Why the F-16 was Intentionally Built to be UNSTABLE
Head to my link athleticgreens.com/notwhatyou... to get a 1-year supply of vitamin D3K2 + 5 travel packs free with your first order!
Stability is usually a good thing, especially when you think of an aircraft in flight. But why the F-16 Fighting Falcon was designed and built to be aerodynamically unstable, is #NotWhatYouThink #NWYT #longs
Music: Epidemic Sound
Full Momentum - Christoffer Moe Ditlevsen
All Parts Equal - Airae
On the Trail - Tigerblood Jewel
Where the Air Is Thin - Jay Varton
Thyone - Ben Elson
Flightmode - Chris Shards
Lagom - Ooyy
Bootlick - Heigh-Ho
Composite Key - DEX 1200
Saltine - Tigerblood Jewel
Shortage - Marten Moses
Footage:
Select images/videos from Getty Images
Shutterstock Enterprise
National Archives
General Dynamics
Lockheed Martin
US Department of Defense
Note: "The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement."
Head to my link athleticgreens.com/notwhatyouthink to get a 1-year supply of vitamin D3K2 + 5 travel packs free with your first order!
Can you make a correction regarding the “mafia” also known as reformers? They didn’t influence anything, they hated the technology in the F-16 only to claim credit after its development! The pentagon wars and movies from the reformers perpetuate a lie that rarely goes corrected…
The fighter plane mafia didnt do shit
Youre cringe, do your research if youre gonna make a video. This is false information
hey you are cool and i love your videos but please link the laser pig video on the a-10 and add the fact that the fighter mafia did almost nothing
The F-117 actually used the F-16's fly by wire system (at least initially ... I've never heard a follow up afterwards).
Correction, the fighter jet mafia had almost nothing to do with it. I would highly recommend lazerpigs videos on John Boyd and the a-10 for more background but basically these people took credit for a bunch of stuff they didn't do. Often critics of such planes until they proved successful. They are frauds, not engineers, these same people wanted to remove some notable features from the f-15, f-16, and f-18. Those features were things like radars, missiles, ejection seats, radios, and fuel tanks. These same people claim credit for the A-10, when in fact they didn't design it either and the A-10 only remained in service by adding all the features that the fighter jet mafia said were wholly unnecessary. Don't give them credit for this.
this dude is right, youtubers nowadays are just getting shit from wikipedia.
+1 laserpig
Lazerpig may be correct on this... but does he make dad jokes, puns, and double entendres?
Harry Hillaker was part of the group and was a chief designer of the F-16. You can't just regurgitate lazerpig without doing your research
@@Theegreygaming he definitely makes double entendres
Pretty sure the reformers hated the F16 at first because of its fancy tech but later took credit for it anyway
They do that with everything. They claim it's gonna be bad, but when they see that's it's good. They say they made it
like with the F-15
@@slavtrooper3851 and the A-10, the F-22, and eventually the F-35.
radar? fly-by-wire? electronics? that's REFORMER HERESY. if you actually look at the "Lightweight Fighter Mafia" concept it's totally different and incompatible with what the F-16 is. the F-16 was actually a very modern plane for it's time. indeed it was the first fly-by-wire fighter ever. iirc later it was also the first plane to have digital fly-by-wire. you might also recall that the F-15/F-16 engine was also the first engine exclusively controlled by electronics (FADEC).
they will do the same with the F-35
The fighter jet mafia also hated the idea of Air to Air missiles, and would rather the plane carry no smart munitions, have no instruments, and nothing but fuel. Something they still want even in a modern world, all for increased dogfighting capability, something that almost never happens anymore due to over the horizon capabilities. Not to mention that they barely had any influence in the development of the F-16.
Foreshadowing the F-XX program
Honestly, they didn't even want the planes to carry fuel either lmao. A drop tank to get to the battle, and then just enough fuel to win an engagement to keep the plane as light and maneuverable as possible. You may see the problem
they want propellors back ahhaha
they also tried to cancel the F15 over 15 times and than claimed they desienged it when the only evidence from that is a book that they funded
@@ryangoslingIRL Jet engines are too complex and costly, so are ejection seats, and flares are only useful if you're getting shot at, and also why the fuck are we using bubble canopies...
So sad to hear anyone giving the fighter mafia credit for anything
Or even taking this video super seriously, it gets a *lot* outright wrong.
Well, here's the thing: the fighter mafia were instrumental in getting the LWF program off the ground, and played a key role in garnering public support. The issue is they were such hardcore fundamentalists that attempting to compromise with them was like trying to squeeze water from a stone. In the end their contributions were downplayed somewhat and the compromises went through, much to the FM's chagrin. But dispite this they still love to play the "we told ya so" card wherever and whenever they can.
It's more accurate to say that the F-16 doesn't NEED to be aerodynamically stable because of the electronic flight controls. The Russian fighters are very aerodynamically stable, and they're very maneuverable.
Why the hate?
Lol
Dynamic control systems (the science behind fly by wire) was the most brutal class I took when in college for Aerospace Engineering. Understanding the concepts wasn't hard, but the math required you to be fluent in matrices of LaPlace transforms of imaginary numbers. That said, understanding the concepts of why various systems are stable and/or controllable has been amazingly useful in life. Luckily, I've never needed the math part of it after that class was over.
Which college?
@@II_xD_II It was a graduate (500 level) class I took at Iowa State
Why was the math required?
@@LanaaAmor Two main reasons: 1) to determine if the feedback-control loops you have are capable of controlling the aircraft with the characteristics you want, (You can make an F16s controls respond like it was a cargo plane, but nothing you can do will make controls of a cargo plan respond like it was an F16) 2) to determine the necessary ratios of the various feedback signals to use to get your desired result.
I feel like most of those concepts where in my Computer Science undergrad class called Math Foundations for Comp Sci... Needless to say it was still brutal like you said.
The fighter mafia did not invent the unstable design, they simply pushed for small and light fighter with minimal equipment and superior maneuverability. Actual engineers came up with relaxed static stability as a way to enhance maneuverability, which was made possible by fly by wire, which the fighter mafia initially thought was too complicated and expensive. BTW, it's not relaxed negative stability, it's relaxed static stability. This is all about getting the center of gravity further aft so that the tail plane does not have to produce negative lift during turning or supersonic flight (when the center of pressure moves aft). Negative lift at the tail subtracts from the total lift produced by the airplane and therefore reduces the G it can produce. Relaxed static stability basically adds total lift to the airplane, or reduces drag for the amount of lift being produced.
Praising the fighter Mafia for parts of the F-16 design... 😬 1:56
After lazerpig exposed them how in hell do you keep this lie up
Jep… this absolute Bullshit
IKR? Especially with that charlatan Sprey on the photo. Man was "THE designer of F-15/A10/F-16" as much as a front desk receptionist in city hall is the president of the country
Cuh please don’t take research from Wikipedia
@@randomuser5443hahaha my man
Noooooo, not Pierre Spray in the photo. That man said so many things in his later years to get on television and claimed he was part of projects he was never in, watch a video about him it’s very interesting
You are right
Like the new channel “Russia Today” where he is broadcasted in English
If he were alive he would blame russia's failures in ukraine on missiles and guided bombs💀
The Fighter Jet Mafia didn't "design" the f-16, they just stood around criticising every good design aspect of fighter jets and then taking credit for any plane that went right, even if the final design included everything they criticised. They took credit for the f-16 when in reality, the design process probably would have gone better and faster if they didn't exist.
Stop your bullshit lying and "rewriting history" especially when they have all passed away. If they didn't, don't you think they would have been sued for "defamation"?
Most videos ive watched give them credit for the political fight for the program but not actually designing the plane.
The fighter mafia are a bunch of clowns and weren’t involved (luckily) in any successful aircraft design.
Harry Hillaker was a founding member of the fighter mafia and also a chief designer/project manager on the F-16 design team at GD.
@@HarryTheOwlcat yeah and he still campaigned against the F-16 having certain things like the AN-APG 66 and wanted it to have the APQ-153 from the F-5 as well as not having things like chaff and flares admittedly he later said that he was wrong
@@jameson1239 okay but that has nothing to with how wrong the claim that the fighter mafia "weren't involved in any successful design" is. Like, he was literally the primary designer on that plane...
@@HarryTheOwlcat well no very few of their ideas were actually taken. and their core belief was missiles were pointless and dumb bombs and dumb guns were the way to go with combat... how wrong they were. it just so happens they also believe that unstable aircraft were the way to go (the same thinking as EVERYONE ELSE)
Cool video. I was an F-16 avionics technician for 25 years, and was an avionics instructor for 7 of those. One interesting thing is the gun (which is located on the left shoulder) puts an asymmetrical force on the aircraft as it's being fired. So as soon as you start shooting the gun, it's no longer pointing at the target... Except the gun sends a signal to the DFLCC, and the computer kicks in just a little rudder to keep the jet pointing where it's supposed to.
I thought the fighter plane mafia was just a pack of idiot (and not engineers, just assistants to third party defence contractors that knew someone in the Pentagon) and had nothing to do with the F-14, F-15, F-16, A-10, F-22 or what ever plane they decided was their idea this week out side of a few ideas for the F-15 (like removing the ejector seat to save weight) and the F-16 was designed for as a cheaper option when sending an F-15 was overkill and used many of the technology's of the F-15 to speed up development.
You are correct
dont forget bashing the F-35 for sweet sweet RT rubles any chance you get Everytime a F-35 rolls of the production line Pierre Sprey murders a puppy
@@vitsobotka6268 Oh of cause how could I forget.
Yes, they are idiots
Yeah, kinda shitty that Not What You Think fell for their propaganda. His videos are usually really well researched.
"Fighter Mafia" 💀
yeah it's criminal what they tried to do to US fighters
3:22 THEY CAN'T KEEP GETTING AWAY WITH IT
fegenein trusted you,and i thought i could too, THEN WHY IN BLOODY HELL DOES THE FIGHTER MAFIA KNOW YOU?
I am really sorry but in reality the fighter mafia has nothing to do with the design of the viper
TLDR: the fighter mafia did not contribute to anything, the have never been engineers Funny story, a man in the fighter mafia, Pierre spray, claimed to have designed the f-15, f-16, a10, and more. (Note, Northrop Grumman and Fairchild republic are different companies) the only official documentation of any involvement in any of these programs is during a meeting on the f-15 he barged in the room and demanded a list of things be removed from the f-15 (he was laughed out the room) The reason he shows up in various news articles is because he was on the new channel “Russia today” to be broadcasted in English The reason he’s in this video is because he’s on Wikipedia The reason he’s on Wikipedia is because a man named John Boyd was writing an autobiography, died, and a new author Finished his biography. This new author asked his friends questions, including Pierre Spray. Pierre claims that he worked on various successful aircraft, the book gets finished, the requirements for Wikipedia is that something is written in a book, and now Wikipedia is a credible source.
10:37 He went from 16000' to 10360' in 7.94 seconds, which is approx 42 000 feet per minute... that means he had about 13 seconds left before hitting the ground. Crazy. Edit: even less than 13 seconds, as he was accelerating...
Incorrect, he was rapidly gaining speed in his descent. He was at 4,800 feet before the GCAS successfully pitched the F-16 upwards. That altitude is based on sea level, the radar calibrated altitude that gives the *actual* distance to the ground (marked by the R) showed he was 3,000 feet away from smacking the ground. GCAS kicked in at 8,700 feet sea level (which is actuated by several variables). Then subtract 1,700 feet to account for the difference in the radar altitude, which means he was 7,000 feet away, and achieved level flight at 3,000 feet. Meaning if GCAS had actuated even 2 or 3 seconds later he could have crashed into the ground. Maybe even less considering it's obviously very hilly terrain. Also if you look at the G counter, the plane hit 9 G's when GCAS kicked in. Talk about cutting it close! It also probably G-LOC'd the pilot out of consciousness for a second time LOL
@@weasle2904 I stand corrected. thanks for checking my work :)
So far I still think F-16 looks the coolest. The single air intake underneath the main body gives it a very unique look. Don't know why but it just looks COOL as hell.
The F16 is my favorite aircraft. I was stationed in Germany from 1984 to 1987 on a base with F16s. I went to Turkey TDY supporting these guys there. We lost a pilot during training there, because they didn't have the ground avoidence tech. He blacked out. Got stuck in the mudd.
Interesting point about the bicycle experiment you mentioned. Bikes are also designed to be inherently more unstable than necessary to make turning feel natural. I don't know the exact terminology for the science here but if you move the wheel behind the steering axis by turning the fork backwards, the bike will be much more stable when you do that hill experiment.
I think one of the simplest cheapest examples of this is in pulling Vs pushing something like luggage, or to a lesser extent a hand truck. Pulling two wheeled luggage stays naturally straight, while if you try to push it, it's much more of a fight.
It's not so much about 'feeling natural' but about the force one has to exert in order to deviate from the stable positions. In this case this means to turn.
I might be dead wrong, but my armchair-part-time-aeronautical-historian-limited-research-characterization of the Fighter Mafia is that they were a group of pure stick and rudder fans with no time to waste on fancy-schmancy hoodoo - inherent instability and/or computer assisted flight control.
Right now that is the popular narrative because of lazerpig. In reality, the Fighter Mafia looked to apply high technology concepts like new materials and new aerodynamic designs to achieve higher maneuverability and less drag. Harry Hillaker was a founding member of the group and was a chief designer on the F-16 from the late 60s til the mid 80s. He was no fool too; he said himself that if the Air Force just wanted another bomb truck, he would not have designed the F-16 like he did. Regardless, this video misses a lot of the core mechanisms behind the advanced aerodynamic design, like how they eliminated trim drag, or how the plane actually becomes stable at exactly mach 1. It also misses the very important follow-up to the F-16, the F-16XL, which further reduced drag, increased range, and increased combat speeds.
You are correct. They were against anything that would unnecessarily increase the weight and complexity of an aircraft. There were even against simple things like nosewheel steering or a parking brake. No radar at all was wanted. Ironically, they were even initially against fly-by-wire as unnecessary complexity that would increase cost and reduce reliability.
Quite the title, Michael! 😮
@@HarryTheOwlcat that's why prominent "members" of the fighter mafia talk shit about the F35 on RT, which does exactly what you claim they set out to do?
@@HarryTheOwlcat this is wrong. they were against having newer radars and disliked the idea of air to air missiles. i dont blame them the early sparrow and aim-9 were nothing special. they also seemed to be against any smart bomb or air to ground missiles.
From the moment it rolled off the production line, it’s been weighed down by tanks, CFTs, bombs, and other AG weapons. It’s now a light plane with tons of added weight. The irony is that the F-16 was effectively off the table as a dogfighter when it was built, as the F-15 was designed as the primary air superiority aircraft for the USAF. The Viper has effectively become a bomber over the years, though it’s still capable of AA and dogfighting. It’s just that it’s been superseded at nearly every turn by other planes. What it provides is rather amusing-it’s cheaper to fly than other aircraft in terms of cost per flight hour. It’s more useful as a strike platform that can self defend, filling multiple roles, rather than having single role aircraft in a battlespace. But by definition, it has become anything other than the originally-intended lightweight fighter.
It's not like that if the f 16 carries a lot of ordnance, it's suddenly incapable of dogfighting... It has always been designed to be multirole and if in any role a dogfight happens, it can just jettison the unnecessary stuff off and be peek dogfight performance with the press of a button.
To be fair, the 747 airframe is basically perfectly able to go almost to mach 1 in level flight. That is a substantial amount of speed for such a big plane. Not that they really need that ability as shown by the more modest speed of modern jet flights.
I think the best example of an unstable jet was the F117 Nighthawk. Without constant adjustments by the software to control its flight surfaces, it couldn't fly. Just looking at its shape, I'm still amazed it was successful.
The fighter mafia had nothing to do with the F-16
Yeah thw fighter Mafia took credit for other engineers work, hard to research for a weekly video but they were just the loudest kids outside the meetings they weren't actually invited too. Some of them are borderline crazy if you hear them talk in their weird circle conversations
While it’s true that the F-16 uses the Pratt F-100 engine, the engine shown at 9:23 is the General Electric F-110. They’re used fairly interchangeably on the F-16 airframe. Easy ways to spot the different is the duct orthogrid on GE vs isogrid on PW. When installed on airframe you can spot the difference by the amount of struts and architecture of the actuating nozzle support.
When I was a kid I saw three f16's flying next to one another while sitting in traffic on the Dan Ryan expressway in Chicago, it was easy to see the planes shaking around when they were flying in formation close to one another, I never knew the reason until this video. You don't notice the erratic flight of these planes when they fly alone. Thanks Dad for taking the long way home from that road trip!
I think Lazerpig has something to say about this video
This video was a good way to destroy not what you thinks credibility. Unbelievable.
Real Engineering did a great video on fighter instability. It's basically an energy problem in that a highly stable aircraft takes more energy to move away from straight and level flight which equates to worse maneuverability than a less stable aircraft.... Interesting bit of physics
But they need more energy to stop moving
@Antonio Hagopian stopping is the last thing you wanna do in a dogfight or any other sort of Mission
@@texastoast1671 exactly.... Modern fighters are more concerned with energy management than dogfighting ability since the vast majority of engagements are expected to take place at beyond visual range. If you "cash in" your airspeed, you're a sitting duck for a radar guided missile. Also, my previous comment is merely pointing out the interesting physics/aerodynamics that go into fighter development
2:32 **talks about mig 21*: *proceeds to show sukhoi su 22**
I've read that the "Viper" nickname was adopted by pilots because of the resemblance to the eponymous spacecraft in Battlestar Galactica.
I had no idea the USA lost 3700 planes in combat in Vietnam, that is an insane statistic
that's because the US history doesn't teach that, just like the any war the US has lost they won't teach it or they'll say they never lost one. Ask anyone about the war of 1812 and they'll say what war as that was the very first war they lost or was it against Mexico, ah who cares the US has only been a nation of power since the Gulf wars and yet still lost the Afghani war while letting millions go straight to the hands of Ruzzia
Viet Cong SAMS and MiG-21s were no joke
Yeah pilots were very poorly trained back tgen.
When I was a teenager I said I wanted to fly F-16s... I was told they'd likely be replaced by the time I was old enough to fly them... I'm 40 this year, never joined the air force, but it's nice to see the F-16 still flying.
Fun fact: When nasa was developing digital fly wire in the early 70s, they started with modifying an F-8 crusader. Now, it's 1972, you need a small, lightweight, powerful computer capable of running this control loop in real time. And you're at NASA. So of course, they used an Apollo Guidance Computer.
The Fighter Jet Mafia's credibility on military aircraft is the equates to a old Jazz Musician being considered as a military expert *points at Pierre Sprey*
When amazing planes get associated with the Fight Mafia, it is 100% a accurate assumption they had nothing to do with the plane, and took credit for it. As per their usual routine.
Fly by wire came along while college students were still programming on punch cards fed into computers the size of large refrigerators.
Why my mental health was designed to be unstable
You need some fly-by-wire shit
Really? Giving the "Fighter Mafia" credits? Their claims for credit in the F-15 and F-16 are incredible, as in NOT CREDIBLE.
Incredible timing for this video to come out as while I was watching I could hear the roars of a USAF (F-16) Thunderbird doing area acclamation exercises for this weekend's airshow being held at the nearby U.S. Air Reserve Base. Fyi: the aforementioned base, designated "March A.R.B." (formerly "March A.F.B." which began as "March Field" under the U.S. Army Air Corps) is, as indicated, a US Air Force Reserves training base, and so keeps and maintains (usually) two F-16 Fighting Falcons for training sessions.
My father-in-law was one of the engineers who designed the flight control systems for the F-16 (he also worked on the F-111). While "Flight #0" did indeed cause a Pilot Induced Oscillation, the reason was not because the plane was unstable. The PIO happened because of the gain settings on the fly-by-wire control system. The test pilot, Phil Oestricher, did an amazing job saving not only the aircraft, but also likely the F-16 program. The powers-that-be were not that impressed with fly-by-wire, and were ready to kill the program at any moment. A crash would've been all the evidence they needed. The goal that day was a high-speed taxi, where Phil planned to lift off about 1' or so before setting back down and easing back. When the PIO started, he struggled to gain control, and once it started leaving the runway and heading toward the grass, he stopped fighting the controls and the plane took off. He later told my FIL that the plane "wanted to fly", and he hardly touched the controls once it was airborne. They made some changes to the gain setting on the control systems, and two weeks later had the first official test flight.
I made a plane in KSP that's yaw unstable during high speed taxi and takeoff, and trying to fix it was really annoying. Hearing how the F-16, a really cool plane, experienced something like that makes me feel better even though it isn't really the same thing lol.
I design paper airplanes (my pfp is one of my models) and some things that people get wrong about paper planes is that folding a plane with a lock, it might be more difficult but it helps a ton. Also the wings must be at an anhedral position (like how boats shape can help it stay upright), and if it pitches down then you need to add up elevator (like a real plane) by bending the back edges up slightly and vice versa. With roll or yaw bend the opposite back edge up or the other down and vice versa. This will drastically improve your plane and make it fly straight every time
At 13:09 Viper.... Those that wanted to call it "Viper"did not choose that because it looked like a snake....that what's the official excuse. They actually choose the name viper because it looked like The fighter in the television series Battlestar Galactica....
It was not the first military jet, that was intentionally built to be unstable. So was the F-104 Starfighter, which was hard to keep up in the sky without the 3 axis automatic stabiliser. Most if not all of todays Fightgerjets are built "unstable", simply to increase extreme maneuverability, which is needed especially in air to air combat situations. Greetings, Wulf "Buddy" Beeck, ex. F-104 Navy Pilot, German Navy.
Small addition. The wings and fuselage were designed so that if the computers couldn’t adequately compensate they could move the wing forward a station and greatly improve stability.
"Fly-by-wire" never seems to be able to impart just how complex a system this is. Something like fly-by-computer would do the job better imo. Fly-by-wire sounds like an electronic version of the old hydraulic systems and whatnot. When the real fundamental change is the computer inbetween the pilot and the control surfaces. That is the gamechanger.
Just a couple of additions. In a conventional aircraft, the positive stability of a nose heavy design requires a tail surface that pushes down at the back of the airplane. This down force is substantial and has to be overcome by lift from the wing. So, for example, if you push down on the tail with 1000 lbs of force (an oversimplification, but good for illustration) the wing has to produce an extra 1000 lbs of lift. This detracts from maneuverability. In negatively stable aircraft, this isn't necessary. Also, the response time and pitch rates can increase due to the more aft CG. I flew the F-16N in the Navy and it was completely seamless getting into the F-16 to fly. I think it took 5 minutes to feel completely at home in the airplane (other than the somewhat complex, but capable features of the HOTAS). It was like sitting on a lawn chair with two cans of beer! And, while the tilted back seat no doubt helped with G-tolerance, I think it was the raised feet that REALLY shortened the column of blood. Also, full rudder throw was 1/4 of an inch! So, you could really stretch out. The only downside was it was harder to use a "piddle-pack" (for some guys - NOT me of course! 😁).
The F-16 is the prettiest plane ever made, and you cannot change my mind. It is sleek, graceful, beautiful, and deadly. The femme fatale of planes.
1:54 I actually did make quite of bit of them and frequently win distance contests. I'd make a square nose (mostly for weight), small wing profile, and elevatore from folding the end of the wings up. You throw the plane up at a 70-80° angle and watch it fly. The nose forced the plane to pitch forward, turning altitude into speed, and when your speed became too much the pressure on the elevators forced the pitch back up. It would restart over and over until most of the stored energy was consumed and could no longer pitch back up. It worked like a flywheel or maybe newton's cradle better describes it. Ugly as shit, slow, no bitches, but flew extremely far. Also, if it catches a good headwind and the elevators hold it will seemingly never stop.
Although superseded by the F-35 Lightning II (Aka; The Panther), the F-16 will still be one of my favorite 4th generation fighter introduced I'm hoping the PAF will choose it for their MRF program which will complement the FA-50PH Fighting Eagle used as both a Light Combat Aircraft/Lead-In Fighter Trainer.
Good vid; but you forgot to talk about the gun compensation in the flight control system. The FCS is making it a bit to stable for dogfights. When the trigger is pushed, a slight wobble is induced; giving a better spread of shots
I normally insta-upvote NWYT, but I can't in good conscience let them get away with that much praise for the Fighter Mafia. They revel in this kind of history revisionism which gives them undue credit.
Story time: I was lucky enough to be in a troop with a scout master that was a Lt. Col. in the AF. I was like 15 on the field at Tyndall watching them scramble 16’s from the far part of the runway where they had their own setup. We camped on the outskirts and it was around surplus equipment tents, big ones, filled with random shit. My scout master likely outranks your opinion and he said I could keep the trinkets I found. I met the scramble pilots and when I saw I could have my name on the side of one these things I was hooked. But I was like 15, pretty soon after came the extracurricular fun of women and parties so that never came to be. Saw norad or whatever the big room with all the screens was too, some stupid acronym. Boy Scouts get a bad rep but it was the best time of of my developmental years
every time he says ”but it’s not what you think”, it almost always is exactly what you thought
Just found this channel a few weeks ago LOVE IT!!
Instability is inherently what makes a fighter maneuverable. Sopwith Camel in WW1 was so unstable it killed like half its casualties in training. A good fighter should be unstable but controllable. Wrong about Vietnam. You don't seem to have any BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvers) experience. You just have to know how to fly them ;) by the end of Vietnam the kill ratio was DRAMATICALLY in favor of the US. Even during the earliest years the kill ratio was about 2.5 to 1. meaning 2.5 migs for each American fighter downed. By the end this was very different. Also the F16 is strongest in the 2 circle fight. Maneuverability comes in more than one variety. A 2 circle dominate fighter excels in traveling more degrees around the circle per sec. The migs are primarily 1 circle dominate. ( i.e) turn radius fighting. Neither is inherently better and ultimately in most cases it comes down to training and skill. And ultimately all dogfights will if they continue long enough they will end up on the deck then the 2 circle fighter has a massive advantage as long as they have enough energy (speed+ altitude) to rate at their optimum. Also the F 14 and F 15 are by no means light. I would call F 16 and FA 18 light. I would call mirage light. F 15 is a damn tennis court.
I love this channel, never fails to be entertaining and very informative. Hope u can continue for years!
10:03 the seat wasn't designed to tilt back; it is the only fighter in the world with an already reclined seat
The reason why that YF-16 in the initial tests had exhibited those rolling oscillations, was due to a combination between the pilot's inexeprience with a pressure stick and some flight control logics constants (dampening) that had to be corrected later using the flight data. The moment "instability", is split into these major categories: 1. "Static instability" 2. "Dynamic instability" 3. "Aerodynamic instability" Each of these types is relative to one of the three types of rotations: pitch, roll, yaw. We now already have 9 types of "instabilites". The dynamic stability is again split into two submodes: rapid modes and slow modes. Therefore we have a total of 12 = 9+3 types of instability behaviors. The only type of instability exhibited by an F-16, F-22, F-35, Su-27 family, Su-57, Mirage 2000, Eurofighter, Jas-39, JF-17, etc..., is only related to pitching moments, as static and aerodynamic combined instabilities. -pitch only..., all of them- None of them exhibit, roll or yaw instabilities as that is undesirable and useless. How is the pitch static instability defined? The short variant: "The variation of the pitching moment versus AoA with the pitch control surfaces at zero deflection". A pitching moment increase towards a positive value, as the AoA increases with pitch controls neutral, defines a statically unstable mode. A pitching moment increase towards a negative value, as the AoA increases with neutral pitch controls, defines a statically stable mode. The aerodynamic instability is almost always present although the static instability has the greater factor. The aerodynamic instability defines the rate at which the static instability varies with AoA. To give a fact and clear example of how the pitch static instability affects an F-16C fighter, I will explain it as follows: At zero AoA (close to zero, yet pozitive lift on the wings), mid subsonic speed, the pilot commands a small pitch up G amount (cause the FBW actually tries to give a constant G as output) and so the elevators are deflected for pitch up by a given needed amount. Arbitrary, let's say they deflect 4 degrees up. Let's consider that the IAS (indicated airspeed) never varies. The AoA is now going to a constant 5 degrees. Now, the pilot pitches up a bit more, the deflection goes to 8 degrees, but the AoA doesn't go double as well (as it would happen for a statically stable mode), and instead of 10, it reaches 12 AoA. The pilot pitches up again and the elevators deflection goes to 16 degrees (doubling again). The AoA now goes to let's say, 30 degrees..., again much more than 24 (double). This is the static instability in pitch. For a constant/linear pitch up deflection of the pitch controls surfaces, the AoA increases exponentially more and there is also a limit of AoA (usually a positive AoA limit for modern fighters) above which the plane will pitch on it's own without any more input from the pilot and at some higher AoA, even with full opposite pitch deflection (let's say a pitch down input), the plane still pitches up or is unable to pitch down anymore, an undesirable state known as "deep stall". Up to the point or better said AoA, at which the plane starts pitching up on it's own, the plane is much more precisely controlled via FBW, but it doesn't mean that it CANNOT BE DIRECTLY CONTROLLED by the pilot as many "know very little about everything" tend to believe. For example, up to 30 degrees of AoA, the F-16 can be flown even with no FBW, but it's just too twitchy or too sensitive in responses and a bit difficult, but not impossible to control. At least to AoA's of up to positive 20 degrees, the pilot is able to fly an F-16, fly it around and land it safely. It's just that the precision in expected responses according to the inputs suffers, but the plane is flyable.
I always thought that the F-16 is what a fighter jet is supposed to look like. One of the best looking plane ever made.👍
I once had a die-cast Matchbox version of the YF-16 that was my favorite
Seeing that GCAS pull up and save the pilot still gets me. I mean you are looking at a dead man there without that system.
Lmao I recognise the lecture hall at 1:49. That's lecture hall A at aerospace engineering at the TU Delft. This is a lecture about stability where the teacher gives out handouts with very complex stability equations to scare the class, only to then at the end of the class ask everyone to fold it into an airplane to show the concept of stability. Great times
It is like the eurofighter typhoon if i understood correctly because this fighter is also unstable build because of the delta wing type and is very agile even one of the best in the Air right now.
During the 747 section all i could think about was that guy that really tested/pushed the limits of those big planes when he hijacked one and did a loop with it
Correction: She was officially named 'faghting Falcon' by it's designer General Dynamics but renamed unofficially 'Viper' by basically everyone who flew or worked on it. Basically everyone calls it the Viper now. So it's basically reversed to how this video explains it. Still enjoying to watch, thanks.
"Passenger airliners are built for stable flight." MD-11: "If you turn off the stability control system I will literally do a Cobra."
Will it actually 😂
Designing a rocket with flippers on a napkin was Lockheed Martin’s best selling party trick. It worked out pretty well 👍
Another well-written and presented piece - great!
I always heard that Fighting Falcon was the origional government nickname and Viper was the pilot's term of endearment after Battlestar Galactica.
If the fighter jet Mafia got their way the F-16 wouldn't have had it's radar, missiles, afterburner, fuel, and likely it's flares and ejection seat would've been gone too.
11:20 "Can't say the same about the birds though - they aren't F-16-proof ... yet!" i find that very funny
Years ago, one of our RC modelers built a F-18, RC. He contacted McDonald-Duglass to get info on center of gravity. They said they don't really know, three flight computers make it flyable. They suggested building a small glider and make that fly, then start there with the RC version. None of today's aircraft have actual CGs, computers do the work and keep them flyable.
you know a fighter jet is so unstable when it needs the 80s equivalent of a super computer to keep it straight
That was a great video, thank you!
10:40 - It is not GCAS. It is AGCAS - Automatic Ground Collision Avoidance System. Many aircrafts have GCAS which warns pilot to aviod colision and advices him what to do. AGCAS was implemented F-16 Block 40/50. The older F-16 blocks don't have AGCAS.
Actually f-4 wasn’t designed for dogfights. So it is not surprising. They never thought that he would win in dogfight, they thought it isn’t relevant
That was a very clean Segway into the AG1 spot
13:12 velociraptors are widely known for their great ability to fly, hence the name of the f-22, raptor
Dassault mirage 2000 ? Also a single engine, purposely unstable, and we also removed the horizontal stabiliser. Making the only fighter airplane able to operate all-time in the Kashmir's mountains, Yes it's a french marvel, and no I am not biased towards my home country :). Thanks for the video
One of the most beautiful craft, topped perhaps by the 4000. Deltas just have a look that kills. The F-106 is a perennial favorite, but France made the delta look good.
So I'm not actually a pilot but I play MSFS2020 a lot and we all know that it's pretty much the most realistic flight simulator you can get at the time. I play the F-16 a lot and can say that it's very instabil. Most of you might know those videos of a takeoff of the F-16 going streight up after takeoff. That isn't as easy as it sounds because you need enought speed for that and most importantly: very precised maneuvers because if you pull the stick to the left or right just slightly too much you'll lose control. Still, that instability gives the F-16 a high maneuverability wich makes the F-16 so beautiful.
Understanding the seat is reclined, how hard is it on the pilot’s neck to crane forward a bit for forward visibility? Is it a non-issue, or is it a fatigue issue? Or can the seat ratchet level to alleviate this?
It is like a nervous sports car being able to move and transition quickly ! With the right programming the F16 has turned out to be a great small fighter with unbelievable carrying capacity !
I’m going to go ahead and say it will be exactly what I think since it’s a topic I’m knowledgeable about
I love this guy’s voice! It’s like a Simpson’s construct of a far Eastern Charles Bronson. Superb.
US Military: *Names a fighter jet after a bird, instead of a slithering reptile* Also US Military: *Names an attack helicopter after a slithering reptile*
I don’t know when it changed but it used to be that the Aircraft Manufacturers used to name the aircraft, which is why all Grumman aircraft are named after cats (wildcat, panther , tomcat etc). McDonald aircraft were named after supernatural entities, phantom, banshee, voodoo etc
@@michaelold6695 Must have been sometime during Vietnam or right after because the AH-1 Cobra was introduced in the 60's, and the F-16 was early 80's.
Alright before watching the video, lets see if it actually is what I think, these are my 3 guesses: 1) To improve maneuverability by allowing sharper turns 2) To make the plane less predictable in a dog-fight 3) To improve aerodynamics or speed
I have a cousin that flies f-16s. It was originally supposed to be the viper because of the way the air brakes look. That's those rectangles that are situated between the horizontal stabilizers and the engine nozzle. They open up and the structures inside look like the mouth of a snake. Had nothing to do with the plane looking like a cobra... if it looked like a cobra, why call it a viper? -_-
Yeah, the fighter mafia didn't actually do a damn thing. They just happened to swoop in and take credit.
The F-16, also known as the Fighting Falcon, was indeed the first fighter jet designed to be intentionally unstable. This design approach, known as "fly-by-wire," allowed the aircraft to be highly maneuverable and agile in combat. Traditionally, aircraft were designed to be inherently stable, with the goal of making them easier to fly and safer for the pilot. However, this stability also limited their maneuverability and agility, which can be a disadvantage in a dogfight. By contrast, the F-16 was designed to be intentionally unstable, relying on a computer-controlled fly-by-wire system to keep the aircraft in control. This allowed the aircraft to make rapid, high-G turns and perform other advanced maneuvers that would have been impossible with a more stable design. The fly-by-wire system also made the F-16 easier to control at high speeds and altitudes, where traditional controls could be less effective. This made the F-16 a highly effective fighter jet, and it remains in service with numerous air forces around the world to this day.
Pierre Sprey: Angry old man and record producer.😂
Basically the more stable a plane is the less maneuverable, the less stable a plane is the more maneuverable up to a point then it just it's stable enough to fly
We still use the term viper in/on the battlefield, along with others. It's not a force to reckoned with. Trust me.. The Viper is not going away anytime soon. It saves lives. Just like it was designed to do. - D63
if the "fighter mafia" had their way and *did* come up with a unstable design (which they didn't), they would have rejected the idea of fly-by-wire as they hated any new advancement of technology and blamed any crashes from it on the pilot. most never had to see real combat or fly real missions, all they had to do was throw up ideas until one *sounds* close enough to relate to a jet the military made and claim credit for it. if they had their way, the best plane they would have made would probably be a swept wing biplane with a jet strapped to it.
One thing I'd like to add The enemy won't know where I'm going if I don't know where I'm going.
"lightweight-" NOOO NOO PLEASE GOD NO "fighter-" NOOOOOOOOOOOO- "Mafia" AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA-
The problem with needing fly by wire is that you can't really fly it like you intend. F16 can get in a deep stall which is impossible to recover from because the fly by wire WILL NOT let the pilot recover the flight envelope.