LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteI heard this was intended as a naval fighter; compared to the F-16 it has longer range and a higher payload, at the cost of inferior aerodynamics.
Guys, still waiting on a reply from my friend, but I dimly recall that the F.2 is actually longer in fuselage length and indeed has a larger wing than your traditional F-16 and was actually based on the Agile Falcon concept from the early 90`s. The pictures you guys posted do show differences, stuff on the web states the F.2 can turn circles inside the F-16 but I would rather wait for my reply before I go with that.
Cheers.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
I heard this was intended as a naval fighter; compared to the F-16 it has longer range and a higher payload, at the cost of inferior aerodynamics.
With that modified wing and control surfaces, I wouldn't be surprised.Originally Posted by Tin Man
Would make sense given the JSDF's requirement to defend the country's maritime transport and communications lines.
"I have this to say to the people of Australia: Kick me, I'm different."
Hey guys, good evening to you all. I got a brief reply from an engineer who worked on the F.2 until 2001.
Spoonman, my friend who was involved with flight testing says that the wing design DID reflect JASDF needs, as you stated.
He wasn`t sure about the Agile Falcon link though as he joined the flight test effort half way through and left before testing finished. He left when testing the bird had reached speeds of 600 kts, as many of you know, test programs gradually push speeds up in increments. Although he was surprised it wasn`t flying above those speeds at that point in the development. He wasn`t told why but suspected cost issues and possible flutter problems.
The wing is a very complex structure. The lower skin and the spars and ribs are a unified composite layup. They are compressed and heated to become a bonded one piece part. The upper skin is bonded into a conventional composite part, then bolted to the lower skin/spar/rib part. This means no fasteners in the lower skin, a major concern around fuel leaks.
They did have problems with this structure, which he didn`t go into and were forced to make redesigns and add fasteners. A pylon redesign was also required because of vibration problems. The issues were fixed.
The local guys, although very talented, were not very receptive to "outside" help. I don`t know whether this was the "losing face" attitude or just ego that people maintain when its "our baby", I have seen this in lots of places in my time.
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.
Interesting how they took the relatively clean bubble canopy of the F-16 and managed to ruin it with not one but two canopy bows.
Problems with flutter do not surprise me. Once again, it demonstrates that the engineering and construction of a first-rate fighter is a very advanced undertaking by a nation. I suspect they will work the kinks out, and depending upon the thrust, it should perform well.
Maneuverability is nice, but it definitely isn't the ultimate goal, IMO. Well-designed, integrated avionics and radar performance are critical.
“the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson
From memory they aren't used in the Fighter role anyway, but rather they are used for maritime strike.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: