Talk:General Dynamics F-16XL

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reasons for losing the ETF competition?[edit]

This should be clarified. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct it should be clarified. Some reasons why the F-16XL lost the competition:

1) The F-15E is basically a F-15B/D two-seater trainer modified to the ground attack F-15E. It doesn't cost that much more to change the backseat instrument panel and flight controls for a trainer already in use into the ground attack F-15E.

2) The F-16XL is very different from a basic F-16. It is so different it could have been given a new designation, i.e. F-19. It's like comparing the F-102 to the F-106. It would have cost a lot more to build the F-16XL than the standard F-16s.

3) The F-15E has two engines. A second engine means more power, more speed, and is a backup in case the first one fails. The Navy (which operates over water) prefers two engines instead of one.

4) The F-15E has a second crew person to operate the weapons systems. The F-16XL has one person to fly the plane and operate the weapons system. More workload and stress on that person.

5) The Air Force feels the F-15 as a better fighter aircraft than the F-16. The F-16 is sometimes looked as the less expensive alternative to the F-15.

The Air Force got it correct when they selected the F-15E over the F-16XL.204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk[reply]

That is a nice list (and probably hits some of the high points), but anything added to the article would need to be verifiable... does anyone have those sources? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you allow me, my xx years of interest about US fighters tell me two things: one- the F-20 is a great big loss for many, many minor airforces, leaving the field to the omnicomprensive F-16; OTOH, the F-16XL was another missed occasion. The F-20 would had been a real alternative both to ruin the airforce's finances with a too costly F-16s, and to modernize the aging F-5E/Fs. The F-16XL, OTOH, could had been a very excellent alternative to the F-15E; the basic error is to consider only in a US POV this issue; nowadays a lot of airforces use F-16s with dorsal ugly aux tanks, only to have the same, basic capabilities of a F-16XL/E-F. The F-16XLs had more than 7,000 lts fuel, almost doubling the basic model; so it was almost on pair with F-15 as range, and without ANY external fuel tank; F-16XL was basically a stealth project, with a small RCS, that F-15Es was (surely) not; F-16s had a growth potentially, with a powerful engine such as the F-110-GE-129, and could cruise (with this engine) even supersonic (what F-15E was not); F-16XL, at the end, costed far, far less than F-15E, and it was an ideal complementary of normal F-16s. Nowadays, instead, airforces tries to extend the F-16s radius with ugly and oversized auxiliary tanks (F16I); this would been not the case with the F-16XL/E or F. Basically, F-16C/D is overstrechted, it has too small wings (see EF-2000), and too small fuel tanks. USAF did the best thing to select the F-15E, and the F-16ADF (maybe) too; but, in the rest-of world- POV, this was a catastrophe, because no F-15 and F-16 could replace really stuff like F-15 or Camberra; too costly or too short range. This is why F-20 is 'reborn' in Taiwan and Korea (Ok, IDF and T-50), the concept was basically OK, if only the lobbying made in Texas would not kill it, and if only USAF did not kill F-16XL. There must be place for all: instead to have 4.000+ F-16s, we could have 4.000+ F-16, F-16XL and F-20, and all we would be more happy. But you know, this was an 'ideal world' (see also YF-23, basically a real 'future' aicraft, killed by F-22 that, time and time, became almost equal to it, but it was made by GD-Lockheed Martin..). --Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, as F-16.net notes: The configuration had matured into a very competent fighter with a large wing that allowed low-drag integration of large numbers of external weapons.

John G. Williams, lead engineer on the XL: "The XL is a marvelous airplane, but was a victim of the USAF wanting to continue to produce the F-15, which is understandable. Sometimes you win these political games, sometimes not. In most ways, the XL was superior to the F-15 as a ground attack airplane, but the F-15 was good enough."

Cleary, USAF was happy with her super-fighter F-15E, but almost all the rest of world was not capable to buy it, while a lot of them could atleast buy the F-16. F-14, F-15 and Tornado were definitively above the capabilities of a medium sized A.F. or, if buyed, leaves a lot of problems in other flight lines (as example, italian AF buyed Tornado, but was as well the last airforce with F-104..). The best possibility was the F-18(shortlegged), and for the same price it would be reasonable to have, instead, the F-16XL. Or, instead to extensively modernizing the F-5, to buy the F-20. Two missed occasions for world a.f.--Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General Dynamics F-16XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General Dynamics F-16XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Dynamics F-16XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

Passed. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 04:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:General Dynamics F-16XL/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: PizzaKing13 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 00:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

  • Looks good

Lead[edit]

  • Mention the year it entered the ETF's competition, it was given to NASA, and they were put into storage at Edwards

Development[edit]

  • Why did GD begin investigating F-16 derivatives
  • "father of the original F-16" → "designer of the original F-16"
  • Why is the Saab 35 Draken relevant?

Design[edit]

  • Looks good

NASA testing[edit]

  • Looks good

Aircraft on Display[edit]

  • Change "Aircraft on Display" to "Aircraft on display"

Images[edit]

  • All images have appropriate licenses
  • All images have appropriate captions

References[edit]

  • All sources look good

Overall[edit]

  • Stable
  • Neutral POV
  • Focused on topic
  • Sufficient coverage of topic

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

@HarryKernow: I've done my review of the article and have left some comments. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 01:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed most of your concerns apart from your question about the relevance of the Saab 35 Draken - the text currently says the reason, which is that it has a similar wing. If it is not clear, I can try to reword. HarryKernow (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HarryKernow: Is there a significance/connection to the F-16XL and the Saab 35? Was the F-16XL directly designed from the Saab 35? Were some people involved in the F-16XL project also involved with the Saab 35? If not, I don't think it's relevant to mention the Saab 35. It'd be like mentioning the A380 had four engines and saying that it was similar to the 747 which also had 4 engines. Other than that, everything else looks good. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 05:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The similarity is more than superficial; the "cranked-arrow" wing is (as far as I know) only found on 2 planes. Furthermore, the Draken was similar enough to be especially noted by GD engineers. Piccirillo p.9-10 talks about the Draken, saying that "during early thinking for the XL, General Dynamics engineers studied and discussed the Draken, recognizing its general similarity in design and relevance to their studies." It seemed relevant enough to mention given the unique wing and the slightly-more-than-in-passing mention in the primary source. However, if you feel it doesn't fit, I could either add a footnote expanding on the connection, or remove the parentheses. HarryKernow (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a footnote would work best. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 07:24, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added that now. HarryKernow (talk) 20:28, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HarryKernow: All looks good now. PizzaKing13 ¡Hablame! 20:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
General Dynamics F-16XL flying
General Dynamics F-16XL flying

Improved to Good Article status by HarryKernow (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 20:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/General Dynamics F-16XL; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: Done.

Overall: AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • That it was supposed to be a "replacement for the F-111 Aardvark" is not on the cited pages. Please fix this.
  • Earwig's shows some close paraphrasing.
  • "The prototypes were shelved until being turned over to NASA for additional aeronautical research in 1988.[2]" : [2] only says that "two delta-wing F-16XL aircraft [were used] from 1988 to 1996". This certainly does not mean that they were turned over to NASA in 1988. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:02, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both aircraft were fully retired in 2009 and stored at Edwards Air Force Base." What does "both" refer to? Also, the source is a list, which doesn't say anything about when the aircrafts were retired.
  • USAF provided "production F-16 airframes for conversion". The cited page says "fuselage". Is fuselage same as airframe? AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues have been fixed by the GA nom. This seems good to go now. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On Template:Did you know nominations/General Dynamics F-16XL[edit]

Hello, I am not the nominator, but I saw your response.

@HarryKernow: Then the citation from the lead should be removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Done. HarryKernow (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Sorry, screwed up the ping. HarryKernow (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HarryKernow: No problem. The changes seem good. I've passed the DYK. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earwigs detection - not sure what I'm meant to see from this, but it says "Violation Unlikely 11.5%" and mostly picks up on key words and phrases like "high speed civil transport".
Article: "were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA"; Source: "were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"taken out of storage" is implied and pretty obvious, so removing that phrase fixes that. HarryKernow (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...prototypes were shelved..." - I think [2] would be sufficient as a lead citation, but this is covered in the Piccirillo source, p.169 (shelving) and p.183+ (transfer to NASA, which it notes technically was early 1989)
Citations are not required in the lead, because everything in the lead should, in principle, be covered and sourced in the article body. But if you include citations in the lead, they should fully support what is being said. If they don't fully support the content, they should be removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From point #1 - done. HarryKernow (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both aircraft were fully retired in 2009 and stored at Edwards Air Force Base." - "Both" because there were only 2 examples of this aircraft. The source in the lead is just a list, but their retirement is covered in the same source, p.281 (ch.11) which is cited later.
It should be stated clearly in the lead that there were two. "Both" presupposes that you've mentioned them before, which you actually haven't. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, easy to take that for granted. Fixed by sneaking a "two" in there. HarryKernow (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuselage vs airframe - I think "fuselage" and "airframe" are mostly interchangeable, but "Fuselage" is more appropriate in this case

Please let me know if there is a better place to respond to your concerns. Thanks, HarryKernow (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC) [ Copied from user talk page ][reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:General_Dynamics_F-16XL&oldid=1202242795"