Talk:General Dynamics F-16XL

Reasons for losing the ETF competition?
This should be clarified. Vicarious Tendril (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * That is a nice list (and probably hits some of the high points), but anything added to the article would need to be verifiable... does anyone have those sources? -SidewinderX (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on General Dynamics F-16XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081216120737/http://www.codeonemagazine.com:80/archives/1991/articles/jul_91/july2a_91.html to http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1991/articles/jul_91/july2a_91.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on General Dynamics F-16XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202184707/http://www.codeonemagazine.com:80/archives/1991/articles/jul_91/july2a_91.html to http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/1991/articles/jul_91/july2a_91.html

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on General Dynamics F-16XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050317081312/http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/F-16XL2/ to http://www1.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-16XL2/

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

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

On Template:Did you know nominations/General Dynamics F-16XL
Hello, I am not the nominator, but I saw your response.


 * "replacement for the F-111 Aardvark" - this is covered in the Enhanced Tactical Fighter competition section of the page (now with Piccirillo p.149 citation)
 * Then the citation from the lead should be removed. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.  HarryKernow  (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, screwed up the ping.  HarryKernow  (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. The changes seem good. I've passed the DYK. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 17:53, 29 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Earwigs detection - not sure what I'm meant to see from this, but it says "Violation Unlikely 11.5%" and mostly picks up on key words and phrases like "high speed civil transport".
 * Article: "were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA"; Source: "were taken out of storage and turned over to NASA". AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "taken out of storage" is implied and pretty obvious, so removing that phrase fixes that.  HarryKernow  (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "...prototypes were shelved..." - I think [2] would be sufficient as a lead citation, but this is covered in the Piccirillo source, p.169 (shelving) and p.183+ (transfer to NASA, which it notes technically was early 1989)
 * Citations are not required in the lead, because everything in the lead should, in principle, be covered and sourced in the article body. But if you include citations in the lead, they should fully support what is being said. If they don't fully support the content, they should be removed. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * From point #1 - done.  HarryKernow  (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "Both aircraft were fully retired in 2009 and stored at Edwards Air Force Base." - "Both" because there were only 2 examples of this aircraft. The source in the lead is just a list, but their retirement is covered in the same source, p.281 (ch.11) which is cited later.
 * It should be stated clearly in the lead that there were two. "Both" presupposes that you've mentioned them before, which you actually haven't. <i style="color:teal">AhmadLX</i>-(<i style="color:brown">Wikiposta</i>) 13:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, easy to take that for granted. Fixed by sneaking a "two" in there.  HarryKernow  (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Fuselage vs airframe - I think "fuselage" and "airframe" are mostly interchangeable, but "Fuselage" is more appropriate in this case

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