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.
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?
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.
Great interview with Captain Kern! His assessment of gun accuracy on the jet was music to my ears. On the gunnery range at Edwards in the mid-1970's, we scored many 1000's of rounds on F-16 strafing runs. Our scoring data was used to refine the sighting ballistics and improve accuracy. The scoring was manual (pen/paper) and laborious back then. Although our part was a small one, decades ago, there is present day satisfaction for this contribution to the best in class fighter that is the F-16. Thanks for the memories...
Captain Kirk , 7 of 9 tertiary adjunct of unimatrix 01 ,Commander Tuvok and Picard will not help F16 to take off in Ukraine , they will have to take off and land outside of Ukraine and , well that will mean spreading of conflict .Maybe now people realize why President Orban does not want to cooperate , because any base that sends F16s , formidable weapon platforms , not toys toward Moscow can lead only to one thing , rockets flying towards those bases from Moscow
@@dedskin1 Russian troll tactics: Warn of escelation, make up claims about aid not working or say Ukraine should not be supported because of corruptionTM
@@rick7424 No that is stupid , that is shallow as F , Im very deep thinking and i would never say such things . For example i know Russians and Ukrainians are Slavic people same people , Ukraine is a land name . Like California in USA , its not ethnicity , there are no Californians as ethnic group . Same is with Ukraine and Russia , Ukraine is more Slavic then Russia is . There are 2 major white people tribes , Anglo-Saxons and Slavic , with distinction that due to slaves Anglo-Saxon's lost a lot of their purity . They know that , they know Slavic people ruled historically , and USA is more afraid of Slavic people then any other people because its white people , and Americans are racist , America is segregated by race and class , something Slavic people do not have problem with . And Slavic people are smart , real smart , historically the world was slavic always . And is today , the world we live in made Nikola Tesla , Slavic man , Serbian . Almost single handedly . That is what America is afraid off , that is why they divide Slavic people instigate conflict , and since biggest Slavic land is Russia . Destroy it . But they cant , still they will do as much damage as they can . This happened numerous times in the past , 3 times just in last 100 years , few generation , every generation basically attacked Russia . Is that a coincidence . Im a Serbian , my Grand Grand father fought in WW1 we were attacked , my Grandfather in WW2 we were attacked , my Father in 1999 WW3 , we were attacked by NATO and USA . And now my generation , i also went trough war in 1999 and 92... but also Ukraine . So i know history , i live in East Europe , i know who did what . So stupid things others would say that know nothing , is not something i would say . Nor is something i say understandable to American or Western . They have no History and know very little , so they cant understand what i say .
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.
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.
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
1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21! 2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone! 3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is now easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude. 4. Is designed primarily for attack from back. 5. Su 22 does not have AA radar! Absurd
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!
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.
@@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
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.
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.
@@Triple_J.1 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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.
@@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
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.
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!
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.
Simple people like simple content. 1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21! 2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone! 3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is not easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude. 4. Is designed primarily for attack from back. 5. Su 22 does not have AA radar! Absurd
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!!
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!
@@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.
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.
Simple people like simple content. 1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21! 2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone! 3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is not easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude. 4. Is designed primarily for attack from back. 5. Su 22 does not have AA radar! Absurd
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 TH-cam 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 TH-cam’s incessantly annoying ones)!! Keep up the awesome work guys! 👍
I think you have heavily discounted the ability of the Phantoms to fight Mig-21s. They were only disadvantaged if they got in close, but even then, it wasn't as bad as some make it out to be. Sure the Phantom was heavier and a bit less maneuverable, but it was also quicker off the line and going up to its top speed than the Mig. It had insane amounts of power and really had the freedom to dictate the engagement if flown in a purely air to air manner. Those aircraft losses were likely not F-4s being shot down, but rather other dedicated ground attackers and bombers like F-105s which really struggled. And I think it is very important to point out that in that article you even pulled up, the US still had a greater than 2:1 kill ratio against Vietnamese. This wasn't acceptable to the US, but this shows that they weren't as disadvantaged as people like to believe. Also a lot of the Phantoms issues were lack of air to air combat training, and missiles that were relatively unreliable. The changes to training alone drastically changed the success rate of Phantoms, let alone all the other improvements made over the years. It eventually became everything it should have been at the start and ultimately was a very successful aircraft.
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.
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!
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
I always loved the F-16! As you imply, it was designed to do a job, and was allowed to do its job as designed! From a civilian pilots point of view, great video overall. Great interview discussion, footage, background information, and a good amount of aerodynamics discussion!
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
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.
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.
@@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.
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!!
Great video, the F16 is and has always been my favorite plane! Iron Eagle 1&2 are cheesy by today's standards, but the F16 is the star of those movies! I wish though, you would have included tidbits about the YF-17 Cobra as the developmental competitor, as well as the F16's earlier life issues with wire chafing.
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.
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.
Simple people like simple content. 1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21! 2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone! 3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is not easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude. 4. Is designed primarily for attack from back. 5. Su 22 does not have AA radar! Absurd
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! 😄
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.
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.
Hell of an airplane, even today. I remember seeing the first low speed really high g turn at an airshow like the one you show at 19:56, and my thought was, "Holy crap". Pre-vectored thrust, it almost looked like magic. What they've done with vectored thrust, in later designs, pretty much does look like magic. IIRC there was an F16XL that was a delta at one point, and they may have done a forward swept test bed on the 16 frame, but that may have been a scratch design, not sure I was an electrical engineer working in the same lab (different FLIR program) for one of the sensors for the YF23 by that time. We got moved to the 22., which wasn't supposed to happen by the competition rules, as it was supposed to be a package win, but ours was so much better than the competition's that they modded the rules, in practice. A fellow engineer on another program later was doing an in house chip solution for the 1553 bus used on the F16 (IIRC) and I remember him saying it was a fairly complex bus, and task. I expect that was a major part of what made hanging Western weapons on the Ukrainian MIGs that were supplied such a bitch. I think I heard that a lot of the in flight dynamic targeting designation capabilities were not available on the MIGs, and I suspect the reason they were able to do as much as they were was due to NATO members like Poland using similar bastardized combinations, but that is just an educated guess. If you want to do truly insane engineering, though, do one on the F22, far and away the highest performance/tech aircraft in the sky. You get to talk about vectored thrust, ULTRA low RCS and how that is accomplished, a lot of the first TRULY integrated pilot unloading interfacing and information presentation, etc. Just the wing construction and the massive problems they ran into is a story unto itself, and as I understand it, one of the main schedule extension drivers at one point. Doing things for the first time is always what separates the men from the boys, so to speak. The next level is doing things already done to a much higher performance level, and that involves many disciplines, often, from physicists to mathematicians to scientists to engineers of many disciplines, and more. You didn't point out one reason that increased turn rate is so important, which is gaining degrees at such a rate that if you can lock another fighter into that fight mode you can quickly close on them, angularly, from the inside, as the Zero often did in WWII, until the allied fighter pilots realized that wasn't their fight mode they could win, and changed tactics. The tech entering the inlet was interesting, kind of a complex series of motion. When the airplane is disintegrating due to the gun, even just foam flaking, you know that gun is one serious SOB, funny and interesting story I've not heard. "...like the one I performed with the Thunderbirds...". You suck (kidding, I'm jealous). Yeah, DIVERGENT PIO is the killer, and you can accomplish it is a single engine GA trainer, even a high wing super stable Cessna 152, especially in pitch. I still remember, freeze the elevator add momentary power on sink and reduce enough to sink to landing when stabilized. It slows the control loop dramatically at solves the problem...if it doesn't, add power and go around if necessary. Nothing like an uncommanded take off with some SERIOUS roll instability oscillation leading to a hard wing strike to get your attention...as in, bring me my brown pants. I did some control system work, servos mostly, and this is where some available computer simulation tools that are of reasonably good (very good now) real world accuracy are a big help. I'll tell you one lesson I would have learned watching that, and that is some previous thought put into which systems to negate or gain down early on in test, before those loops are stabilized. Probably even switchable to allow simulated takeoff and landing conditions to be tested (approached) at altitude if possible (not an aero guy, so like I said, if and to the extent possible). It is always nice to be 'several mistakes, some reaction, and exit time' high, than at 10-100' (say, worst case) when crap like that happens. Those test pilots tend to have nerves of steel, but that was beyond pretty dicey. We had a YF22 pancake in with an elevator instability at landing altitude, too, and luckily the pilot was relatively unhurt, but the airplane wasn't...unhurt, I mean. Always great stuff dude, thx.
"A fellow engineer on another program later was doing an in house chip solution for the 1553 bus used on the F16 (IIRC)" - Mil-Std-1553 is (was ?) a pretty sophisticated bus protocol for 1973. First used in the F-16. I graduated (BSEE) from Cal Poly Pomona, back in the 1980s, and it was a short distance from a General Dynamics facility, that the school was often referred to as GD-west. Many of the part time instructors were working engineers, at General Dynamics. One, I recall, designed the motion control for the Phalanx. I didn't expect the original F-16 to be that "digital", that early. The military gets all the good toys before everybody else !
That YF22 pancaking video is around somewhere, I've seen it on TH-cam. The flight control system would not let the pilot abandon the landing attempt and take off again. It kept forcing the nose back down as the pilot tried to raise it. It was pretty ugly to watch, and could have been a disaster, but thankfully the pilot was ok, as you say, but the aircraft got a bit of a battering. Test pilot, eh? One hell of a job ....
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.
So here’s 40 minutes of my life I’m never getting back. And I don’t regret spending even a second of it on this video, it was incredible. Can’t believe how this channel keeps improving and growing, this would be a top tier documentary on any television channel. Simply amazing value, thank you. 🙏🏻
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.
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. :)
@@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
@@rafabartosik9870Didn't Fat Amy originate during the early day of the F-35 when it was carrying more weight than it needed to and was restricted in the amount of Gs it could pull?
it's great to see a major outlet like this delving so deeply into the physics of how these aircraft maneuver and work. some really amazing designs at play and its INSANE how deep the hole of air combat maneuvering goes.
Over the past two years I've been learning GD&T for work. I went to the local aerospace museum and got a look at some of the engines from the 1950s they had on display. Everything after about 1960 was blocked off. Why? Those designs were so bulletproof and scaleable that they are still used today. In 1970 they had no CNC CMMs, no scanners, no CAD, and very few calculators. Engineering was done with slide rules and pencils. Seeing something like the F16 in person and recognizing that it was conceived solely with human minds and hands is crazy to me. As with every generation, we are standing on the shoulders of giants.
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.
I think I only watched one single -movie- franchise featuring the F-16, Iron Eagle, where the kid flies while listening to a Walkman and he goes to save his father. This fighter deserved more attention =\
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.
The ultimate irony is the concept of "light, cheap, maneuverable jet to take on MiGs" became obsolete very quickly as missiles truly made dogfight suicidal and nowadays Vipers are extremely sophisticated, much more heavier and expensive bomb/missile truck in the same way F-4 was.
@@fuke1345 yah. The original Boyd proposal was light 5G airframe, daytime only, no radar. The F-16 ended up having 9G airframe, a radar, all-weather systems and later gets all sorts of bombs and missiles.
So it was a compromise between different design philosophies that turned it into one of the best fighters in history. Certainly you aren't trying to discredit Boyd, are you?@@mimimimeow
We have so many great aircraft in our country that it's impossible to compare them 1:1. F-16, F-15, F-22, F-35, and even the former F-14. I'm excited for both the Navy's and Air Force's NGAD aircraft. I cant even imagine the greatness of these up and coming 6th gens.
They are almost STORVL Carriers now! STORVL, 'Short Take Off & Rolling Vertical Landing' with STORVL they can now land without having to dump unused munitions into the sea! 🤩🤩🤩
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!
As an aeronautical engineering student, this video was overall great, with nearly all the concepts explained very accurately and concisely. However there is a remark I'd like to make on the explanation of pitch stability (around minutes 28 and 29). The way it's portrayed in the video seems to combine the ideas of pitch stabilty and trim, which are slightly different. Trim is basically when the tail produces a force (regardless of direction) to counteract the moment produced by the wing's lift, so as to balance all the moments around the aircraft's centre of gravity. This is shown by the 3 arrows in the video. The "center of lift" arrow shown in the diagram should then correspond to the center of lift of just the wing, without the contribution of the tail. However, the stability of the aircraft depends not on the position of that center of lift, but instead on the position of the aircraft's neutral point, which can be described as the point through which any extra lift from a change in angle of attack will act, and it involves the contribution of both the wing and the tail. This point is generally somewhere in between the wing and the tail, closer to the wing. If the neutral point is behind the centre of gravity, the aircraft is stable in pitch, and if it is in front it is unstable.
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.
@@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
To a lesser degree the F-86 Sabre was also born of similar ideals and future necessity. The USAF was hooked to the ill performing straight wing concept going to the German inspired 35° swept-back wing leading edge. It was the game changer that was much needed as the inspired F-86F versus the MiG15 in Korea. The F-.86 also had the pilot over engine concept, even though engineering at the time could not facilitate pilot extended way over the engine nacelle. The F-86F also had the bite with the APG-30 gun-sight and .50cal to ensure better percentage of hits on the target at longer range.
In 1987, Mark DeFazio was the structures engineer in the F-16 System Program Office (SPO) at WPAFB in Dayton. I was the structures engineer in the F-15 SPO, and later lead engineer for all USAF reconnaissance (try and spell that) aircraft. The F-15 SPO liked to brag that it would shoot down an F-16 over the horizon and never need to see it. The F-15 is absolutely the one with the proven record around the world as proven by sales numbers. I'll take the F-15E. My fav is the Navy F-18.
I can attest to how loud the canon on the F-16 is. When i was in Air Force ROTC in college, we got to go out to the Avon Park gunnery range on a day when the F-16 pilots from McDill were practicing air to ground attacks. Watching them drop dummy bombs was cool, but when they started doing strafing runs it was downright shocking. The sound of the gun was unforgettable, and was so loud that even from a safe distance it was almost like it induced synesthesia: You didn't just hear the gun, you felt it in your sinuses and is swear I could *smell* it.
Extremely interesting! I'm already starting to love the F-16! Thank you for the video! I fly in a flight simulator on this famous plane. I live in Russia, but I want to study the F-16 and talk about it to the whole world. I really like it! I have already created a website, Telegram and TH-cam channels dedicated to this wonderful plane. It is a pity that I was born in Russia, and not in the USA!!! I would definitely be a pilot then!
from the immediate outset this video gets a lot of things wrong, most US aircraft losses from MiG-21s were bombers such as the F-105 thunderchief, when fishbeds had to face phantoms they got thoroughly clapped like during operation bolo where half of the NVA migs were destroyed in a single day
You seem to forget that TopGun programme was created for the reason, how long Vietnam War lasted and that e.g. Phantoms had been hobbled by Rules of Engagement and operation bolo was more about idea and planning than aircraft.
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!
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.
you give too much credit to john boyd Also the fighter mafia is the absolute bane of high-tech airplane development, taking credit for successful aircraft designs while making minimum contributions
The issues with John Boyd with the fighter mafia more or less begins and ends with the book Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" by Robert Coram which has been proven to not be credible at all. Apart from that the declassified documents mentioned on this video are rock solid and refer John Boyd a lot.
I figured some TH-camr made a video about him. That’s usually the case when people think they know more about a subject than a god damn F-16 test pilot 😂
@@RealEngineering the fighter community has gotten a lot wrong about this. This is an actual known issue. The fighter mafia did a lot of history revisionism and it stuck. LazerPig is 100% correct and well sourced on his research. Skip the video and check the sources at the end of his description.
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
When I read Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, I was amazed. He played a significant role in shaping the F16 and F15. I recommend the book.
As an F18 fanboy I was disappointed that you did not mention the Hornet once when you discussed the leading edge strakes haha. The Hornet's leading edge extensions is missive in comparison to the Viper which makes it an excellent high alpha slow fighter. I would love to see a video on the f18 as well. Thanks for an amazing video as usual!
Yes, also they help the thing land on a carrier at sane speeds. High drag at high alpha, but loads of lift. Btw, did you know ... the f14 could land with one wing missing!! Although this was for a different reason. Mad!!
@@pd28cat perhaps the F15 can do something similar, it wouldn't surprise me. The example I am thinking of was definitely an F14. It's because the fuselage of an f14 is very wide, and the pilot can use it like a 'lifting body' aircraft. Don't know whether the pilot could still land on a carrier, or whether he would need a full runway, but incredible none the less.
@@richardconway6425 He's referencing the F-15 that collided with another aircraft during an Israeli training exercise. The F-15 had a wing sheared right off and still managed to land. The other aircraft wasn't so lucky.
![ลองสุ่มไอโฟน 990 โกงมั้ย? [ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.101 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bfsWe0j492k/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
@@Nylonscheme 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.
Great interview with Captain Kern! His assessment of gun accuracy on the jet was music to my ears. On the gunnery range at Edwards in the mid-1970's, we scored many 1000's of rounds on F-16 strafing runs. Our scoring data was used to refine the sighting ballistics and improve accuracy. The scoring was manual (pen/paper) and laborious back then. Although our part was a small one, decades ago, there is present day satisfaction for this contribution to the best in class fighter that is the F-16. Thanks for the memories...
Captain Kirk , 7 of 9 tertiary adjunct of unimatrix 01 ,Commander Tuvok and Picard will not help F16 to take off in Ukraine , they will have to take off and land outside of Ukraine and , well that will mean spreading of conflict .Maybe now people realize why President Orban does not want to cooperate , because any base that sends F16s , formidable weapon platforms , not toys toward Moscow can lead only to one thing , rockets flying towards those bases from Moscow
Moscow can barely keep their planes in the sky without Western parts. Russian airframes do not last as long as reliable US airframes.
@@dedskin1
Russian troll tactics: Warn of escelation, make up claims about aid not working or say Ukraine should not be supported because of corruptionTM
@@rick7424 No that is stupid , that is shallow as F , Im very deep thinking and i would never say such things . For example i know Russians and Ukrainians are Slavic people same people , Ukraine is a land name . Like California in USA , its not ethnicity , there are no Californians as ethnic group . Same is with Ukraine and Russia , Ukraine is more Slavic then Russia is . There are 2 major white people tribes , Anglo-Saxons and Slavic , with distinction that due to slaves Anglo-Saxon's lost a lot of their purity . They know that , they know Slavic people ruled historically , and USA is more afraid of Slavic people then any other people because its white people , and Americans are racist , America is segregated by race and class , something Slavic people do not have problem with .
And Slavic people are smart , real smart , historically the world was slavic always .
And is today , the world we live in made Nikola Tesla , Slavic man , Serbian .
Almost single handedly .
That is what America is afraid off , that is why they divide Slavic people instigate conflict , and since biggest Slavic land is Russia . Destroy it .
But they cant , still they will do as much damage as they can . This happened numerous times in the past , 3 times just in last 100 years , few generation , every generation basically attacked Russia .
Is that a coincidence .
Im a Serbian , my Grand Grand father fought in WW1 we were attacked , my Grandfather in WW2 we were attacked , my Father in 1999 WW3 , we were attacked by NATO and USA . And now my generation , i also went trough war in 1999 and 92... but also Ukraine .
So i know history , i live in East Europe , i know who did what . So stupid things others would say that know nothing , is not something i would say .
Nor is something i say understandable to American or Western . They have no History and know very little , so they cant understand what i say .
Music to your eyes?
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
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?
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
1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21!
2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone!
3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is now easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude.
4. Is designed primarily for attack from back.
5. Su 22 does not have AA radar!
Absurd
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
RUSSIAN JETS #1
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
Wow, great content!! I appreciate you and your understanding of the mechanics and physics on the F-16 airframe. Well done.
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.
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.
@@Triple_J.1 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!''
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.
I love that analogy because the F15 is an air superiority beast
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🐐👍
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. 🙂
Thanks for the opportunity to collaborate and contribute to this video.
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
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
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
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.
Simple people like simple content.
1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21!
2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone!
3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is not easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude.
4. Is designed primarily for attack from back.
5. Su 22 does not have AA radar!
Absurd
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!!
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 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.
@@tsumugikotobuki0131 Also Kelly Johnson who designed the Blackbird had both parents from Sweden
Outstanding info with beautiful photos, video and graphics. Brilliantly done!
Simple people like simple content.
1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21!
2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone!
3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is not easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude.
4. Is designed primarily for attack from back.
5. Su 22 does not have AA radar!
Absurd
@@askme5805 Yeah! Why didn't he spend all the time talking about the MiG-21? Oh wait...its a video about a different aircraft.
Move on, Ruski.
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.
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 🕊️
The free man is he who does not fear to go to the end of his thought.
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.
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.
The engineering from 45 years ago is amazing! Would love to watch a whole series. Impressive video and interview.
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
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
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.
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
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!
Thx for a fascinating look at the 16!!your explaining and experience really comes thru. Great job.
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 TH-cam 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 TH-cam’s incessantly annoying ones)!! Keep up the awesome work guys! 👍
Nothing intelligent to add Just wanted to help the algorithm.
I think you have heavily discounted the ability of the Phantoms to fight Mig-21s. They were only disadvantaged if they got in close, but even then, it wasn't as bad as some make it out to be. Sure the Phantom was heavier and a bit less maneuverable, but it was also quicker off the line and going up to its top speed than the Mig. It had insane amounts of power and really had the freedom to dictate the engagement if flown in a purely air to air manner. Those aircraft losses were likely not F-4s being shot down, but rather other dedicated ground attackers and bombers like F-105s which really struggled. And I think it is very important to point out that in that article you even pulled up, the US still had a greater than 2:1 kill ratio against Vietnamese. This wasn't acceptable to the US, but this shows that they weren't as disadvantaged as people like to believe. Also a lot of the Phantoms issues were lack of air to air combat training, and missiles that were relatively unreliable. The changes to training alone drastically changed the success rate of Phantoms, let alone all the other improvements made over the years. It eventually became everything it should have been at the start and ultimately was a very successful aircraft.
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.
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.
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!
Mr. Kern really made a lot of complex systems and flight situations understandable. He should be included in all your videos. Thank you.
This channel is incredible. PLEASE never stop making detailed videos like this!
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.
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
This channel produces the highest quality videos of all time in yt!
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
I always loved the F-16! As you imply, it was designed to do a job, and was allowed to do its job as designed! From a civilian pilots point of view, great video overall. Great interview discussion, footage, background information, and a good amount of aerodynamics discussion!
Great video. I didn't realize so many of us actually flew these. And you don't know one is on your tail until your tail is being rattled.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!!
Great video, the F16 is and has always been my favorite plane! Iron Eagle 1&2 are cheesy by today's standards, but the F16 is the star of those movies! I wish though, you would have included tidbits about the YF-17 Cobra as the developmental competitor, as well as the F16's earlier life issues with wire chafing.
Those Czechoslovak aircraft shown in the video are definitely not Mig 21's but rather SU 17's/SU 22's
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.
"Use your ammo wisely"
"How much do I have?"
"5 seconds. Make 'em count."
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.
Simple people like simple content.
1. In video are almost not visible any MiG-21! Planes with Czechoslovakia markings (Československé letectvo) are Su-22! Not fast, not maneuverable, pretty heavy due a variable swept wing. Su-22 obviously dont have clean delta wind as MiG-21!
2. MiG-21 does not have variable swept wing in any variant or clone!
3. MiG-21 is not dogfighting plane, it is not easy to maneuver special in lower speed in low attitude.
4. Is designed primarily for attack from back.
5. Su 22 does not have AA radar!
Absurd
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! 😄
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.
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.
Hell of an airplane, even today. I remember seeing the first low speed really high g turn at an airshow like the one you show at 19:56, and my thought was, "Holy crap". Pre-vectored thrust, it almost looked like magic. What they've done with vectored thrust, in later designs, pretty much does look like magic. IIRC there was an F16XL that was a delta at one point, and they may have done a forward swept test bed on the 16 frame, but that may have been a scratch design, not sure
I was an electrical engineer working in the same lab (different FLIR program) for one of the sensors for the YF23 by that time. We got moved to the 22., which wasn't supposed to happen by the competition rules, as it was supposed to be a package win, but ours was so much better than the competition's that they modded the rules, in practice.
A fellow engineer on another program later was doing an in house chip solution for the 1553 bus used on the F16 (IIRC) and I remember him saying it was a fairly complex bus, and task. I expect that was a major part of what made hanging Western weapons on the Ukrainian MIGs that were supplied such a bitch. I think I heard that a lot of the in flight dynamic targeting designation capabilities were not available on the MIGs, and I suspect the reason they were able to do as much as they were was due to NATO members like Poland using similar bastardized combinations, but that is just an educated guess.
If you want to do truly insane engineering, though, do one on the F22, far and away the highest performance/tech aircraft in the sky. You get to talk about vectored thrust, ULTRA low RCS and how that is accomplished, a lot of the first TRULY integrated pilot unloading interfacing and information presentation, etc. Just the wing construction and the massive problems they ran into is a story unto itself, and as I understand it, one of the main schedule extension drivers at one point. Doing things for the first time is always what separates the men from the boys, so to speak. The next level is doing things already done to a much higher performance level, and that involves many disciplines, often, from physicists to mathematicians to scientists to engineers of many disciplines, and more.
You didn't point out one reason that increased turn rate is so important, which is gaining degrees at such a rate that if you can lock another fighter into that fight mode you can quickly close on them, angularly, from the inside, as the Zero often did in WWII, until the allied fighter pilots realized that wasn't their fight mode they could win, and changed tactics.
The tech entering the inlet was interesting, kind of a complex series of motion. When the airplane is disintegrating due to the gun, even just foam flaking, you know that gun is one serious SOB, funny and interesting story I've not heard. "...like the one I performed with the Thunderbirds...". You suck (kidding, I'm jealous).
Yeah, DIVERGENT PIO is the killer, and you can accomplish it is a single engine GA trainer, even a high wing super stable Cessna 152, especially in pitch. I still remember, freeze the elevator add momentary power on sink and reduce enough to sink to landing when stabilized. It slows the control loop dramatically at solves the problem...if it doesn't, add power and go around if necessary. Nothing like an uncommanded take off with some SERIOUS roll instability oscillation leading to a hard wing strike to get your attention...as in, bring me my brown pants. I did some control system work, servos mostly, and this is where some available computer simulation tools that are of reasonably good (very good now) real world accuracy are a big help. I'll tell you one lesson I would have learned watching that, and that is some previous thought put into which systems to negate or gain down early on in test, before those loops are stabilized. Probably even switchable to allow simulated takeoff and landing conditions to be tested (approached) at altitude if possible (not an aero guy, so like I said, if and to the extent possible). It is always nice to be 'several mistakes, some reaction, and exit time' high, than at 10-100' (say, worst case) when crap like that happens. Those test pilots tend to have nerves of steel, but that was beyond pretty dicey. We had a YF22 pancake in with an elevator instability at landing altitude, too, and luckily the pilot was relatively unhurt, but the airplane wasn't...unhurt, I mean.
Always great stuff dude, thx.
I am sure you would be fun to talk to, if only. Anyways I just wanted to tell u, He has already made a video on F22.
"A fellow engineer on another program later was doing an in house chip solution for the 1553 bus used on the F16 (IIRC)" - Mil-Std-1553 is (was ?) a pretty sophisticated bus protocol for 1973. First used in the F-16. I graduated (BSEE) from Cal Poly Pomona, back in the 1980s, and it was a short distance from a General Dynamics facility, that the school was often referred to as GD-west. Many of the part time instructors were working engineers, at General Dynamics. One, I recall, designed the motion control for the Phalanx. I didn't expect the original F-16 to be that "digital", that early. The military gets all the good toys before everybody else !
Thank you for this comment, was fun to read
That YF22 pancaking video is around somewhere, I've seen it on TH-cam. The flight control system would not let the pilot abandon the landing attempt and take off again. It kept forcing the nose back down as the pilot tried to raise it. It was pretty ugly to watch, and could have been a disaster, but thankfully the pilot was ok, as you say, but the aircraft got a bit of a battering.
Test pilot, eh? One hell of a job ....
Super, should have looked it up, thx.@@robelengida6211
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.
So here’s 40 minutes of my life I’m never getting back. And I don’t regret spending even a second of it on this video, it was incredible. Can’t believe how this channel keeps improving and growing, this would be a top tier documentary on any television channel. Simply amazing value, thank you. 🙏🏻
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. :)
@@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
@@rafabartosik9870Didn't Fat Amy originate during the early day of the F-35 when it was carrying more weight than it needed to and was restricted in the amount of Gs it could pull?
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.
Or make a flywheel lighter to make engine rev up and down faster.
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
it's great to see a major outlet like this delving so deeply into the physics of how these aircraft maneuver and work. some really amazing designs at play and its INSANE how deep the hole of air combat maneuvering goes.
Over the past two years I've been learning GD&T for work. I went to the local aerospace museum and got a look at some of the engines from the 1950s they had on display. Everything after about 1960 was blocked off. Why? Those designs were so bulletproof and scaleable that they are still used today.
In 1970 they had no CNC CMMs, no scanners, no CAD, and very few calculators. Engineering was done with slide rules and pencils. Seeing something like the F16 in person and recognizing that it was conceived solely with human minds and hands is crazy to me. As with every generation, we are standing on the shoulders of giants.
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.
I think I only watched one single -movie- franchise featuring the F-16, Iron Eagle, where the kid flies while listening to a Walkman and he goes to save his father. This fighter deserved more attention =\
Gotta respect what these individuals can do. Flying a plane seems complicated enough, but adding in combat and all of that, its just astounding.
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 ultimate irony is the concept of "light, cheap, maneuverable jet to take on MiGs" became obsolete very quickly as missiles truly made dogfight suicidal and nowadays Vipers are extremely sophisticated, much more heavier and expensive bomb/missile truck in the same way F-4 was.
nah
@@fuke1345 yah. The original Boyd proposal was light 5G airframe, daytime only, no radar. The F-16 ended up having 9G airframe, a radar, all-weather systems and later gets all sorts of bombs and missiles.
@@mimimimeow I am very surprised he mentioned the Fighter Mafia. Utter horseshit.
Definitely wouldn't call the Viper a bomb/missile truck... And a Viper can jettison it's payload and turn up its own ass, the F-4 couldn't.
So it was a compromise between different design philosophies that turned it into one of the best fighters in history. Certainly you aren't trying to discredit Boyd, are you?@@mimimimeow
We have so many great aircraft in our country that it's impossible to compare them 1:1. F-16, F-15, F-22, F-35, and even the former F-14. I'm excited for both the Navy's and Air Force's NGAD aircraft. I cant even imagine the greatness of these up and coming 6th gens.
You should do one about the Queen Elizabeth-class Carrier, STOVL carriers that are designed in principle around the operation of F-35B Lightnings.
They are almost STORVL Carriers now!
STORVL, 'Short Take Off & Rolling Vertical Landing'
with STORVL they can now land without having to dump unused munitions into the sea!
🤩🤩🤩
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!
As an aeronautical engineering student, this video was overall great, with nearly all the concepts explained very accurately and concisely. However there is a remark I'd like to make on the explanation of pitch stability (around minutes 28 and 29). The way it's portrayed in the video seems to combine the ideas of pitch stabilty and trim, which are slightly different. Trim is basically when the tail produces a force (regardless of direction) to counteract the moment produced by the wing's lift, so as to balance all the moments around the aircraft's centre of gravity. This is shown by the 3 arrows in the video. The "center of lift" arrow shown in the diagram should then correspond to the center of lift of just the wing, without the contribution of the tail. However, the stability of the aircraft depends not on the position of that center of lift, but instead on the position of the aircraft's neutral point, which can be described as the point through which any extra lift from a change in angle of attack will act, and it involves the contribution of both the wing and the tail. This point is generally somewhere in between the wing and the tail, closer to the wing. If the neutral point is behind the centre of gravity, the aircraft is stable in pitch, and if it is in front it is unstable.
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
To a lesser degree the F-86 Sabre was also born of similar ideals and future necessity. The USAF was hooked to the ill performing straight wing concept going to the German inspired 35° swept-back wing leading edge. It was the game changer that was much needed as the inspired F-86F versus the MiG15 in Korea.
The F-.86 also had the pilot over engine concept, even though engineering at the time could not facilitate pilot extended way over the engine nacelle. The F-86F also had the bite with the APG-30 gun-sight and .50cal to ensure better percentage of hits on the target at longer range.
In 1987, Mark DeFazio was the structures engineer in the F-16 System Program Office (SPO) at WPAFB in Dayton. I was the structures engineer in the F-15 SPO, and later lead engineer for all USAF reconnaissance (try and spell that) aircraft. The F-15 SPO liked to brag that it would shoot down an F-16 over the horizon and never need to see it. The F-15 is absolutely the one with the proven record around the world as proven by sales numbers. I'll take the F-15E. My fav is the Navy F-18.
Oh my boy just unleashed the flood gates by mentioning John Boyd
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.
I can attest to how loud the canon on the F-16 is. When i was in Air Force ROTC in college, we got to go out to the Avon Park gunnery range on a day when the F-16 pilots from McDill were practicing air to ground attacks. Watching them drop dummy bombs was cool, but when they started doing strafing runs it was downright shocking. The sound of the gun was unforgettable, and was so loud that even from a safe distance it was almost like it induced synesthesia: You didn't just hear the gun, you felt it in your sinuses and is swear I could *smell* it.
Even at 40+ years old, the F16 is still the quintessential jet fighter - sleek, fast, agile, and even beautiful. Great video 👍
I love the F-16. The Thunderbirds came to my town about two months ago and I got to see them up close and meet the pilots. It was pretty awesome.
Extremely interesting! I'm already starting to love the F-16! Thank you for the video! I fly in a flight simulator on this famous plane. I live in Russia, but I want to study the F-16 and talk about it to the whole world. I really like it! I have already created a website, Telegram and TH-cam channels dedicated to this wonderful plane. It is a pity that I was born in Russia, and not in the USA!!! I would definitely be a pilot then!
from the immediate outset this video gets a lot of things wrong, most US aircraft losses from MiG-21s were bombers such as the F-105 thunderchief, when fishbeds had to face phantoms they got thoroughly clapped like during operation bolo where half of the NVA migs were destroyed in a single day
You seem to forget that TopGun programme was created for the reason, how long Vietnam War lasted and that e.g. Phantoms had been hobbled by Rules of Engagement and operation bolo was more about idea and planning than aircraft.
Only about 5min into the video but that turn demonstration so quick after reviewing the graph was absolutely fantastic.
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!
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.
you give too much credit to john boyd
Also the fighter mafia is the absolute bane of high-tech airplane development, taking credit for successful aircraft designs while making minimum contributions
I give John Boyd the absolutely deserved credit of pioneering the E-M diagram method of analysis
The issues with John Boyd with the fighter mafia more or less begins and ends with the book Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" by Robert Coram which has been proven to not be credible at all. Apart from that the declassified documents mentioned on this video are rock solid and refer John Boyd a lot.
@@RealEngineeringlazerpig made a video explaining how he copied a previous report which is likely what he is referring to
I figured some TH-camr made a video about him. That’s usually the case when people think they know more about a subject than a god damn F-16 test pilot 😂
@@RealEngineering the fighter community has gotten a lot wrong about this. This is an actual known issue. The fighter mafia did a lot of history revisionism and it stuck. LazerPig is 100% correct and well sourced on his research. Skip the video and check the sources at the end of his description.
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
Great video! With this in addition the the F-35, it would be cool if a video on the F-22 could be done at some point.
always a pleasure seeing real engineering uploaded
When I read Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, I was amazed. He played a significant role in shaping the F16 and F15. I recommend the book.
As an F18 fanboy I was disappointed that you did not mention the Hornet once when you discussed the leading edge strakes haha. The Hornet's leading edge extensions is missive in comparison to the Viper which makes it an excellent high alpha slow fighter. I would love to see a video on the f18 as well.
Thanks for an amazing video as usual!
Yes, also they help the thing land on a carrier at sane speeds. High drag at high alpha, but loads of lift.
Btw, did you know ... the f14 could land with one wing missing!! Although this was for a different reason. Mad!!
LERX kink 💀
@@richardconway6425isn't that f15c
@@pd28cat perhaps the F15 can do something similar, it wouldn't surprise me. The example I am thinking of was definitely an F14. It's because the fuselage of an f14 is very wide, and the pilot can use it like a 'lifting body' aircraft. Don't know whether the pilot could still land on a carrier, or whether he would need a full runway, but incredible none the less.
@@richardconway6425 He's referencing the F-15 that collided with another aircraft during an Israeli training exercise. The F-15 had a wing sheared right off and still managed to land. The other aircraft wasn't so lucky.
This was awesome. I am so happy that creators like you and your team exist. This made my day.