General Dynamics F - 16A Fighting Falcon
Nation: | USA | ||||||||
Manufacturer: | General Dynamics Corp, Lockheed Martin | ||||||||
Type: | multirole class A fighter | ||||||||
Year: | Winner of competention February 1972
Firts prototype started 13th December 1973 Second prototype YF-16 started 9th May 1974 Until January 1975, 11 F-16A, 4 F-16B Officially chosen 7th June 1975 First definitive model F-16A flown 8th Decemder 1976 First definitive model F-16B flown 8th August 1977 |
||||||||
ENGINE | F-16A/B: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200.
F-16A/B: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-220E. F-16C/D: one Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-200/220/229 or General Electric F110-GE-100/129 Thrust: F-16A/B, 23,830 pounds(10,794 kilograms) F-16A/B MLU, 23770 pounds (10,767 kilograms) F-16C/D, 27,000 pounds(12,150 kilograms) |
||||||||
|
|||||||||
Wingspan: | |||||||||
Lenght: | |||||||||
Height: | |||||||||
Weight: | 33,000 lb (14,968 kg) /loaded/ | ||||||||
Maximum takeoff weight: | 37,500 pounds (16,875 kilograms) | ||||||||
Maximum speed: | 1,319 mph (2,123km/h) at 39,370 ft (12,000 m) | ||||||||
Ceiling: | 50,000 ft (15,420 m) | ||||||||
Range: | 575 miles (925 km) | ||||||||
Maximum range: | 1260 miles (2027km) | ||||||||
Crew: | version A, C: 1; B, D: 2 or 1 | ||||||||
Armament: | General Electric M61A1 20mm six-barrel cannon and two wingtip Side winder or Sparrow air-to-air missiles; nine additional hardpoints capable of carrying up to 15,200 lbs . |
The General Dynamics Fighting
Falcon is considered by many to be the most agile modern fighter.
Less than half the weight of the F-14, it
carries a larger payload; less than one-fourth the cost of the F-15, it
has superior maneuverability. In addition, advanced avionics and electronics
give it excellent air-to-ground precision. The F-16 can deliver a crippling
ground strike and still maintain a credible air threat.
The Fighting Falcon forms the backdone of the USAF with 1,985 in service US tail code marking . The F-16 also serves in the air forces of Egypt (80), Israel (150), Pakistan (40), Denmark (58), Belgium (160), South Korea (36), Norway (72), Venezuela (24), Netherlands (213), Korea (36), Turkey (152). |
The development of the Pratt & Whitney
F100 turbofan began in August of 1968 when the USAF awarded contracts to
both P & W and General Electric for the development of engines to be
used in the projected F-X fighter, which was later to emerge as the F-15
Eagle.
The F100 engine was first tried in service with the F-15 Eagle. The Air Force had hoped that the F100 engine would be a mature and reliable powerplant by the time that the F-16 was ready to enter service. However, there were a protracted series of teething troubles with the F100 powerplants of the F-15, compounded by labor problems at two of the major subcontractors. Initially, the Air Force had grossly underestimated the number of engine powercycles per sortie, since they had not realized how much the F-15 Eagle's maneuvering capabilities would result in abrupt changes in throttle setting. This caused unexpectedly high wear and tear on the engine, resulting in frequent failures of key engine components such as first-stage turbine blades. Most of these problems could be corrected by more careful maintenance and closer attention to quality control during manufacturing of engine components. Nevertheless, by the end of 1979, the Air Force was being forced to accept engineless F-15 airframes until the problems could be cleared up. However, the most serious problem with the F100 in the F-15 was with stagnation stalling. Since the compressor blades of a jet engine are airfoil sections, they can stall if the angle at which the airflow strikes them exceeds a critical value, cutting off airflow into the combustion chamber which results in a sudden loss of thrust. Such an event is called a stagnation stall. Stagnation stalls most often occurred during high angle-of-attack maneuvers, and they usually resulted in abrupt interruptions of the flow of air through the compressor. This caused the engine core to lose speed, and the turbine to overheat. If this condition was not quickly corrected, damage to the turbine could take place or a fire could occur. Some stagnation stalls were caused by "hard" afterburner starts, which were mini-explosions that took place inside the afterburner when it was lit up. These could be caused either by the afterburner failing to light up when commanded to do so by the pilot or by the afterburner actually going out. In either case, large amounts of unburnt fuel got sprayed into the aft end of the jetpipe, which were explosively ignited by the hot gases coming from the engine core. The pressure wave from the explosion then propagated forward through the duct to the fan, causing the fan to stall and sometimes even causing the forward compressor stage to stall as well. These types of stagnation stalls usually occurred at high altitudes and at high Mach numbers. Normal recovery technique from stagnation stalls was for the pilot to shut the engine down and allow it to spool down. A restart attempt could be made as soon as the turbine temperature dropped to an acceptable level. When it first flew, the YF-16 seemed to be almost free of the stagnation stall problems which had bedeviled the F-15. However, while flying with an early model of the F100 engine, one of the YF-16s did experience a stagnation stall, although it occurred outside the normal performance envelope of the aircraft. Three other incidents later occurred, all of them at high angles of attack during low speed flights at high altitude. The first such incident in a production F-16 occurred with a Belgian aircraft flying near the limits of its performance envelope. Fortunately, the pilot was able to get his engine restarted and land safely. The F-16 was fitted with a jet-fuel starter, and from a height of 35,000 feet the pilot would have enought time to attempt at least three unassisted starts using ram air. When the F100 engine control system was originally designed, Pratt & Whitney engineers had allowed for the possibility that the ingestion of missile exhaust might stall the engine. A "rocket-fire" facility was designed into the controls to prevent this from happening. When missiles were fired, an electronic signal was sent to the unified fuel control system which supplied fuel to the engine core and to the afterburner. This signal commanded the angle of the variable stator blades in the engine to be altered to avoid a stall, while the fuel flow to the engine was momentarily reduced and the afterburner exhaust was increased in area to reduce the magnitude of any pressure pulse in the afterburner. Tests had shown that this "rocket-fire" facility was not needed for its primary purpose of preventing missile exhaust stalls, but it turned out to be handy in preventing stagnation stalls. Engine shaft speed, turbine temperature, and the angle of the compressor stator blades are continuously monitored by a digital electronic engine control unit which fine-tunes the engine throughout flight to ensure optimal performance. By monitoring and comparing spool speeds and fan exhaust temperature, the unit is able to sense that a stagnation stall is about to occur and send a dummy "rocket-fire" signal to the fuel control system to initiate the anti-stall measures described above. At the same time, the fuel control system reduces the afterburner setting to help reduce the pressure within the jetpipe. The afterburner-induced stalls were addressed by a different mechanism. In an attempt to prevent pulses from coming forward through the fan duct, a "proximate splitter" was developed. This is a forward extension of the internal casing which splits the incoming air from the compressor fan and passes some of this air into the core and diverts the rest down the fan duct and into the afterburner. By closing the the gap between the front end of this casing and the rear of the fan to just under half an inch, the designers reduced the size of the path by which high-pressure pulses from the burner had been reaching the core. Engines fitted with the proximate splitter were tested in the F-15, but this feature was not introduced on the F-15 production line, since the loss of a single engine was less hazardous in a twin-engined aircraft like the Eagle. However, this feature was adopted for the single-engined F-16. These engine fixes produced a dramatic improvement in reliability. Engines fitted to the F-16 fleet (and incorporating the proximate splitter) had only 0.15 stagnation stalls per 1000 hours of flying time, much better than the F-15 fleet. In recent years, the USAF became interested in acquiring an alternative engine for the F-16, partly in a desire to set up a competitive process between rival manufacturers in an attempt to keep costs down, as well as to develop a second source of engines in case one of the suppliers ran into problems. In search of a source for an alternate engine for the F-16 and for the Navy's F-14 Tomcat, in 1984 the Department of Defense awarded General Electric a contract to build a small number of F101 Derivative Fighter Engines (DFE) for flight test. The DFE was based on the F101 used in the B-1 but incorporated components derived from the F404 engine used in the F/A-18. The Navy decided to adopt the DFE as a replacement for the Tomcat's TF30 turbofan, but the USAF announced that they were going to split future engine purchases between Pratt & Whitney and General Electric. GE was given a contract for full-scale development of its new engine, which was to be designated F110.
All F110s ordered by the USAF were for the F-16 fleet,
with the F-15 retaining the F100. The choice of engines for the Fighting
Falcon began with the Fiscal Year 1985 Block 30 F-16C/Ds. About 75 percent
of the F-16s purchased from that time on by the USAF were powered by the
GE engine, with the remainder being powered by the P & W engine. However,
it is not intended that individual units operate with F-16s powered by
two different engine types, since that would create a spare parts and logistics
nightmare. The choice of engines for the F-16 is made at the Wing level.
In an attempt to make the F100 more competitive with the General Electric F110, Pratt & Whitney introduced the more powerful F100-PW-229 version in the early 1990s. This engine is rated at 29,100 pounds of thrust with full afterburner. It has a higher fan airflow and pressure ratio, a higher-airflow compressor with an extra stage, a new float-wall combustor, higher turbine temperatures, and a redesigned afterburner. It has about 22 percent more thrust than previous F100 models. The first F-16s powered by the -229 engines began to be delivered in 1992. However, the degree of mechanical changes introduced in the -229 make it impractical to rebuild -200 or -220E engines to -229 standards. On the export market, the higher thrust of the F110 made it the engine of choice through the mid to late 1980s. The more powerful F100-PW-229 finally gave P&W the chance of re-entering the export market. In 1991, South Korea chose the F100-PW-229 for its license-built F-16s, maintaining engine commonality with F-16Cs and Ds that were purchased earlier from the USA. The F100-PW-200+ is intended for foreign air forces which operate significant numbers of F-16s that are powered by -200 and -220E engines, but which are denied access to the more powerful -229. It combines the core of the -220 with the fan, nozzle, and digital control system of the -229. It develops around 27,000 pounds of thrust with afterburning. |
![]() Cockpit of F16C |
![]() Cockpit of F16A |