The Insane Engineering of the F-16
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 3 ноя 2023
- Get Nebula for 50% off with my link: go.nebula.tv/realengineering
Watch this video ad free on Nebula: nebula.tv/videos/realengineer...
Thank you to David Kern of Daedalus Aerospace: www.daedalusaero.space/?ref=c...
Links to everything I do:
beacons.ai/brianmcmanus
Get your Real Engineering shirts at: standard.tv/collections/real-...
Credits:
Producer/Writer/Narrator: Brian McManus
Head of Production: Mike Ridolfi
Editor: Dylan Hennessy
Animator: Eli Prenten
Producer/Sound: Graham Haerther
Studio Producer: Michael Wuerth
Interviewee: David Kern
Thumbnail: Simon Buckmaster
References
[1] ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/N...
[2] hwww.archives.gov/files/declas...
[3]ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/1...
[4] apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/A...
[5] www.f-16.net/f-16_armament_ar...
[6] www.gd-ots.com/armaments/airc...
[7]blueaero.com/wp-content/uploa...
[8] www.moog.com/content/dam/moog...
Select imagery/video supplied by Getty Images
Thank you to AP Archive for access to their archival footage.
Music by Epidemic Sound: epidemicsound.com/creator
Thank you to my patreon supporters: Abdullah Alotaibi, Adam Flohr, Henning Basma, Hank Green, William Leu, Tristan Edwards, Ian Dundore, John & Becki Johnston. Nevin Spoljaric, Jason Clark, Thomas Barth, Johnny MacDonald, Stephen Foland, Alfred Holzheu, Abdulrahman Abdulaziz Binghaith, Brent Higgins, Dexter Appleberry, Alex Pavek, Marko Hirsch, Mikkel Johansen, Hibiyi Mori. Viktor Józsa, Ron Hochsprung 
Наука
I flew the F-4D for 1300 hours and the F-16A (Block 10) for 500 hours and can attest that the airplane is truly phenomenal and is one of the great designs of aircraft history. This video did an outstanding job covering the insane engineering involved!
That’s awesome! Im currently a high school senior and its my life goal to become a pilot in the USAF (preferably a fighter pilot) if you don’t mind me asking what was your commissioning source and what did you major in during college (or AF academy if you did that).
@@F-15C_Eagle.just a guess but perhaps major in electrical engineering or similar engineering industries. Good luck and I hope you reach your goal to become a pilot.
@@alphaomega9255 I’ll look into it, thank you.
Very cool!
Love the look of Phantom. She just looked like raw warbird power.
Viper always reminded me of a distant generation of Mustang but just in design with the lower mounted intakes.
What did you like and dislike about both?
is F4 really less maneuverable than Mig21?
Thanks for the opportunity to collaborate and contribute to this video. Great job to the whole team on this production!
Fascinating insights given very naturally and personally. Excellent.
great job!
You did a great job linking the engineering side of things with the piloting side!
When you talked about how it feels to use the weapon system in training for the first time, I got goosebumps. One helluva machine!
If I may, I would like to add some detail to the inlet discussion. The F-16 is a fixed geometry, normal shock inlet. The other airplanes mentioned, F-4, F-14, F-15 all have/had variable geometry inlets. That is the reason that drives the inlets forward on those planes. The ramps in the inlets adjust with Mach number to position the shock (as explained). In 1976 we studied putting a variable geometry inlet on the F-16. Oh my, it opens the flight envelope up dramatically. (I was hoping to see a Ps plot on a Mach/Altitude graph. Basically the airplane can easily get to Mach 2 up through 50K ft. At that point you hit the temperature limit on the aluminum airframe. But those VG inlets are complex, heavy, expensive and require maintenance. And as was so clearly explained, not a benefit to where the F-16 fights. As a fresh out of college aero engineer it was a great airplane to work on. To this day I have the photo of the R/W/B YF-16#1 on the wall in my office along with models of both prototypes. I was lucky enough to work with Harry Hillicker and Jack Buckner and was present when the first pre-production airplane taxied out in the fall of 1976. I spent the bulk of my career at Boeing Commercial, but to the chagrin of the St. Louis crowd, the F-18 never replaced the F-16 as my favorite airplane. Thanks for a great video and a Saturday morning trip down memory lane.
My brother worked on a LASER at the Fort Worth plant in the 90s, and when he got back he was massively impressed!
His words were, “ They shove a block of aluminum in one end of the plant, and F-16s come out the other! Absolutely magical!”
I miss him and his absolute love of ships and aircraft!
Your brother exaggerated. Milling an airframe out of a solid block of metal is incredibly inefficient, especially with aluminum. Machining out of blocks is usually done for difficult metals, such as titanium.
@@fredmdbud 😂 thanks! You made my day!
@@fredmdbudsarcasm requires a certain level of intelligence it seems @jtlaser1
Got a tour of the plant in the 80s when it was still GD. We started at the loading dock where they delivered rolls of aluminum for rivets and panels. Ended at the flightline where the jet made it's first test flight. Beautiful operation!
I believe that the complex internal wing structure was actually milled from aluminum.
Wow, great content!! I appreciate you and your understanding of the mechanics and physics on the F-16 airframe. Well done.
40 minute Real Engineering video, this one's going to be good
It was - get Nebula!
@@JamesPalylykyou talking about pre release on nebula?
Any real engineering video is a good one
Wouldnt want to brown-nose or anything
@johnqpublic2718 lmao wut? Some weird insecurity stopping you from expressing positive emotions, or something?
In reference to the start when talking about the F-4, it wasn't that the F-4 was bad at its job is just that it rarely was allowed to do its job the way it was intended to, the F-4 was designed with the idea of firing your missiles far from the target but due to ROE limitation the F-4 pilots were required to have visual confirmation of targets before launching their missiles which made them have to put themselves at a disadvantage since they had to close in with the MiGs which were better in close quarters as they could out manoeuvre the F-4s meaning that it was less a fault with the design or intended doctrine of the plane and more so a problem with the doctrine in the ground which commanders implemented to avoid Blue on Blue incidents, it would be the same as if you the US went to war today and strapped drop tanks and extra missiles on outside pylons to Stealth Fighters, it would defeat the entire doctrine which these planes are built around which would make them infinitely more vulnerable to enemy planes which might outperform them in certain metrics, while if operated properly the F-22 and F-35 are practically invisible until you are getting shot at.
It is not always the equipment that fails to live up to expectations but rather the people in charge of mission planning that fail to consider the unique advantages of each piece of gear in their arsenal, which can lead to the wrong conclusion when evaluating an aircraft, you have to stop to consider what its intended role was and if it performed well or poorly in that role when it performed tasks in that role, if I grabbed a hammer and tried to use it to mow the lawn I could say that the Hammer is useless but if I use it to hammer nails I would say it performs its task well.
Were the F-4s not also lacking guns initially and had only missiles without the abilityto fight at close range?
The f4 was bad, it was big, chunky, poor turning and a whole lot more problems means the platform as a whole regardless of if it could do it’s job properly was in need of a replacement but that replacement was the f15 not the f16 so idk why they mentioned Vietnam when that created the f15
the real problem with the F4 was the extremely lacking IFF equipment that came with it, if the IFF equipment wasn't as terrible as it was the ROE wouldn't have changed.
marines quickly used a better IFF system and actually had decent success with the F4 even during the vietnam war
@dontworry2379 Exactly. The F-4 had a lot of flaws that were mostly resolved in the form of the F-4 E variant but it was ultimately the F-15 that would be its successor.
@@marxel4444yes, but the lack of guns wasn't an issue, just see the navy results post top gun
Outstanding info with beautiful photos, video and graphics. Brilliantly done!
Thx for a fascinating look at the 16!!your explaining and experience really comes thru. Great job.
Love your videos on military planes, hope to see either the 14, 15, and/or 18 in the future
hope to see you in the future
i belive there already is an f-15 vid
@@V3ry_Ep1c X-15, not F-15
@@Sta_cotto There's already a video on the X-15 too lol
@@AVdE10000 no I meant there was an x-15 vid, think he might've confused the two; there is currently no f-15 vid, I rechecked
I have no doubt that Boyd influenced the development of the F-16 in terms of the E-M diagrams, but you didn't mention his rejection of advanced missiles, radar, and avionics, and claimed they ruined his aircraft. Yet when those missles and avionics proved to be, it's greatest strength, he praised it and took all the credit for its design.
About to watch the video and I'd already braced for whatever hoseshit from Sprey might be in it.
I kinda stopped listening about 4min in because I felt he was playing up Boyd's influence a bit too much. Is it like that the whole way through?
@@rustyshackleford3053As soon as I heard Boyd, I immediately lost faith in the video. Thankfully the meat of the video is math and science. I just tune out the fighter mafia BS
It’s incredibly sad how mainstream those charlatans in the fighter mafia have become.
Yeah, Lazer Pig's takedown of Boyd and Sprey pretty much summed up the more fraudulent aspects vs the mythology the mafia built up about themselves. Sprey basically became a propaganda mouth piece for RT news disinformation campaigns.
The footage used is amazing! I particularly like the scene over the Great Sand Dunes National Park @ 32:02
Well done.
I've enjoyed your channel for a while, but I have to say that for this video you really outdid yourself. This is an AMAZING video. I'm an engineer and a private pilot, and I loved the detail. Thanks a ton!!
As a masters student in aerospace control systems engineering, this video was a gift! We often use the F16 for modeling and simulations, and it was really interesting to compare the methods the had back then, to those we are taught today. Thank you!
Today CFD and MBSE has made things easier
Bottle of smoke?
hows it like being a student in aerospace?
wow
I crewed F-16's in the AF and ANG for 12 years, then got to crew a test bed at Edwards for a few years. I was lucky enough to have several rides, including one over the range at MacDill AFB in 1982. Everything that Kern says about the M61A1 Vulcan is true. The violent shaking turns the instruments into a blur. I also got to meet Phil Oestricher at the SETP convention in Rome in 1992. He was the one with the dubious honor of the unplanned 1st flight in 1974. My last flight as a KC135 Boom Operator in 2005, I refueled a flight of F-16s from the Illinois ANG. I built a 43-year aviation career, basically around the F-16. Absolutely love the airplane.
Thank you for your service.
Thank you sir for your long service
the first su25 gun was flipping switches in the cockpit when the gun was fired. it was that violent.
Hell yeah! Everything is squared away on this platform.
And what's the most important and convincing proof of the quality of that airplane...is that it did not kill you (and it did not even try). And that's the most important tribute we can give to the builders of it. 🙂
Fascinating video man, well researched and presented. Thumbs up!
One of the biggest disadvantages the phantoms had was just rules of engagement... They weren't allowed to take beyond visual range shots, so the migs always were allowed to get up close, where they shined. A change of tactics and rules of engagements changed the tide and phantoms started racking up the kills
This was a BIG reason that the F14 was fitted with TCS (Television Camera Set) to get visual ID with. I suppose the technology just didn't exist to equip the F4 with something like that
They also refused to let the USAF attack Hanoi and created legal areas for the VC to set up massive military presence with absolute impunity. If not for this, the Mig-21s extremely limited endurance wuld have resulted in them losing every aircraft they launched if forced to depart from bases farther away.
The Nam war was so simple. If the USAF had simply launched a substantial volley of 500 HARM missiles toward hanoi within a 5-minute period, the war would have been over immediately.
Instead, washington mandated by law that 10,000 US aircraft and crews be shot down for no other reason than to give the VC a fighting chance. Because Commie sympathizers were prevalent in Washington in the '60s.
@@jj4791 The US didn't have HARM missiles during Vietnam, genius. And you talk like the people who said the same thing about "russia will disable Ukraine in the first four hours" as if the US was that accurate in the bloody 1960s.
The actual reason for restraint was because they- unlike you- remembered what happened in the Korean war.
The US trying to overwhelm the north would have caused another Chinese intervention, and Mao wasn't making much secret of that willingness.
The US lost in Vietnam for the same reasons as France. It was a war with no clear win-condition, and the extremely unpopular southern dictatorship would never have been able to take over the responsibilities for.
The US killed MILLIONS of Vietnamese civilians, using horrific chemical weapons and MORE BOMBS THAN USED IN ALL OF WW2 COMBINED! It even bombed Laos and Cambodia to try to hit the VC! "Restraint"? Laughable.
@@Hjernespreng still to this day, Kissinger (a civilian) ordering the bombing of Laos and Cambodia and being remembered as a hero is one of the most blatant and explicit injustices of US intervention in living memory, up there with the blockading of Cuba and the installation of Pinochet in Chile
At least the injustices of things like arming Israel to the teeth purely to maintain a colonial foothold in the Middle East and singlehandedly destabilising most of the countries south of Mexico they have the shame to maintain plausible deniability about.
''we werent complete SHIT, we just allowed them to dab on us!''
Its crazy to see the cars of the era of the development of the plane next to the F-16. Like at 32:58. Looking stupidly outdated, while the F-16 still looks absolutely stunning and modern. Incredible how old this jet is (and many others)
The government was funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into military aircraft development. They spent 0 on automotive development.... Of course automotive lagged behind.
The "Goat" of small air supiorority figthers🐐👍
The engineering from 45 years ago is amazing! Would love to watch a whole series. Impressive video and interview.
F16 is one of my favorite aircrafts to work on, great design and a lovely team of engineers behind it.
They were my greatest interactions so far.
I also got a chance to sit on a grounded F16 once a year ago, and my father worked on the F4.
I really love the attention to detail with the Viggen example. It made my day to see text written in my own language whilst seeing a plane i love
Fellow Swede 💪🇸🇪
You Swedes have some very cool jets
Viggen is like an upgraded F-16.
Probably best known for achieving a lock-on on the SR-71 Blackbird, but also ended up heavily influenced the designs of aircraft like the F-15, F-16 and Su-27.
@@colonelarmfeldt8572 Also Kelly Johnson who designed the Blackbird had both parents from Sweden
3:41 I'm absolutely in aww at your maneuverability chart explanation. What a great way to explain such a complex graph!
it's spelled "awe"
@@Iaotle Unless you find it cute
While the meat of the graph is sound, Boyd’s insistence on its implementation in fighter pilot training was problematic. Boyd and the rest of the fighter mafia were famously distrustful of any technology to the point that Boyd heavily pushed for the F16 to not have radar or missiles and for it to have just enough fuel to get to the target and back. In the teaching of this graph, Boyd pushed the idea that A) a dogfight is the correct way to engage the enemy, you need to get in close to kill and B) energy is the defining factor behind who will win in a dogfight. Both of these points were proven painfully wrong and they ended up costing the lives of dozens of American aviators. The Navy’s Top Gun program was established specifically to retrain pilots taught by Boyd’s method. In reality, getting into a dogfight is the last thing you want to do, better to engage your target at maximum range with missiles and continuously pound your way in, decimate your enemy before he can enter the fight on his terms. Top Gun also taught that while conserving energy is important, if you can sacrifice energy for position you should take it. Better to have low energy but have your opponent dead to rights than be zipping around in your enemy’s crosshairs.
Thanks to all for this amazing and informative video. I loved every bit of it
I absolutely love you videos and how in depth you go. Keep them coming!
Awesome! I worked with David on the automatic ground collision avoidance program at Edwards as a flight test engineer! Super cool to see him give a thorough explanation of the F-16 in this video!
thrilled to know human geniuses like yourself ''personally'': i always wondered who are the folks behind this wonderful creation? cheers mate
Hey! Amazing video as always. Just quick correction, from 0:46 those jets are Su-22's (fighter bomber), and not the very similar Mig-21's (fighter/interceptor). The wings and the shock cone in the front shows the difference.
yeah i was just about to mention that
Yeah, that WAS bothering me. Why show a totally different aircraft when talking about the Fishbed?
Same
Exactly. A bit of an oopsie for this otherwise very accurate channel
@@comunistpotato4810me too
This channel is incredible. PLEASE never stop making detailed videos like this!
What a great video. I use to be an Avionics technician on the F16 and i still learned some stuff. Awsome!
Scary to think just 30 years prior to the first flight of the F16 the Gloster Meteor and ME 262 were the only operational jet fighter aircraft around. The evolution of jet aircraft is simply hard to fathom. Awesome video by the way!
And 40 years before that we had the first plane that's even more wild.
Try thinking about how in 30 years from 1914 to 1944 we went from flimsy bi-planes to the ME 262 or the Superfortress...
@@humbugswangkerton9972 War and Conflict is one hell of a drug for Human advancement.
@@mahogany7712 it really is, as bad as it sounds, if WW3 happened and no nukes were launched, we'd be sooooo much more technologically advanced as a human race.
Aliens man, aliens!! 😁😁😁
I really loved how much of David's interview you used, and how much you really let his commentary carry the flow of the video. Extremely interesting video, thanks for sharing it with us!
And he’s very articulate, I would say even poetic with the extent of exact vocabulary he’s using, a very educated man.
I usually cut interview segments a bit shorted, but David was just so articulate and interesting that it was difficult to cut it out. He also proof read the script and helped massively. We have two extra videos with him on Nebula
@@RealEngineering Sir, Nebula has a staunch leftist slant, therefore I’ll never subscribe. It saddens me because your overall work is really something I’d have enjoyed sponsoring, but since my god daughter was ahem by a ahem, and we went to the cops and they told us we’re just being racist, I promised myself never to help the left again.
But he was wrong in what he said about John Boyd. Boyd had nothing to do with the actual design of LWF or F16. He wrote a paper... Advanced Energy-Maneuverability Theory (co-wrote actually. Its a mathematical paper so I think his co-author probably had MUCH more to do with it) . I don't think you should credit Boyd without telling the full story. Would have been better to just avoid crediting him with anything. Boyd's "fighter mafia" Red Bird concept (and thats ALL it was - a concept) had NO Radar and NO Radar Guided missiles. 2 things that made the actual F16 such a success.
Amazing work on this video. Great and informative content as always
This is superb genuinely technical and interesting video, well done!
What a neat short doco. Particularly that David dude, he was so incredibly interesting. He really put you in the cockpit and was the closest thing to actually piloting the jet. Really cool fella, just hearing him talk about it was more interesting than the footage etc imo
I think the F-4 gets a bad reputation it does not deserve. Even considered "bad"
At its worst the F-4 had a K/D against the Mig-21 of 3:1
And even after they added the cannon to it, it still achieved the majority of kills with missiles.
While many F-4's were lost in vietnam the overwhelming majority were lost to surface to air missile systems.
Yes exactly. It was a problem with doctrine and ROE not necessarily the plane itself. Fighter Mafia propaganda.
The Rules of Engagement in Vietman really screwed over the F4.
Requiring the F4 to visually identify an aircraft before engaging, thus denying it the range advantage and its best angle of attack SHOCKINGLY had negative effects
The F8 Crusader, the so called "Last Gunfighter" scored 80% of its kills with missiles.
@@ivanthemadvandal8435 They also learned about flying under the radar the hard way. One of the reasons for the big push for stealth tech and nap of the earth navigation computers. And the reason cheap low tech aircraft which could loiter and not just hit and get like the A-1 and gunships were a godsend for ground pounders getting overrun.
The F-4 is bad compared to the F-16, especially in a fighter role. The F-4 was still an amazing aircraft.
@@urgo224
So your saying that an aircraft first flown in the 70s is better than an aircraft the first flew in the 50s. Well yeah, one would hope
Crazy to think that the time frame from the F4 to the F16 is the same as the P51 to the F4
Straight up I have to say that for me, this was your best video yet! And the way you went about explaining “Nebula” at the end was nicely done and obviously carefully thought out… Much appreciated, and due to current RUclips events couldn’t have been a better time for a promotion being so well done.
I also greatly appreciated you enforcing no ads throughout this entire video, giving us a feel for what it’s actually like to watch a decent documentary without distraction (especially RUclips’s incessantly annoying ones)!! Keep up the awesome work guys! 👍
My uncle Bill would have loved this video - he worked for Chance-Vault beginning in 1950 till his retirement 35years later - he worked in aircraft design and wind tunnel testing - one if his designs ( with his name on it ) was the jet intake on the F8U1 Crusader
Beautiful visuals. Amazing plane, loved this documentary.
35:00 How this man, whose name is David, resisted the temptation to quote 2001 Space Odyssey’s “I’m sorry, Dave, I’m afraid I can’t do that”, I will never understand. I guess it the kind of willpower and focus one needs to become a test pilot. Bravo!
One of the best videos published on this channel, with the technical and understandable explanations of each notable characteristic of the F-16. Thanks and well done!
One of my Uncles was a General in the USAF; flew over 8000 hours in everything from the P51 to the F-16. He adored the F-16; he was very fond of saying that if we had thought of them earlier, Vietnam would have been a walkthrough. Thank you for this incredible documentary: just amazing.
Vietnamese war was not won/ lost in the air / on the ground. It was lost politically, at home.
☆
@@fjb4932 was lost on the ground the moment USA decided to invade
What is his name.?General flying anything would be new
@@JohnSmith-vo9ll Charles L. Donnelly Jr. Still have his dog-eared copy of Sun Tzu.
@phunkracy Amen brother! The "Domino" theory was wrong.
Most satisfying video about fighter aerodynamics I’ve seen. Great work.
My late grandfather who passed in Early October, was a Crew Chief for a Squadron of Norwegian F-16's. After his passing I have tons of old patches, pins and such left over from his service. The last thing he said to me as I visited him for the final time was "9G" In reference to the F16's airframe capability. He'd love this video.
Cool I’m from Norway 🇳🇴
His last minutes were being young and flying huh? Pretty poetic. Its how Id want to go
sorry for your loss 🕊️
Crazy to think this plane is almost 50 years old. PS: Would be cool to see more teen series jet fighters insane engineering videos! F-14, F-15, F-18 😉
F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18 are all so BADASS 😎 👊🏻 🔝 🛩️🫡
@@fra93ilgrandef22, f35, f16 and f15 are the best
@@ChangeEvery14Days If my life were on the line I would go with an F-15. But I don't know a whole lot.
Agree I’d no clue it was 50 yrs young 😊
Curios on the desired aircraft between the F15-EX vs the Latest F-16 what would you want to be in, in a combat situation
Forgot to say it when i first saw the video, but the video production quality is out of the water with this one! Keep making all these masterpieces
I remember watching a film at USAFA back in the late 70s that had the F-4, F-15, and F-16 making the 360 maneuver. It was truly amazing to see how much more maneuverable the F-15 and especially the F-16 were compared to the Phantom.
Thank you for making this! The F-16 has always been my favorite plane, and it deserves to be viewed as true an icon of aviation
I think pretty much everyone likes it. Hard not to when it’s a jack of all trades and a generally good aircraft with lots of upgrades/options
I could listen to David Kern all day long. His enthusiasm and ability to make extremely complex concepts understandable is really amazing.
I knew most of this already, but it took many years to learn and understand what was provided in this video in under an hour. Respect.
26:19 I find this part relatable to tuning racing cars where you purposely make it unstable in order to for it to corner faster.
Waiting for the SR-71 now. Great explanations, details and animations. Great works.
From covert strike of nuclear reactor to dodging 6 SAMs without countermeasures, viper is one heck of a beauty and lethal jet.
The production values of your videos just keeps on getting better and better. The use of CG is amazing.
This is amazing!! Such inspiring stuff, as an Engineer!! Please do videos on F-14 and F-18 as well!!
You are and always will be my favorite channel keep up the great work
Mr. Kern really made a lot of complex systems and flight situations understandable. He should be included in all your videos. Thank you.
My grandfather was a chemical engineer for DuPont and he worked closely with General Dynamics for something, I don’t remember exactly what it was, but I was 8 when he died. He left me a scale model of it with unbelievable detail. Still have it. I
Top quality vidéo, everything so well explained, thanks
this is the best documentary about a jet i ever watched. very accurate and explains many more things than other doumentaries.
When I was in the Air Force, I got to sit in an F-16 on the ground (I'm fairly tall, but the floor can be adjusted so I actually fit). What amazed me was the immovable stick. I had played a lot of flight simulators (well, space sims mostly) before this, and really found it hard to wrap my head around controlling the aircraft just by applying force to a stick that didn't move. I was also told that the forces from the rotation and recoil of the M61 was so great that it made the aircraft turn when fired (since it was on the side, not the middle), but the fly-by-wire system compensated for it automatically to keep the aircraft flying straight. That stuff blew my mind. Been a fan of the F-16 ever since.
And that is why the A-10's 30mm GAU-8 gun IS on the centerline (and the nose gear if off center)
I think axel is gun's centre point, so gun isn't in middle, but triggering point is. So ammunition flying out middle of plane.
A-10 should have rocket motor that fire's when it's shooting, then no brake effect when firing.
I think my idea not selling well, but that would be good looking at night.
That's called "balancing forces" in case they adapt. BF
@@jannejohansson3383 No, the centerline of the GAU-8 is on the centerline of the A-10 Nothing about the nose gear is on the centerline. The concept of a rocket motor is ridiculous. Heavy, complex and would have to be capable of many ignitions. That idea is not selling at all, let alone not well.
Here is a link to a photo to prove my poiint. militarymachine.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/A-10-upgrades-a-10-facts-850x567.jpg
I guess it's time to discuss F-15 next. That aircraft is so good even though it's old it's still relevant today. Especially about it's good radar
Mustard has a video on the F-15.
so professionally put together ty.
Good Work...Clear and concise Engineering at his best. Thanks very much.
Great video as always. I think it needs a little clarification, though. In the beginning of the video when talking about MiG-21 the footage shows a pair of Su-22 (the green planes) a couple of times. The latter is much bigger plane with adjustable wing configuration, more advanced and newer platform than MiG-21.
Excelente video amigos. gran trabajo!! se nota el profesionalismo y su tiempo. gracias
Worked as a Final Assembly Inspector at General Dynamics in the 80s. For a period of time because of an engineering mistake in the mating alignment of the forward section at the inlet, a series of shims had to be used to achieve alignment. Don't know how long that went on but doesn't seem to have any adverse effect in general. Watching the test pilots do energy turns over Carswell that time was breathtaking. Never before had we seen a rather high speed fighter suddenly do what seemed like a 180 turn on a dime. This was something extraordinarily new for us. Still love that airplane above all others.
This is absolutely one of your finest videos. Thank you for this one, ive been hoping wed get an F16 video, its engineering was groundbreaking
Always good to watch a documentary made by someone interested in the subject 💪
i've been a fan of the f16 since i was like 4 years old and seen iron eagle for the first time. since then, this is my favorite video featuring the f16... loved it
Brilliantly made video, especially the renders and diagrams. Real Engineering has been a top quality channel from the very start but you keep pushing it up.
This was absolutely fascinating. Thank you so much for all the work you put into this. Just awesome!
This video was EVERYTHING I've been looking for.
Brilliant aircraft and outstanding presentation. I loved working on them (USAF 462X0).
Can’t believe your animation got even better! I particularly love the part at 4:27 really helpful to understand the concept!
"better" yeah. Just look at that air intake accuracy.
6:30 I’m sorry, but hearing the name John Boyd when I was watching this made me immediately raise an eyebrow.
I clicked the video while thinking "Please don't over-credit the fighter mafia or the reformists" only to let out a giant "GODDAMMIT" when the name came up.
@@dracoeris Can you recommend a video to learn more about them?
@@mikepatton7577 You can start with Lazerpig's video on him. Obviously his video style isn't for everyone. But yeah... the video has due diligence done
@@mikepatton7577 a guy called Lazerpig made a great video explaining the fighter mafias history and their habit to steal credit. To find the video you can just search up "Lazerpig fighter mafia video" and it should show up
Boyd developed that equation, that's the only thing that was mentioned and it's also true
Amazing video. A lot of comparison between the F-4 and F-16, would love to see a video on the F-15 as it came after the F-4 and before the F-16.
I love that plane! This is by far one of the best videos on the f-16.
It really is a lot to appreciate in the engineering of the F-16, also mind boggling how far we now have gotten in technology since the F-16 was first introducted
This was awesome. I am so happy that creators like you and your team exist. This made my day.
Just amazing content. I have always loved this little gem of an aircraft. it always represented (for me) the future. Relaxed stability rules!
My father-in-law was the head of flight test for a period of time during the F-16 program in the 70s. While attending the first public flight of the fighter on a warm summer day at Ft. Worth's General Dynamics Plant I'll never forget watching Neil Anderson, Chief Test Pilot, taxi the plane out of the hanger as I stood on the hot tarmac. As he turned to the left in front of me I watched in amazement as frost from the air conditioner surrounded his helmet. Always enjoying reading about aerial combat in WW2 I thought 'Now that's the way to go to war!' Then watching Neil slam the same helmet to the ground in frustration at the end of the flight demonstration will never be forgotten. The landing gear would not come down no matter what he tried and after burning off the fuel he gently bellied it in next to the runway. Interesting and exciting times, for sure.
What a fantastic and easy to follow break-down of one of my all-time favourite fighters! Really well researched and presented with some very helpful animations, brilliant, more please! I still think the F 16 is the most beautiful jet fighter ever,' if it looks right . . . .', the adage is proved, still in frontline service all round the world and still being upgraded to keep up with modern technology. The LWF project shows what can be achieved when you keep things simple.
Only about 5min into the video but that turn demonstration so quick after reviewing the graph was absolutely fantastic.
Insane engineering of the F-18 is something I'd love to see. It is the iconic fighter of my nation, and I've been obsessed with the jet since I was a boy watching it soar by in airshows. It's the reason I'm pursuing a career as a pilot, and seeing it on one of my favorite channels would be incredible.
Megaprojects did one! ruclips.net/video/CgK9GwFlD9Q/видео.htmlsi=Gw_d0mViQq0rbjsU
Gotta respect what these individuals can do. Flying a plane seems complicated enough, but adding in combat and all of that, its just astounding.
always a pleasure seeing real engineering uploaded
For the Dutch, the F-16 has quite a lot of significance. We even have one painted like a tiger for show-performance! I doubt its replacement, the F-35, will ever achieve that sort of spirit among the people.
Sadly they repainted that beauty (J-015) to a standard paint scheme 9 years ago😢
Recently I had an opportunity to watch both planes at an airshow. Viper was as always fast and nimble. It looked like a knife, cutting the air. On the other hand, Fat Amy was most likely just as fast but looked like it needed every pound of thrust to stay airborne. It rammed the air. :)
@@intgrthat was a cost cutting and serviceability measure. Instead of a dedicated demo F-16 w mission capable restrictions it became a mission capable one
@@rafabartosik9870 ...did you just refer to the F-35 as 'Fat Amy' lmfao.... where did that terminology come from?
@@kilmer009 American aviators (i.e. C.W. Lemoine) call F-35 a Fat Amy. Probably because it is fat. In Poland it's called 'Betoniarka' (Concrete mixer) - if you look at it from the rear, it really looks like it. :D
My all-time favorite fighter. With its long sleek lines and graceful curves, it has a kind of beauty that most jets don't. When I see an F-15 with its big, boxy air inlets and compare it to this jet, it's like beauty and the beast.
Incredibly interesting. I slow down the playback speed to improve my comprehension of what is being said. My father was a WW2 vet and loved air shows. I was always very excited to go with him, and to this day I continue to attend air shows.The F16 has always been my favorite aircraft to watch fly and look at in static displays. It is a beautiful and dangerous looking machine. This video helps me to understand the jet better by listening and observing the technical processes of its development. Thank you.
I'm a bit surprised that you didn't mention Harry Hillaker who led the F-16 design team at GD, or the LWF competition that required manufacturers to fund their own prototypes, which resulted in both the F-16, and the F/A-18. The FX program that resulted in the F-15 also used the EM theory, but became too expensive to replace all the F-4s and F-102/F-106s in service, thus the need for the Lightweight Fighter (LWF).
That design team was dripping with talent. Not only Hillaker but also Heinemann of A4 fame, and Pierre Sprey. John Boyd was absolutely gleeful that the F-16, using far less money and precious metals like titanium could beat the F-16 in a dogfight, at least at lower altitudes. Adding 2 tons to the weight without increasing the wing size addled the Viper vs Boyd's design (Boyd immediately demanded the USAF increase the wing size to 320sqft, which they ignored) but for BVR flight, the higher wing loading and FBW real-time tweaks just make it more aerodynamic.
BTW, the Viper is strong enough to carry an extra 6,000lbs in flight. Its MTOW is limited by its brakes, not its airframe. A good reason to take off with empty drop tanks and hit a tanker early in the flight.
@@roijoi6963 Pierre Sprey was a Russian asset who built a career of pretending to be someone he wasn't.
@@gepset Sprey didn't do much for the F-16, he didn't even want a radar or missiles on the LWF, but he sure claimed a lot of credit. The F-16 really came into its own in the 1990s because of a few reasons, one was the AIM-120 AMRAAM, another was the range of attack upgrades in the form of LANTIRN and HTS that gave it a night attack/precision strike and SEAD capability. All this "gold plating" would have infuriated folks like Sprey, who just wanted a jet powered P-51 Mustang.
@@roijoi6963Sperry was a con man along with a few other names from the "fighter mafia" that escape me. iirc there was a good video done by lazerpig(?) on the subject that exposed those frauds and grifters for who they really were.
I'm nervous that only minutes in the term "fighter mafia" is being used in a positive context.
@@gepsetAs far as I'm aware, even his 'friend' John Boyd never invented the energy-manoeuverability theory. That's something one of the US aircraft manufacturers (I believe Douglas) came up with in the 1950s.
The bit when you're talking about the MiG-21... The footage is of Sukhoi SU-17s.
Czechoslovakian Su-22 fighterbombers, to be precise.
Please use timestamps when referring to specific moments in the video.
hi...awsome report....that front elevator helped...enjoy peaceful skies...
god blessed you...
Dunno if Real Engineering will ever see this. But I've been a longtime supporter and Nebula subscriber from back when you first collaborated/launched it.
My one piece of feedback for the platform would be to improve the search engine. It's honestly the single biggest obstacle I run into when trying to find content on Nebula.
It's to the point that I often will have to search the video on youtube to get the exact title before I can type it in to hopefully show up on le Nebz.
Much love for you and your work from the states!
Twenty four year retired USAF MSgt here, AFSC 2A676, Electro Environment systems. Started my Air Force life on the F111, then to the F15E. The F16 was my third MDS and I loved it. Its been over 25 years since I've touched one, but I knew the jets so well I could work it today. By far my favorite airframe. Miss the hell out of it too.
Thank you for your service, Master Sergeant.
@@pike100The honor was mine sir🇺🇸
When I was working a summer holiday job at Antwerp Airport, where my father was the TD at the local airline, I assisted picking up some parts for the aircraft at Woensdrecht, The Netherlands. Across from the hangars where the Fokker aircraft were being maintained there were, apparently, upgrades being applied to F-16 aircraft. I only found out when a guard looked at me angrily and I noticed the sign "restricted area". The F-16 there was "skinless". That's the closest I've come to an F-16! 😄
I was stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB in the late 70's while the F16 was still in development. One of the design issues was that they canopy with a heads-up display, had a spec that it had to withstand a bird strike at 400 knots. The lab where it was being worked on was at Wright-Patt and I knew the guy who was testing the canopy. He had a pneumatic cannon that he'd fire a "4 pound mil-spec chicken" at the canopy.
I had this vision of him grabbing a chicken by the neck, squawking, feathers flying, stuffing it in the breach, slamming it shut, pulling a cord, a burst of feathers out the end of the cannon, more noise and boomp! Of course what he really worked with were 4 pound chickens he bought at the grocery store.
The first canopy was 1/2 inch thick and a 4 pound chicken at 400 knots poked a hole in the top, which would be fatal to a pilot. That's why they went to a 1 inch thick canopy.
Awesome video. I love these technical videos.
This video is awesome. The f-16 is by far my favorite aircraft and I’ve been inside the cockpit of one too! I am currently 15 years old and I hope one day to become a fighter pilot for the Hellenic airforce. You can see two greek f-16s at 10:40 and 23:15
Right on, man. Best of luck on your path!
@@TheHamburgler123 thanks, I appreciate it!!
Work hard, go you
Fantastic video, best one yet of this series. I'd love to see one on the F-22, that jet blows my mind but since much of it is classified I'd imagine a video of such depth to be very difficult.
My sources tell me that the F-22 was developed with the assistance of alien tech. 👽
Extremely informative!
This is incredibly well done.
Yooo What's up, I want to say that I'm a nebula user and when I watched this for the first time I was fascinated, the amount of effort you put to your content is amazing, and it's good to see how it's also evolving and how you're covering more and more details each vid, definitely worth it to pay for nebula, keep it up man I love your content.
Don't you wish nebula had comments
@@warrickterry4742 would be great
The pilot descibing that getting in the plane was more like taking it on, instead of just getting into a machine, reminded me that a pilot who flew a Spitfire during WWII, described the nimble spitfire with the small cockpit, the exact same way!