have been a perfect design, but actually there is no such thing as a perfect design. The F-16 was designed in the early 1970’s, and that really was the first intent of the seat. In the article, edits want to re-write this as if it were some sort of design conspiracy – that the seat tilt was caused by the deepness of the fuselage. That part of the F-16 article is all speculation and conjecture which should be on this discussion page, not on the article. It makes the article read badly (and look bad on the editors who contributed that). A little Retro-Speculations based on a quip from "FAS.org" or other , does not change or discredit why the designers designed the airplane as they did. And, by the way, a reclined ejection seat a awesome benefit to your head and neck (not a liability) in the F-16 which has the highest G-Onset rate of any fighter. In the F-16, 9-G comes on hard, quick and it is great to have the angled seat (and HEADREST) to chock your skull back against when the pressure comes on like that. Had I not been able to do this, I feel my head / neck would have snapped off in high G turns. Your helmet simply sticks to the V-shaped rubber pads in the headrest – aligning your head in the turn. Neck injuries are also attributed to the fast G-onset rate, and the visual day fighter nature of the “Viper” causing the pilot to wrench his or her neck all around more than in other airplanes.

“many of these features remain controversial to this day” …. A lot in that area needs to be deleted because it is weak, and based upon speculation and conjecture. Weakly supported by a one-off POV from another pilot, and stuff from FAS Bwebb00 (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Hmm, interesting. - RaptorR3d 05:27, 9 July 2007
  • I couldn't imagine sitting in an F-16 with an upright seat, that would be so strange. So many things would have to be moved around. I don't know about checking your six, but I do notice a lot of pilots tend to lean forward most of the time. I also know of at least one pilot that hurt his back while pulling big Gs when looking aft. That had to hurt. --Colputt 23:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm not sure why theres a citation needed for the statement that the pilot needs to use his left hand to use certain controls when his right hand is in use.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.149.93 (talk • contribs)

The argument against such massive seat back tilt is now researched and documented. I have recently amended. Wittlessgenstein (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read the reply above, from to Maury, from me. This is STILL a weak criticism of an old design aspect of the airplane. Bwebb00 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bwebb - to which `weak criticism' do you refer? There seem to be (at least) three fundamental problems with the cockpit reported by the users - side stick, tilted seat and thick canopy. All of these may be considered "old design aspects" but they are also design fundamentals and may not now be changed. With regard to the need for "evidence", I see no reason why objective research should hold more weight than subjective reports (however embarrassing these might be for USAF) provided that such reports could be verified as coming for the real pilots themselves. The fact that the USAF may not have commissioned a robust research programme into one or more of these problems and/or made the results public, is no surprise but, unfortunately, does not make them go away Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Stick controller is not controversial. If it were a problem one of the alternate production versions of the F-16 would have simply moved the transducer back to the center. The (one-off) F-16 VISTA had a center control column, in addition to a side stick (but only because of the odd mission of the VISTA). Unlike a conventional center stick / control column the sidestick controller is an extremely simple installation. It could be moved into the center pedestal area where the HSI and lap cooler are. Japan modified the F-16 design dramatically when developing their F-2 version. Surely they would have considered center mounting the transducer / stick if it were a bad design (since they were radically redesigning the cockpit anyway, and moving instrumentation up onto the MFDS). The UAE certainly had the money when procuring their F-16E’s and F-16F’s. But they also left the Side Stick on the right console area. Lastly, Israel – known for redesigning the avionics suite and cockpit to suit their needs-- Well, they didn’t. All of these F-16 iterations have retained the same old side stick. It appears by evidence of procurement of all of these versions - some 4000 F-16's in all - the side stick controller and “stick grip” are of good design. Student pilots take a day or two in the simulator to get used to it (if that long). Right console control issue (taking hand off of stick, to adjust something in the right console) is also a less-than negligible concern because all of the controls on the right console are the most infrequently used in the cockpit. All are “Set and Forget” controls adjusted after engine start and before taxi. The Air Force procured the F-22 and the F-35 with sidestick controllers like the F-16, long AFTER F-16 procurement. Maybe the robust research programme should question why the EF Typhoon retained the center stick, when the rest of the industry (including the French Rafale, and the Airbus line) use the sidestick. Why does a military (USAF or other) necessarily have to make all of their research public? Not everything engineers develop or research becomes public knowledge.

There are a few other weak comments in “Cockpit and ergonomics” which must be changed. We need RS, not only RS but Quality Sources as well. This is an Encyclopedia, the article itself is not the place to cite one-off opinion (taken out of context) from a Navy F-18 pilot, considering there are more than 20,000 other F-16 pilots in the world. The F-18 article is extremely cool, but not grounds to place statements into an encyclopedia over. In a similar manner, every time a driver mentions something about his car, I do not believe we should change the encyclopedia on that specific model. Bwebb00 (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Bwebb - so the `weak criticism' to which you refer appears to be that the side-stick has some drawbacks. I would guess that F-22 and F-35 have been designed for commonality/ cross-training with F-16 ans not because a side-stick has been proved better than a centre-stick. So also for Typhoon. I'd take issue with you that Rafale constitutes "the rest of industry" - how about Russia and Sweden? and that Airbus can be compared to any military fast jet. I suspect that the reluctance of F-16 customers to re-locate has had more to do with cost that useability. I'd argue that relocation of the stick might be a little more complex than "simply moving the transducer back to the center", given the criticality of HOTAS controls and the integrity of the wiring loom that supports those switches. Nothing has yet been said yet about the interaction between stick positon and ejection seat release handle. I also don't see why Typhoon needs a robust research programme when none of the users has complained about the cockpit design. But would you care to comment on the issues of seat-tilt and thick canopy/ visibilty? I don't see that there is much point arguing that either stick position is intrinsically a "better design". Might it be more productive, and encyclopeadic, just to describe the pros and cons of each type of design? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sidestick doesn’t have drawbacks. No reasonable reference supports that claim. F-22 and F-35 did not incorporate the sidestick to stay common with the old F-16 for that reason, rather Lockheed engineers (like the General Dynamics engineers before) saw the sidestick as an advantage, particularly in a high-g , fly-by-wire airplane. It wouldn’t make sense to make the new F-22 or F-35 “like” the older F-16 with the F-16 on it’s way out. 2) Russia is always a “reactionary” aircraft builder developing (often) borrowed designs to counter an enemy threat (many examples). Russian cockpit designs rarely innovate state of the art. Look at (or sit in) any MiG-23, MiG-29, or SU-27 Flanker; scary, but not the state of the art. 3) Algerian government is making MiG take back all of their brand-new MIG-29SMT’s because of poor quality, new jet with used parts (even if it is the first genre of MIG-29 with true HOTAS, 20 years late AW&ST, 25FEB08). Saab is “econo-jet” particularly when compared to a Tornado or a Typhoon (or even the F-16). 4) F-16’s canopy was a compromise to keep birds from penetrating the forward transparency - a design criteria, and worthwhile compromise because Bird penetrations killed F-4 and T-38 pilots in the past. 5) F-22 keeps a near 22 degree seat tilt for the same reason, as the 30 degree F-16 seat. [1] Massive 30 degree (or 22 degree) seat tilt is nice on cross country flights, and contributes to improved g-tolerance – particularly in a jet with the reputation of being able to “point the nose at anyone”. 6) Medical reference from India is weak. Indian media make all sorts of bizarre claims, e.g., that they are buying special “supercruise F-16’s” (much of Indian media is not RS). Most of the internet opinions which go to trouble refuting all of this are more anecdotal than authoritative sources, and do not represent any sizeable number of F-16 pilots. The referenced FAS.org article is factually funny- anecdotal and not accurate. 7) “Pros and cons” of each type of design should go in the “Fourth generation jet fighter” Wiki article, “Aircraft design” or somewhere else. Disadvantage of Typhoon’s old-school center stick should not go in the Typhoon article (nor the fact that the seat is too upright for a High-G environment, or long flights) because neither are disadvantages. The Typhoon is just its own design. No disadvantage. I am re-writing (de-bunking) the "sidestick" stuff on the article. Bwebb00 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Bwebb. In the 1980s the Swedish Airforce ruled out side stick because (a) they wanted the pilot to be able to use his left hand if his right was injured (b) unfavourable comments from Swedish pilots who had flown F-16, and (c) unwanted displacement of left console controls to accommodate side-stick.

(1) Any designer, be it Lockheed or General Dynamics before them, will prefer to build on what they have already delivered. Yes, side-sitck is compatible with in high-g and fly-by-wire. But fleet commonality is an issue mainly beacause older aircraft ARE on their way out.

(2) Agree Soviet aicraft are generally outdated. Unfortunately for them fleet size makes commonality even more critical. Most of their older jets did not even have HOTAS. Su-37 has side-stick suggesting a copy of USAF jets.

(3) I don't think the Algerian government is sending back the MIG-29SMT’s because they don't have side-stick. Just because MIG29 made from spare parts don't work doesn't mean Typhoon's centre-stick is also rubbish. If Saab's Gripen, with a center-stick, is better value than most US jets that just means they might sell more - the JAS39 cockpit looks anything but an "economy model". Displays/ symbology design are equal to any other modern military fast jet, maybe even better.

(4) Bird strike is a problem for any aircraft. But bubble canopy has disadvantages as well as advantages.

(5) Massive 30 degree (or 22 degree) seat tilt might well be "nice on cross country flights", and might well contribute to improved g-tolerance – but what's it like for visibility in a dog-flight or for precision Air-to-Ground with HMD?

(6) Even if Indian media make "all sorts of bizarre claims", that doesn't invalidate one particlar properly published AeroMedical reference. Would you care to enumerate the inaccuracies in that reference?

(7) Yes “Side-stick vs centre stick" could go in “Fourth generation jet fighter”, but “Aircraft design” or "Cockpit design" might be better given that it's a debate that dates back to the Wright Brothers. Typhoon combats high-G with better g-trousers (the so-called FAGCTs, etc, see also Dragonfly). But if you think that Typhoon is "its own design" and has no reference back to Jaguar, Tornado, Harrier amd Hawk, you're living on another planet.

De-bunk all you want, but please don't assume that side-stick is a global cockpit design panacea, or that just because USAF has it so does the rest of the world. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Great discussion, guys! That is exactly what wiki needs more of, instead of those who hack and chop and create meyhem, yet leave no comments. I have a concern about the wording of the recline of the seat. Specifically, the article states that F-16 has the seat reclined at 30 degrees and that most other fighters are INclined at 13 degrees. Shouldn't this read REclined as the portion about f-16 does? It seems to me that inclined implies that the seat is leaning forward past vertical. I can't believe this is the case for any vehicle, much less a high-performance fighter plane. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Quite correct, Highonhendrix, and well spotted, Seats are indeed always tilted back. Although forwards tilt would also achieve the aim, which is to reduce the distance between the heart and the brain, it creates many more problems for visibilty, control and ejection. In only very few aicraft has the pilot ever flown in a prone or semi-prone position. Famously, in the Wrights’ 1900 craft the pilot flew in the prone position, which departed from the method employed by other experimenters, in order to make him “more comfortable, make landing safer, and to reduce head resistance” (Gibbs-Smith, 1970), but then that craft had the advantage of a largely see-through floor! Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now created "Centre stick vs side-stick" where these ideas may be developed. Please feel free to add any pertinent information. I think we may need a few re-directs for US/UK spelling? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wittlessgenstein. Sorry for the delay in answering you. I value your inputs and concerns in this article, so I will attempt to answer in detail. 7) Keep in mind, I am not going to the Saab article, or Eurofighter Typhoon article (or anywhere else) and adding entire sections of criticisms because they do not conform to the US (or whatever other) standard. In a reverse way, that is sort of what you are doing. There are not sufficient quality Reliable Sources to justify keeping the following comments in the article: -- Sidestick has major drawbacks, or that it is controversial. -- Canopy is excessively heavy. -- The reclined seat makes (cockpit controls) difficult, as well as making it somewhat more difficult to look directly to the rear and significantly increasing the risk of neck ache. -- “It has been suggested (??) that the actual benefit in terms of g capability is very close to zero [12] and the real reason for the large incline was to make the seat fit into the aircraft”. ( “Suggestions” made from a Essay not directly sourced in any real research, in any of the cited references. Also, India’s cited home brew POV and research draws from a line of several MiG, SU, Russian designed aircraft and not using the F-16 as any real research source. For years India was not eligible to buy the F-16, therefore in a lot of their aircraft “journalism” Indian writers openly criticized the F-16. Now, oddly, that they are finally buying F-16’s … their media and particularly Aviation articles are abuzz with all sorts of creative stories about F-16’s. Attitude changed overnight. But that was not the case when that “essay” was written. ) “the real reason for the large incline was to make the seat fit into the aircraft” Has to have a Quality Reliable Source -- and a good citation, or I will have to delete it later this week. The seat was put into the F-16 for the high g environment. Period. To criticize it , would be like me going to the Paniva Tornado article, and reciting all of the Drawbacks to it’s variable / swing wing (reduces Air-to-Air combat maneuverability, variable geometry stability issues, less internal fuel, reliability problems with the hydraulically actuated sweep, negative effect on flight controls, negative side effect with the flaps and the glove, requirement for overly large horizontal stabilators, (because of the location behind the swing). And most of all --- pivot mechanisms are enormously heavy [[2]] ). For me to write ANY negatives like that would be extremely inappropriate edit form, particularly in an encyclopedia. Nor, should I call the engines a disappointment; after all “RAF pilots were never happy with them”, (2 crews joked with me that the RB199’s were “gutless wonders” and chatted about trading their GR1’s for F-111 Aardvarks -- RAF Tornado pilots actually told me this. Is this reason for me to research the internet, and then refer such data that I find on the Tornado article? No, not at all. The Tornado is a great aircraft, filling several roles, in at least 3 different design variations – and did very well with whatever compromises were incurred to build it like it is.

The F-16’s continual 9-G-environment is an incredible hazard to pilots. The F-16 spent 25 (plus) years as the most aggressive aircraft of all - in the G environment, particularly in G-onset times, and time spent in high-G (7-to-9 sustained). The F-16 was, and is the G-monster. Pilot’s rate it as “worst” next to the centrifuge (which is regarded by pilots to be a bit of G-torture). Sadly, a number of F-16 pilots have been killed by GLOC, and if it were not for the dumb looking 30 degree seat, there would likely been more pilots lost to GLOC. Most believe the seat is at least partly responsible to an enhanced G cockpit design (to say the least). I know the UK used FAGCT’s. The USAF uses a improved version of Combat Edge, which also employs full leg coverage, variable demand positive pressure breathing, and improved center body / chest relief in the G-suit design. Combat edge (nor FAGCT’s) are enough in the high g environment, or we wouldnt be losing pilots to GLOC. (3) I never said anything about the Typhoon is (or was, nor will be) rubbish. (5) HMD / HMCS / JHMCS works fine in the F-16, as do NVG’s, and using the HUD (operational service proves this). The concept of reclining, and taking advantage of the 30 degree headrest is only necessary during very heavy maneuvers such as full sustained 9g. Any ground attack mission the pilot sits comfortably upright anyway. With the HMD, you’d simply be reclined 30 degrees, cranking a hard turn, skull firmly chocked to the 30 degree headrest staring straight into (HMCS) HUD-like AND projected imagery of the world. In a sense, the "30-degrees" becomes an advantage, with that huge chunk of garbage (HMD / HMCS helmet) on your head (having somewhere to rest it). What an incredible sight, wish there more instances of this (US / British teamed design). Note the F-35 Martin Baker Mk16/JSF seat is reclined at an angle greater than 15 degrees, and the pilot is wearing JHMCS (an truly cool sight, US/UK cooperation building a Multi-Role Fighter.) [3] I am linking the following video to demonstrate the seat is not such a liability (perhaps an asset when looking high-12-o’clock over the top of the your head). As far as looking at your dead-six o’clock (behind the tailpipe) in an F-16 , you look around the skinny part of the seat (headrest / drogue) [[4]] . In any fighter, you must grab the “towel rack” (body repositioning handle) to crank yourself around far enough to look behind the jet – if in fact you want to check dead-six o’clock. It matters little that the seat is reclined, because you are already sitting up, away from the seat and must reposition anyway. The “neck injury” reference at [[5]] does not really support the case that the seat angle causes neck strain. Rather, it suggests that pilots should take advantage of the headrest earlier in the turn, and before max g. As I mentioned above; for 30 years F-16 pilots have been abused with more g and motion torture than any other jet flying (324 degree per second (initial) roll rate, highest initial g-onset rate of any fighter, only fighter built to fly 9-g full of fuel with 2 missiles and full gun.) Highest sustained turn-rate of any (non-vectored) fighter. Therefore, neck strain is not the fault of the seat. Rather, likely culprit; the extreme maneuvering ability of the airplane. The article supports that fact. Thanks. Bwebb00 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The neck injury reference is more circumstantial than empirical. But I'm not sure it offers any more support to your suggestion of inappropriate head-rest use than to the suggestion that the seat angle per se is to blame. I will try and dig out a 1980s reference, from the US I think, to the limitations on g protection offered by heavily tilted seats. I'd suggest that your own enthusiasm for vision augmentation systems in the F-16 suppports the claim that visibilty is poor to begin with. One is left asking why. if the reclined seat was so good, does F-35 not have it. Can you answer? Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I don’t have the time to go into all of the issues raised here, but there’s one I can easily address and that is the side-stick controller issue. It is neither better nor worse than other controller designs, although there are slight tradeoffs among the choices; it’s simply a matter of what a pilot has gotten used to. If you learned on a center stick, then it takes more time to get used to a side stick than if you learned on a side stick in the first place – and vice versa. A more extreme example of this phenomenon was encountered with the Harrier’s controls and as a result, it was decided to preferentially train new pilots to the plane vice cross-train experienced pilots. As I recall, GD went with the sidestick because it required less stretch for the body in a high-g, high-roll rate fighter – capabilities that were to be enhanced by the fly-by-wire system (an innovation which was first introduced on the F-16). More recently, it has offered the benefit of adding further and larger displays to the cockpit. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Askari Mark, I think you're probably right. I'd suggest that side-stick vs centre stick in itself may not be the most important cockpit design issue, but I'm not sure I'd describe it as "nada". It's signifinance in the F-16, as you seem to support, lies more with how it fits in with the overall, more radical, concept of extreme seat recline. Perhaps you have a view on whether extreme seat recline is "better or worse" than normally reclined seat? But let's see if your answer can do without any refenerce to stick location. Cockpit design seems to be all joined up and often more (or less) than the sum of its parts? I mean, whoever instinctively found they wanted to put both hands on a centre stick and pull up as hard as they could to avoid hitting something? We may never know. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 11:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, side-stick controllers have been around for a long time. Various airplanes have had left-side or right-side controllers. I would argue that the F-16’s high-g cockpit design, incorporating a 30° seat recline, necessitated a side-stick solution as a matter of ergonomics for that environment. Believe it or not, a good deal of testing went on before this degree of tilt-back was approved. The greater novelty to pilots was the limited range of movement of the controller itself, which took some getting used to. With FBW flight controls, you no longer had to shove the stick around. I remember little complaint about neck injuries during the early days, and these were generally obviated once the pilot learned to properly take advantage of the headrest, as Bwebb00 described above. Because susceptibility to GLOC is a very individual-specific human factor, it’s much harder to design a system that prevents it in all cases – and the science wasn’t there back then to develop the technology (which remains “in work” even today). The best compromise solution found at the time was to further "tighten up" the detents in the FCS.
Frankly, the “Cockpit and ergonomics” section in this article is horribly slanted. None of the features described “remain controversial to this day.” One would never know from this article that one of the things that has most impressed pilots is the visibility from the single-piece bubble canopy. Part of the “risk of neck pain” is that you can actually see more in the rear arc than practically any other airplane before or since. (One can argue that there’s more than necessary, and in fact, progress in flight suit technologies makes such a degree no longer necessary.) Pilots can see down over the side more as well. The section asserts claims that just weren’t so. I worked many years with the lead cockpit designer for the F-16 and can assure you that the “real reason for the large incline” was NOT “to make the seat fit into the aircraft.” Other claims are half-truths. Yes, the canopy thick enough to guard against bird strikes; however, it is also flexible enough to dissipate the energy from such strikes that would shatter rigid, flatter canopy panels. (If you ever get a chance to watch the bird strike test videos, I recommend you do so!) Frankly, whoever wrote this section didn’t know much of what he was talking about. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure the F-16’s 30° seat recline didn't necessitate a side-stick solution as a matter of mechanical geometry, i.e. metal cutting? Ergonomics was involved since the pilot wouldn't have had enough reach for a centre stick anyway. More ergonomics was required to give the side stick a good enough feel. Switch locations then needed to be optimised around this configuration, and so on. So maybe the whole cockpit design was really driven by the reclined seat concept, not by "users ergonomics"? But yes, this section looks almost as slanted as the seat. I guess if we want to know "whoever wrote this section" we just need to trace back the article history. Most articles are a bit of a joint effort, aren't they. Of course, bad press usually makes impact than good and it's often difficult to find "evidence" of postive user reports. Added to this, the political nature of military fast jet projects is usaully enough to muddy any technical waters. But I'd agree this section would benefit from both more citations and more balance. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A matter of metal-cutting? Not at all! You need to keep in mind that the driving force behind the F-16’s design was aerodynamic performance; maneuverability was the ne plus ultra according to influential theorists like Col. John Boyd. This led the GD design team to make a very conscious effort to go beyond the usual “cockpit design” effort for a more holistic approach. They called it “Pilot-Vehicle Interface” (PVI). The first time I heard the word “ergonomics” was from one of the PVI team; it was just beginning to enter the aerospace lexicon at the time. Reclining the seat farther back was a measure intended to reduce GLOC, among other factors. In fact, a whole range of seat reclination angles was tested; if memory serves, they went as far as 45°. Pilot reach in high-g maneuver conditions essentially necessitated a side-stick controller.
This section was in hot dispute back when I first joined Wikipedia. The editor was a source of much controversy as he was given to placing lengthy critical sections into just about every article he worked on. I mostly stayed out of it, being new and aware of sensitivities regarding COI; the current section is the result of numerous editors working on fixing the worst of his efforts. To redress the remaining problems really requires some good research. Unfortunately, little of what is needed is available online, and having had first-hand access to primary sources, I never developed much familiarity with the secondary ones that Wikipedia prefers. Twenty years ago, I would have had the data at hand (although probably not releasable). I do recall that some articles were published in the journals of the AIAA and possibly the Society of Automotive Engineers; there were likely to have been NASA publications as well and AW&ST is likely to be a good source. Askari Mark (Talk) 23:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Bwebb: ".... adding entire sections of criticisms because they do not conform to the US (or whatever other) standard. In a reverse way, that is sort of what you are doing", Um, my first contribution to this article was on 11 December 2007, at which time the "zero effect" claim, along with most other criticisms, was already there. I want to debate the issues, pros and cons alike, not "add entire sections of criticisms". Thanks. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 12:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Wittlessgenstein. You discussed here as if you supported all of the (poorly sourced) criticisms ... I acted as if it was your opinion. Did not intend to accuse you. Once again, I will say this for the Wiki as a whole -- it takes more than Quips off of the Internet to make a case and a claim worth writing a paragraph about (Encyclopedia Quality). If the critics here want to write on a given article, they should have substantial knowledge of THAT subject. Often, editors do not, and just show up to criticize. I will write yet another example on this later tonight. Thank you again. Bwebb00 (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

A design objective, and MAJOR goal during the development of the F-16; defeat “ MiG-21-like” fighters in maneuverability – by 20 percent (I think the number was 20 percent). Keep that turn advantage. A high priority design aspect, because of the MiG-21’s ability to out-turn almost everything the US had during the 1960's-1970's … until the US developed tactics to help defeat the turn circle advantage, the MiG was a bit of an advantage (even though the MiG-21 did not have sufficient thrust to back it up…). This concept alone is more the driving factor than any of the ulterior motives to rig the seat into the fuselage for some mechanical engineering hokum. Although some prefer to believe the latter anyway, sort of a conspiracy thing if you will. ("there has to be some other reason....") Poorly sourced and incorrect "conspiracy edits" ruin articles. Bwebb00 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Your apologies wholly accepted Bwebb00. What AskariMark says above also makes a lot of sense. It seems that by focusing on a design concept for F-16 where high-g was needed to beat the MiG-19 in turn advantage lead to a certain aerodynamic design (i.e. "cut metal"), leading to a reclined seat concept, leading in turn to a cockpit design with side stick as a necessity. With jets like Eurofighter, however, designed from the start to be swing role, and not just to beat another jet-type in air combat, the pilot's "information processing needs" were seen as the overriding design factor, not any particular aerodynamic profile..... My overall point = side stick (and reclined seat) is not wrong, it just isn't necessatrily the best solution for every (future) jet. Am still hunting for that ref on the certrifuge testing I mentioned, which I think came out of Edwards AFB and compared different angles of seat. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Wittlessgenstein, Mig-21 (not MiG-19). The F-16 design, and Boyd's mindset was to cutoff the chance that the next Russian "MiG-21 follow on" (or whoever) would have handled even better, turned the same, and had a potent engine to go with it. And, yes, the F-16 as a concept was designed as a lightweight point defense fighter, and a counter to the same (as evidenced in the 2 YF-16's). It was later converted into the “Multirole Fighter” during the flyoff competition days (Mid-Late 1970’s) by Air Force requirement which added and improved bombing capabilities, then “Jack-of-all-trades” came later in life (SEAD, DEAD and Recon, so-on). So, you’re correct; multirole was an added agenda. BUT as the F-16's service record proves, and as hundreds of F-16 pilots will tell you, the "Air to Air", “dogfight”, “Advanced Day Fighter” original design did not compromise the later role performance of the aircraft, certainly not in anything similar to the critisims that people wrote into this article. Bwebb00 (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the Eurofighter was itself originally designed to be an air superiority-specialized aircraft as well – hence its superb maneuver performance. It was the Brits who pressed most intensely for multirole and who have continued to press for more A/G capability sooner in the tranches. It's worth noting that the USAF's last two aircraft originally intended to be designed with "not a pound for air-to-ground" – the F-15 and F-22 – have both ended up with such capabilities, even if only for political expediency. It's simply too hard to justify to the bill-payers the extreme costs of such a bird for only a single role. The F-16 was designed to be air-superiority, but pressed into a primary A/G role so as not to threaten the F-15 program (the plane the USAF really wanted); in the end, it proved admirably capable of both, so the rest of the Eurofighter member countries may one day come to better appreciate the Brits' picking up on the inevitable trend so early. ;-) Askari Mark (Talk) 01:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Askari Mark (or, is it just Mark?) Thank you for all of your inputs here. I thought I was Eccentric in my old age, or just losing it! Yes, it is great that the EF-Typhoon guys are making the A-G integration a big deal now, funding and all of the work. When the F-15E initially showed up, it could not drop an accurate bomb to save itself (even LGB’s were compromised during Desert Storm, partly because the F-15’s old Central Computer or the folly of A-A only original “architecture”.) But those issues were eventually worked out. It just took awhile. I have tried to start a couple of minor edits to the Cockpit and Ergo nightmare. I will explain all of that later on. Thanks Again. Bwebb00 (talk) 02:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Reclined Seat

The paper I was thinking of was "Effect of Modified Seat Angle on Air to Air Weapon System Performance Under High Acceleration" by Rogers et al, at ARL, Wright Pattersion AFB, July 1973. This showed that the steeper the seat angle, the better things were in terms of heart rate and on a tracking performance task. But only at 7g and 8g - at 6g and below there was no significant advantage. Trouble is he only compared back angles of 30, 45, 55 and 65 - so we can't judge how much better 30 degrees was compared to zero or to a normal angle of say 12. Will try and dig out some more refs, but other contributions gratefully received. Ideally we'd like one that proved categorically that the advantage of 30 degrees over 12 was measurable, wouldn't we? Maybe the whole issue of seat angle is worth its own article, or at least a sub-section in cockpit or ejection seat? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to comment on this tomorrow, Bwebb00 (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Take as long as you like - after 35 years, a few more days won't make a lot of difference! Wittlessgenstein (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Deep Stall?

Deep Stall is also a paragraph completely warped out of context from reality, and out of context from it's own NASA reference [[6]]

Example: “…unpredictable and difficult stall behavior. When the aircraft stalls, it will not tend to assume a nose-down attitude…"

The F-16 normally nearly always auto-recovers itself in a deep upright stall. The airplane extremely rarely (or NEVER) tail slides, or enters a tail-stall orientation as claimed in the paragraph. The jet has stall performance at least as good as anything else from the 1980's-1990's. "Pitch Rocking" is not normally necessary (like the paragraph says) but isn't difficult to do either (same goes for stall-recovering other airplanes). The NASA involvement in the issue was a developmental one, and one which helped change parameters in the Flight Control Computer (and later , in the DFLCC). This problem was worked through in the early days of the F-16. There is also a Manual Pitch Override (MPO) switch on the left forward console .. it has been there since Block 1. The MPO switch allows the pilot to “super-deflect” the Horizontal Stabilizers (increased pitch authority) to help he (or she) out of such stall situations. But the MPO switch is rarely (almost never) used because pilots simply let the jet auto recover (FLCS pointing the nose back towards the ground automatically for the pilot) or pitch the stick a little. That whole paragraph should be deleted, or wholly and completely rewritten then moved to a design – experimental F-16 page ….. “YF-16” , or just delete ! It is not correct ! Bwebb00 (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Another hack job by someone who didn't know enough to understand his sources – or notice that his source even stated the problem was "cured" and not a continuing "menace" to this very day. The FCS was detented to prevent it. The spin parachute was useful (and standard equipment) for test aircraft, but has never been needed in a production aircraft. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Askari Mark, I am motioning that we delete the entire paragraph, on grounds it is not factual, rather a drastic misquote. It is impossible to make anything good of it, anything useful would go into Fly-by-Wire or Negative static stability. I am suggesting that we delete it in a week -- Monday, 5MAY08. Unless there is some earth-shattering new discovery (if not sooner?) You are correct. GD, the AF and all customers implemented the changes into Time Compliance Technical Order, a modification which simply retrofit-swapped the Flight Control Computer, with one with the new pitch recovery characteristics programmed in. That was a long time ago though. Like 1982 or something. Non-Issue. Bwebb00 (talk) 02:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like they altered the design to alleviate this issue per the NASA/Langley reference. Therefore, it should be in the Development section and be much shorter. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Fnlayson, do you really think that this article should drag through every quirk the airplane has grown out of? We will be writing stories into this article ( and others?) on a plethora of avionic, system and design disorders forever. The F-16 is 30 years old. This is why individuals go to the Library – and read issues (and back issues) of Aviation Week and Space Technology, such research is NOT why they come to an Encyclopedia. We would write this article into more than 40 printed pages (imagine the B-52 article, or the C-130 …. 50 years old – all of the stuff you could / would? dig through). Example: the F-16’s radar receiver (MLPRF) accumulating tons of water from the air conditioner (ECS) system. So that the PCB’s / boards are swimming in water, and the radar is trashed - often, Regularly. That is alllll old hat. The F-16 folks have worked through that with changes to the receiver and changes to the ECS’ water removal abilities. Together, engineering efforts eliminated the issue. It would be completely inappropriate (a disaster) to include that stuff in an Encyclopedia (unless writers have an agenda to discredit the airplane). All airplanes go through such issues -- relevant to keep it, if the team never fixes it. Inappropriate to keep it if it has been fixed. F-16 “Journal” or book, yes. Encyclopedia -- no. Bwebb00 (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My main point is that it is not an issue now and therefore is out of place in the Design section. One sentence would cover it like: "During flight testing horizontal stabilizer area was increased 25% to remove the possibility of a deep stall issue." Wikiapedia is better suited to cover details than a lot of articles, but not to the level of a book. Others can decide if this is too minor to mention. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize, I did ask for your comment by the way I previously phrased. This could be a possible add. But the way "Deep Stall" is writen now ... the whole section is Bogus. Bwebb00 (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. We're discussed this one more than enough. I made change I mentioned above. Edit/adjust as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

VISTA

The VISTA thrust vectoring technology can be fitted to the series-produced F-16 Block 60 in very short time, but the USA won't give the kits to the emir until another country introduces thrust vectoring tech into the theatre, like Iran buying Sukhoi-35 or MiG-29OVT fighters. 82.131.210.162 15:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that there is currently no separate article for F-16 VISTA, which was not only risky and ahead of it's time but also prepared the ground for F-35 STOVL, and included trialling of both a virtual HUD and Direct Voice Input. I would strongly recommmend that a stand-alone page be created for VISTA. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be a stand-alone, but there should be a reference to it on the F-16 page with a link leading to the VISTA page. Highonhendrix (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, yeah, we generally do that when we split off a section to it's own page, but thanks for the reminder, as we don't no who'll do the splitting. I'll take a look at what we have here and at the sources available, and see if there's enough info to justify a good (though probably short)article, not just a stub with an over-detailed section on the cockpit and avionics. - BillCJ (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I TOTALLY apologize, Hendrix. The user who posted before you created the F-16 VISTA page in January 2008, but never bothered to post links here. I didn't realize I needed to check up after him, but I should have done it anyway. Sorry I laid off on the job! I'm on my way to add the links now. And thanks again! - BillCJ (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hendrix, the user who posted before you thought it would be better to have something rather than nothing, didn't realise anyone would bother to "check up after him" and hadn't realised how many links would be thought necessary. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Israel and Carcinogens

Why isn't this mentioned in the article? Here's one link with the information. I've read elsewhere that the planes aren't grounded anymore, but this event should be mentioned. http://www.f-16.net/news_article2791.html This link is more recent: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairfo/articles/20080501.aspx Gbuch (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is not a magazine nor a Weblog ( F-16.net is).Bwebb00 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

But "Notable Incidents" are usually mentioned in Wikipedia articles. Gbuch (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/incident
1. An event or occurrence
2. A relatively minor event that is incidental to, or related to others
3. An event that causes an interruption or a crisis
Gbuch (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Great, but the general definition does not help. The Incidents section in aircraft articles is covered by WP:Aircraft, which limits the section to what I described. See WP:Air/PC for that. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Normal Seat Recline is 13 Degrees???

Another area in the "Cockpit and Ergonomics" section which is erroneous and incorrect is the following statement; "The seat is reclined 30 degrees (the seats of other military fast jets are typically reclined only by around 13 degrees)”. This claim is totally incorrect, unless the F-16 is either held to the antique F-4 Phantom standard, or some standard of other design. The F-22 and F-35 have seats tilted at approx 20 degrees [7] (see F-16 in ACES II). Seat tilt exceeding 15 degrees is a new trend in US fighter cockpit design. The F-16, F-22 and F-35 are US designs and do not bear the necessity of justifying design as phrased in the paragraph. Likewise, no one should go to the articles of other aircraft (Dassault Mirage, MiG, whatever) and criticize the old upright ejection seat angles (12 or 15 degrees) because they are not tilted back like US Fighters are. If this trivia is to be drawn out, it should be on some new article on “Modern Fighter Aircraft Cockpit Design / cockpit ergonomics” OR in one titled “Ejection Seats”. Not as the weak criticism as it is on this page. For the US fighter designers, more aggressive seat tilt angles proved to be the state of the art, not a design liability. The F-16 went overboard with the 30 degree for good reasons, and to good effect. The increase in tilt was a bit of a breakthrough, which the next two "High-G" US Fighter designs would take advantage of (albeit at 20 degrees a little less angle than the F-16) they arrived at the engineering basis for the F-22 and the F-35 from the F-16. AND, via Pilot Inputs into the newer aircraft designs). Bwebb00 (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, both erroneous and incorrect! Hmmm, so is this topic important or is it "trivia"? I suppose to justify "typicality" we'd need to look at ALL in-service fast jets, across ALL countries, and count ALL fleet numbers and then calculate an arithmetic mean. Just the sort of detail suitable for a sub-section in Ejection seat? And seat angles are factual things, whether or not there is the military science to prove they have benefit. But in the mean time, if you believe it's incorrect I'd suggest you correct it to something less contentious. I still don't think, though, that there is a conspiarcy of hate against the F-16 cockpit. Just some guesswork and/or misinformation perhaps? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Bwebb00, your edit seems quite fair, although I have re-included the neck-ache ref as that too seems perfectly fair. Shouldn't the rationale for using the 30 degrees be included somewhere? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

F-16C MLU cockpit Photo

This photo needs to be replaced. If anyone has a better, clearer photo of an actual F-16 cockpit (prefer the block 40/42/50/52 type for currency and commonality with the most recent delivered of the F-16 type). Also, reason to replace it; It is a picture of a ground trainer. Many of the gages / indicators are painted on, and no rudder pedals, etc. Or , I will find a better picture. Bwebb00 (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The caption should probably be adjusted until it is replaced by an aircraft cockpit image. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Operational history cleanup

I've just reorganized and generally cleaned up the 'Operational history' section. I've mostly focused on introducing a more topical structure, wordsmithing, correcting mistakes, filling out citations (and making sure text matched source info – which it didn't in a few cases), removing POV, and adding some missing source citations where needed. I didn't add much in the way of new material. I think the section still needs further development. More complete loss and kill data, more robust treatment of non-USAF participation in NATO and other multinational forces, etc. I took out the combat operations header as there doesn't seem to be any development of non-military "operational history", most of which is touched on under the Variants and Operators sections. I also moved the Sales proposals to the end of the Operators section as it seems a better fit. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Subsection ordering in the "Technology demonstrators and other variants" section

Noting that the "Main production variants" section is by default in chronological order (or was, until I began moving a few things around), should entries in the "Technology demonstrators and other variants" section be arranged in chronological or alphanumeric order? Anyone have a preference? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I lean to chrono order, but a numerical/designation order makes sense too.
If possible see if you can put the historical variant info in the Development section and the basic variant description in the variant section. That helps improve readability, I think. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
That's my eventual intent, but I'm working backwards as I have time. I don't want to disrupt the main sections with material that overweights the variants. Integrating the material as you recommend is going to require some restructuring. Askari Mark (Talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan purchase

In the "Current sales proposals" I have removed the bit about the sale being controversial in Taiwan and having opposition from the KMT. That is quite untrue as the KMT has backed the purchase, as does the new KMT president. So I have modified it to simply say that Beijing opposes the sale - as it always does when Taiwan wants to buy military-related equipment. John Smith's (talk) 10:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


March 2008 crash

This crash and death was unfortunate.[8][9] However, over the span of the F-16's 25+ year service, this not seem notable or significant to the aircraft. Unless there's something critical that arises from the investigation, I think it should be removed. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Support Fnlaysons removal suggestion, sad but not notable or signficant. MilborneOne (talk) 20:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)\
Support removal. Not more notable than other losses. ComputerGeezer (talk) 19:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Very sad ordeal. Accident investigation will release a finding soon. Just my opinion, but my thoughts on the matter are that the March 2008 loss of the Luke AFB F-16C (62FS) and the student pilot might be that it was GLOC. Bwebb00 (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

GLOC seeems to be a potential problem with many fast jets, regardless of design and/of degree of g-protection supposedly offerred. A very sad occurrence. It is ironic that a rare accident may seem more notable because of a previously very good safety record. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I've just added a couple of notable incidents to that section. Does anyone have any heartburn with my removing the March 2008 report? While tragic, it is non-notable from an encyclopedic perspective unless we're going to list every loss (which, if we ever decide to do so, does not belong in this article). Askari Mark (Talk) 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Operators section clean-up needed

I have to say that the Operators section of this article is rather ugly-looking. (The map also needs some serious reworking to remove a POV issue and remove irrelevant information, but more on that later.) Since we have a separate article listing F-16 operators, can we transfer some of the fleet holding info to that list – and maybe just have a short section that lists operators in order of receipt – or perhaps reorganize it into a table? Any ideas? Askari Mark (Talk) 00:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer just a straight list of the nations (alphabetically) and forces using the F-16, with all other user info in the Operators article. Also, it would probably be good to take "List of" out of the name, as we've done on the F-4 oeprators page. If it gets to be a HUGE article, we can split it into US and Non-US peropartors, also liek the F-4. - BillCJ (talk) 01:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree with BillCJ in other articles with a separate operators article just a simple list of countries and sometimes operators (depending on size of list) is left behind. Also agree with renaming as it is more than just a list. MilborneOne (talk) 20:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
One idea I had was simply to shorten it to a form of "X operators in Y countries have acquired the F-16: ..." and then list them (horizontally, not vertically) in alphabetical order or in acquisition sequence. The latter is information not currently addressed in either article. The flags in the main article I'd just as soon dispense with, but someone will want them, so I suppose we should consider migrating them to the list. (P.S.: Take a look at the table I added last night and see what you think.) Askari Mark (Talk) 21:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The tables look ok although I am not sure that all the block number info in F-16 deliveries by block and customer are particularly notable but the delivery and customer stuff is OK. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yea, for this article an alphabetical list in multiple columns like at UH-1 Iroquois#Operators would be fine with the separate Operators article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the Huey approach! I think we should aim toward that and migrate the data to the List of F-16 Fighting Falcon operators article. I'm not fond of the "F-16 deliveries by block and customer" table either, but someone put a lot of work into it and since I'm not focusing on that article at this time, I decided just to make it look better. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Missing stuff?

What can I say about this article... Mig-23 shooting down F-16 is not mentioned, nor is the terrible accidents rate of F-16, which actually has WORST accidents record among ALL single engine jets. Why is this not mentioned in this article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.46.37 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody can add the information to the article if you have a verifiable and a reliable source for the facts and not information based on original research. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comic Book Designer accidentally draws the F-16 before actual releasing

I was in art class the other day, and was talking about fighter planes. He said that a comic book designer, somehow drew an exact drawing of the F-16 about some time before it was officially put into action. He had no relations to the government. Oh, and speaking of the government, these two guys from an agency, FBI or CIA, came to his house and actually interrogated the man on why and how he got the design. Anyone here that story before?--Colonel Valh ala-112 23:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't say that I recall ever hearing that before. The visit by the guys in suits seems unlikely and the kind of thing that would make me want to check Snopes. There were pictures of it out well before the F-16 entered service. It wasn't a "black program", after all. The likelihood of getting it "exactly right" before there were any photos or drawings released is highly unlikely. Jane's and others have had expert aerospace artists trying to figure out Soviet and other aircraft before such information became available, and they've rarely come all that close to the actual airplane. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The artist could have based the drawings on the YF-16, or earlier concepts. These were well before the F-16 entered operational service. Also, a drawing in a comic could appear identical depending on angle and drawing detail. The rest sounds like fiction. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like a retelling of this story: [[10]] - the code words in the cross word. Buckshot06(prof) 02:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Some cleanup in operational history

I just went through Operational History and removed the jets' wing numbers, squadron numbers, pilot names, and serial numbers (!). Although interesting to people who are in the US military and to US military historians, to the other 99% this is unnecessary trivia - this is an encyclopedia article that's supposed to summarize. I also removed date links - with the very large number of wikilinked terms in this article, it's a good thing to try and reduce the number of unhelpful and unnecessary wikilinks. Tempshill (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree on the date links as those are functional. They permit the user to view them according the date format they are most comfortable with (dd/mm/yy, mm/dd,yy, etc.); see MOSDATE Askari Mark (Talk) 17:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, you're right. Unfortunately this also makes it harder to read the text. I started floating a proposal at WP:VP to make the date links invisible in the text, so autoformatting can still occur without cluttering. Tempshill (talk) 16:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Tempshill; What is so distracting and unreadable about any of this? Why dont you try discussing here before any of your mass deletions (which is what it sounds like you did , according to your post here). Bwebb00 (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Next phase considerations

Okay, I’ve rewritten and added a lot of material, so it’s time for fresh eyes, especially since it’s grown quite long and I’m at the point where reshaping of the article needs to begin. (BTW, I’ll be on a wikibreak from the 27th through at least July 6th). Here are some issues to chew over.

1) Are there topics (or subtopics) that you feel need to be covered yet are not? Contrariwise, are there some that you feel could be cut without detriment to the article?

2) There is a lot of information on variants – because there have been a lot of them. There are several options on how to proceed: a) much of this info can be worked into the “Evolution” section with the Main production variant section entries reduced to not much more than quantities and delivery date range; b) all of the Main production variant section entries can be worked into “Evolution” and the material removed from the Variants section; c) all of the variants can be moved to a separate article, with minimalist entries in this article; or d) whatever good idea you may have.

3) Do we really need a Current sales proposals section (or a renamed section that appropriately also covers the old unsuccessful ones presently included)? Some of this is real crystal ball stuff.

4) Should we update the Specs to the Block 50/52, a more relevant model?

5) Other considerations?

Askari Mark (Talk) 04:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Images needed

We need a better selection of pictures. Here’s a list of some of the images I’d like to see added:

  • A good, clear image of the strake/blended wingroot.
  • Both radars.
  • Both engines.
  • YF-16. (An additional image of the pranged crashed #2 would be primo!)
  • We have a lot of F-16C photos, but only a couple A’s and no B’s.
  • Cockpit shots of the pre-MLU A/B (we have an MLU), the latest Block 50/52, and the Block 60; it would be especially nice if they permitted side-by-side comparison to show the evolution over time.
  • Need images of more of the variants, particularly those that flew. (Especially F-16XL & AFTI.)
  • Need one for each of the derivatives – preferably which shows off their F-16 heritage well.

I know some of these are available on WP.en and Commons, but some will be much harder to come by. I haven’t had the chance to browse, and frankly, I’d prefer to leave image-mongering to those who have a little better facility with them.

Askari Mark (Talk) 04:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it means "crashed". Askari Mark (Talk) 14:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Block 70 ?

Hafe you more infos about this Version Block 70 ? i see lest time in the newspaper a news about india well buy F-16 BLOCK 70... so, wher hafe her infos about F-16 Block 70 ?

There is no "Block 70" as of this time; it's a made-up guess. The version LM has proposed to India is currently designated "F-16IN". Askari Mark (Talk) 01:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon/Archive_2&oldid=1136756069"