Fighter Aircraft Alternates?

[Richard Stewart]

Hi Guys,
Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
older fighter aircraft?

eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...

But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...

F14?
F15?
F16?
A10?
F117?
(have I missed any?)

and any pix?

Cheers,
Richard

[Ron]

>eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>

Nope, to the YF-16.

The YF-17 design was scaled up somewhat for the F/A-18.


Ron
PA-31T Cheyenne II
Maharashtra Weather Modification Program
Pune, India

[Richard Stewart]

Ron wrote:

>>eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>>
>
> Nope, to the YF-16.
>
> The YF-17 design was scaled up somewhat for the F/A-18.

Yeah?
Every time I look up this stuff I always get the YF17 vs YF18 pictures...
and they're pretty similar looking jets too...

Cheers,
Richard

[Robert]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:53:51 +1000, Richard Stewart
> wrote:

>Hi Guys,
>Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
>older fighter aircraft?
>
>eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>
>But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
>far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
>F14?
>F15?
>F16?
>A10?
>F117?
>(have I missed any?)
>
>and any pix?
>
>Cheers,
>Richard

F-15:
Boeing, Fairchild Republic, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, LTV,
McDonnell Douglas and North American / Rockwell all submitted
proposals for the F-X competition, but only the winning entry
(McDonnell Douglas) was built, as the F-15 Eagle.

A-10:
Boeing, Cessna, Fairchild Republic, General Dynamics, Lockheed and
Northrop submitted proposals for the A-X competition. Fairchild
Republic and Northrop were selected to build competing prototypes, as
the YA-10 and YA-9, respectively.

See:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-10.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-11.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-12.htm

F-16:
Boeing (Model 908-909), General Dynamics (Model 401-16B), LTV
(V-1100), Lockheed (CL-1200 and CL-1600) and Northrop (P-600)
submitted proposals for the LWF competition (LightWeight Fighter).
General Dynamics and Northrop were selected to build competing
prototypes, as the YF-16 and YF-17, respectively. The YF-16 was chosen
as the winner. Northrop further developed, with McDonnell Douglas, the
YF-17 into the F-18, which was selected by the USN (over a navalized
F-16).

See:
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f16a.htm

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f17.htm

F-117:
Northrop and Lockheed submitted proposals for the XST program
(eXperimental Survivable Testbed). Only the Lockheed entry was
selected to build two prototypes, which were developed into the F-117.

See:
http://www.f-117a.com/XST.html


I don't have much data right at hand about F-14 development. No other
competing designs were built, though. As for others: F-15E vs F-16XL,
A-16 vs YA-7F, YF-22 vs YF-23, X-32 vs X-35 are the only recent ones
that come to mind

[robert arndt]

Richard Stewart > wrote in message >...
> Hi Guys,
> Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
> older fighter aircraft?
>
> eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>
> But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
> far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
> F14?
> F15?
> F16?
> A10?
> F117?
> (have I missed any?)
>
> and any pix?

F-14... was there any competition? Features from the F-15 alternate
designs showed up on the Tomcat.
F-15... McDonnell-Douglas, Rockwell, and others submittted competitive
designs
F-16... YF-17 Cobra (which influenced the F/A-18 Hornet)
F-20 Tigershark... private venture, no one wanted to buy it
Piper Enforcer and ARES Mudfighter... no interest in COIN aircraft
A-10... Northrop A-9
F-117... Northrop XST (and unknown to the USAF... Germany... the MBB
Lampyridae)

Oh, and for the B-52 fans... the Convair YB-60:
http://www.air-and-space.com/YB-60.htm

Rob
> Cheers,
> Richard

[frank may]

Richard Stewart > wrote in message >...
> Hi Guys,
> Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
> older fighter aircraft?
>
> eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>
> But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
> far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
> F14?
> F15?
> F16?
> A10?
> F117?
> (have I missed any?)
>
> and any pix?


The F-14 & F-15 had several paper competitors from LTV,
Fairchild, & the like. There are pics out there. ISTR some older ARCO
books on the F-14 & F-15 with artist concepts of some competitors.
I've also seen some artist concepts in old back issues of Aviation
Week & Space Technology. See if your library has them or can get them
& go back to the late '60s - early '70s. I think you can find a pic
eventually of an F-15 in SEA camo! World Airpower Journal issues in
the last few years have also had some pics of I know the F-14's
competition, even some mock-ups. Maybe even the F-15. The A-10's
competition was Northrop's YA-9. Do a search for it. There are pics &
even a couple of model kits out there. ISTR seeing a pic in an early
'70s issue of Air International/Air Enthusiast of the A-10 &/or YA-9
designs in SEA camo. I don't think the F-117 had a competitor, but
Northrop did have some sort of stealth a/c similar to the F-117 so it
could've been its classified concept competitor. The YF-17 lost out to
the YF-16. The F-18 was developed from the YF-17 by McD/D.
>
>

[Mary Shafer]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:53:51 +1000, Richard Stewart
> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
> Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
> older fighter aircraft?
>
> eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...

The YF-17 lost to the YF-16.

> But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
> far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
> F14?

No fly off

> F15?

No fly off.

> F16?

YF-16 over the YF-17

> A10?

YF-10 won against the YF-9.

> F117?

No fly off.

> (have I missed any?)

F-15E over the F-16XL, although I don't know how formal the fly off
was.

F-18L lost to the F/A-18 but the former was paper and the latter was
flying.

YC-14 and YC-15, but both lost.

C-5 beat the Boeing version which became the 747 but that was in the
paper stage, not prototypes

> and any pix?

You can see the YF-17 and F-18, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-16XL in the
gallery at www.dfrc.nasa.gov
>
> Cheers,
> Richard

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Jeroen Wenting]

> F-14... was there any competition? Features from the F-15 alternate
> designs showed up on the Tomcat.
There was, the F-14 was selected when the F-111B failed to meet
expectations.
Whether they were in direct competition at any point I don't know, but on
paper they must have been.

> F-15... McDonnell-Douglas, Rockwell, and others submittted competitive
> designs
> F-16... YF-17 Cobra (which influenced the F/A-18 Hornet)
And later lost out to the F/A-18 in the Navy competition (a navalised F-16
was proposed but rejected despite being pushed heavily by the white house)

> F-20 Tigershark... private venture, no one wanted to buy it
> Piper Enforcer and ARES Mudfighter... no interest in COIN aircraft
Never competed against the F-16 or each other. ARES was a technology
concept, Enforcer was aimed at the 3rd world market, in part for use in US
military aid projects. Those were pretty much stopped before it could enter
production

Both the Tigershark and Enforcer were meant as replacements for the F-5A
series, potential customers bought the USAF choice instead...

> A-10... Northrop A-9
> F-117... Northrop XST (and unknown to the USAF... Germany... the MBB
> Lampyridae)
>
Lampyridae was never in competition to the F-117. It was a separate
development of which only a few photos of a single model exist.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:28:36 +1000, Richard Stewart
> wrote:

>Ron wrote:
>
>>>eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>>>
>>
>> Nope, to the YF-16.
>>
>> The YF-17 design was scaled up somewhat for the F/A-18.
>
>Yeah?
>Every time I look up this stuff I always get the YF17 vs YF18 pictures...
>and they're pretty similar looking jets too...
>
>Cheers,
>Richard


There's a reason for that. They're before/after photos. That's why
they are so similar. Any article on the YF-17 will tell you so.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:53:51 +1000, Richard Stewart
> wrote:

>Hi Guys,
>Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
>older fighter aircraft?
>
>eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>
>But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
>far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
>F14?
>F15?
>F16?
>A10?
>F117?
>(have I missed any?)
>


The AH-64 (Apache) won over the AH-63 for the AAH program which itself
was formed after the AH-56 Cheyenne was deemed to ambitious (ie $$$).

The YF-107 lost to the F-105 and the XF8U-3 lost out to the F-4.
Neither of these were formal competitions AFAIK but they were being
developed at the same time and the services decided they could only
afford one so it ended up being that way.

The B-52 won over the YB-60

The B-47 won over the XB-46 and XB-48

The Blackbird won over the Convair KingFisher

The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
looked the coolest.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 22:27:19 -0700, hobo > wrote:

>In article >,
> Mary Shafer > wrote:
>
>>
>> F-15E over the F-16XL, although I don't know how formal the fly off
>> was.
>
>How good was the F-16xl? Some people say it would have been produced if
>it could super-cruise.


The F-16XL mod started as SCAMP which IIRC stood for Supersonic Cruise
Aircraft Modification Program. And it could. . .just. It had nothing
to do with why it lost though. The F-15 was chosen because it was
two-man, bigger radar, twin engine, bigger payload, and longer range.
Not to mention the fact that at the time McD was demoing the hell out
of the "new" SAR modes of the APG-63 and it was pretty impressive.

[Robert]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:38:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
>everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
>thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
>so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
>looked the coolest.
>

Any links?

[Dweezil Dwarftosser]

Scott Ferrin wrote:
>

> The F-16XL mod started as SCAMP which IIRC stood for Supersonic Cruise
> Aircraft Modification Program. And it could. . .just. It had nothing
> to do with why it lost though. The F-15 was chosen because it was
> two-man, bigger radar, twin engine, bigger payload, and longer range.
> Not to mention the fact that at the time McD was demoing the hell out
> of the "new" SAR modes of the APG-63 and it was pretty impressive.

Not to mention that the F-16 radars were notorious little
pieces of crap...

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:54:27 GMT, Robert >
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:38:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>>The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
>>everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
>>thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
>>so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
>>looked the coolest.
>>
>
>Any links?


Hope you can read French because the English option seems to be
busted.

http://prototypes.free.fr/f111b/f111b-1.htm

[Robert]

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:34:34 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:54:27 GMT, Robert >
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:38:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> wrote:
>>>The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
>>>everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
>>>thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
>>>so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
>>>looked the coolest.
>>>
>>
>>Any links?
>
>
>Hope you can read French because the English option seems to be
>busted.
>
>http://prototypes.free.fr/f111b/f111b-1.htm


Thanks! Not a problem, a picture is worth a thousand words... =)

[Rick Folkers]

actually the yf17 lost out to yf 16. later the yf17 was midified to the 18
and adopted by the navy

the a10 beat out the a9 from northrup

F14 was adopted after a naval version of the F111 was dropped due to weight
issues. naval version was F111b

"Richard Stewart" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Guys,
> Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
> older fighter aircraft?
>
> eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>
> But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
> far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
> F14?
> F15?
> F16?
> A10?
> F117?
> (have I missed any?)
>
> and any pix?
>
> Cheers,
> Richard
>

[Matt Wiser]

Richard Stewart > wrote:
>Hi Guys,
>Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices
>were for the main US
>older fighter aircraft?
>
>eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
>
>But what were the competitors to the rest (you
>don't need to go back too
>far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
>
>F14?
>F15?
>F16?
>A10?
>F117?
>(have I missed any?)
>
>and any pix?
>
>Cheers,
>Richard
>
There were no flyoffs for the F-14 and F-15 programs: Grumann beat out
their competiton on paper, and McAir did the same with the F-15. The F-16
beat the YF-17 for the LWF (Lightweight Fighter) Program, and the YF-17 was
modified to become the F/A-18. The AX program had the A-9 from Northrop and
the A-10 from Fairchild Republic. Fairchild Republic won, and the two A-9s
went to Museums. Stealth was between Lockheed and Northrop in both the Fighter
(F-117) and Bomber (B-2) programs, Lockheed of course won the fighter and
Northrop won the bomber competitions (with tech deomonstrators, not prototypes).


Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[Alisha's Addict]

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:09:03 -0700, Mary Shafer >
wrote:

>> and any pix?
>
>You can see the YF-17 and F-18, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-16XL in the
>gallery at www.dfrc.nasa.gov

Here's a pic of the F-16XL ...

http://freejigsawpuzzles.com/beta/beta_test_square_F16XL1994.htm

Although you'll have to do a little bit of work to uncover it :-)

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)

[Jim Thomas]

Don't forget the F-4H (McDonnell) vs the F-8U-3 (Chance Vought). Or is
that "too far"?

Jim Thomas


Robert > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 15:53:51 +1000, Richard Stewart
> > wrote:
>
> >Hi Guys,
> >Just wondering what the alternate (losing) choices were for the main US
> >older fighter aircraft?
> >
> >eg. I know the YF17 lost out to the F18...
> >
> >But what were the competitors to the rest (you don't need to go back too
> >far) - that's if they actually HAD competitors...
> >
> >F14?
> >F15?
> >F16?
> >A10?
> >F117?
> >(have I missed any?)
> >
> >and any pix?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Richard
>
> F-15:
> Boeing, Fairchild Republic, General Dynamics, Grumman, Lockheed, LTV,
> McDonnell Douglas and North American / Rockwell all submitted
> proposals for the F-X competition, but only the winning entry
> (McDonnell Douglas) was built, as the F-15 Eagle.
>
> A-10:
> Boeing, Cessna, Fairchild Republic, General Dynamics, Lockheed and
> Northrop submitted proposals for the A-X competition. Fairchild
> Republic and Northrop were selected to build competing prototypes, as
> the YA-10 and YA-9, respectively.
>
> See:
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-10.htm
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-11.htm
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/attack/a6/a6-12.htm
>
> F-16:
> Boeing (Model 908-909), General Dynamics (Model 401-16B), LTV
> (V-1100), Lockheed (CL-1200 and CL-1600) and Northrop (P-600)
> submitted proposals for the LWF competition (LightWeight Fighter).
> General Dynamics and Northrop were selected to build competing
> prototypes, as the YF-16 and YF-17, respectively. The YF-16 was chosen
> as the winner. Northrop further developed, with McDonnell Douglas, the
> YF-17 into the F-18, which was selected by the USN (over a navalized
> F-16).
>
> See:
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f16a.htm
>
> http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/research/fighter/f17.htm
>
> F-117:
> Northrop and Lockheed submitted proposals for the XST program
> (eXperimental Survivable Testbed). Only the Lockheed entry was
> selected to build two prototypes, which were developed into the F-117.
>
> See:
> http://www.f-117a.com/XST.html
>
>
> I don't have much data right at hand about F-14 development. No other
> competing designs were built, though. As for others: F-15E vs F-16XL,
> A-16 vs YA-7F, YF-22 vs YF-23, X-32 vs X-35 are the only recent ones
> that come to mind

[robert arndt]

Robert > wrote in message >...
> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:34:34 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:54:27 GMT, Robert >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:38:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin
> > wrote:
> >>>The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
> >>>everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
> >>>thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
> >>>so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
> >>>looked the coolest.
> >>>
> >>
> >>Any links?
> >
> >
> >Hope you can read French because the English option seems to be
> >busted.
> >
> >http://prototypes.free.fr/f111b/f111b-1.htm
>
>
> Thanks! Not a problem, a picture is worth a thousand words... =)

aka: Republic-Fokker D-24 Alliance (1965)
>
> A really rare and virtually unknown project/mock-up.
>
> http://www.aerofiles.com/repub-d24.jpg
> http://www.aerofiles.com/repub-d24model.jpg
http://aerostories.free.fr/dossiers/ADAV/FokAlliance.JPG

Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

On 9 Jul 2004 19:39:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Robert > wrote in message >...
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:34:34 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:54:27 GMT, Robert >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:38:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>> >>>The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
>> >>>everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
>> >>>thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
>> >>>so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
>> >>>looked the coolest.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Any links?
>> >
>> >
>> >Hope you can read French because the English option seems to be
>> >busted.
>> >
>> >http://prototypes.free.fr/f111b/f111b-1.htm
>>
>>
>> Thanks! Not a problem, a picture is worth a thousand words... =)
>
> aka: Republic-Fokker D-24 Alliance (1965)


Yeah Republic took their own design and modified it. Similar to the
F-16/ F-2

[Scott Ferrin]

On 9 Jul 2004 19:39:43 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>Robert > wrote in message >...
>> On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 16:34:34 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:54:27 GMT, Robert >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 05:38:55 -0600, Scott Ferrin
>> > wrote:
>> >>>The F-111 won over the Boeing and Republic for the TFX. Pretty much
>> >>>everybody felt the Boeing design was the best but good old MacNamara
>> >>>thought he was an aircraft designer and had a different agenda to boot
>> >>>so they got the GD entry. Personally I thought the Republic design
>> >>>looked the coolest.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Any links?
>> >
>> >
>> >Hope you can read French because the English option seems to be
>> >busted.
>> >
>> >http://prototypes.free.fr/f111b/f111b-1.htm
>>
>>
>> Thanks! Not a problem, a picture is worth a thousand words... =)
>
> aka: Republic-Fokker D-24 Alliance (1965)


Oh, and just to be clear, Fokker had NOTHING to do with the Republic
TFX entry. Zippo, natta.

[robert arndt]

> > aka: Republic-Fokker D-24 Alliance (1965)
>
>
> Oh, and just to be clear, Fokker had NOTHING to do with the Republic
> TFX entry. Zippo, natta.

You're right since it was Fokker that FIRST proposed the D-24 Alliance
in 1965 to meet a NATO VTOL requirement. Fokker sought out Republic as
a partner but the Republic designation would have been either VAX or
VTX.
Although Fokker never built a mock-up, Republic did as the modified
TFX entry without the VTOL and British engines of the D-24.
I have a model of the D-24 and it is a shame the aircraft wasn't
built.

Rob

[robert arndt]

> > aka: Republic-Fokker D-24 Alliance (1965)
>
>
> Oh, and just to be clear, Fokker had NOTHING to do with the Republic
> TFX entry. Zippo, natta.

You're right since it was Fokker that FIRST proposed the D-24 Alliance
in 1965 to meet a NATO VTOL requirement. Fokker sought out Republic as
a partner but the Republic designation would have been either VAX or
VTX.
Although Fokker never built a mock-up, Republic did as the modified
TFX entry without the VTOL and British engines of the D-24.
I have a model of the D-24 and it is a shame the aircraft wasn't
built.

Rob

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Don't forget the F-4H (McDonnell) vs the F-8U-3 (Chance Vought). Or is
> that "too far"?
>

That's F4H and F8U-3.

[Scott Ferrin]

On 10 Jul 2004 08:14:36 -0700, (robert arndt) wrote:

>> > aka: Republic-Fokker D-24 Alliance (1965)
>>
>>
>> Oh, and just to be clear, Fokker had NOTHING to do with the Republic
>> TFX entry. Zippo, natta.
>
>You're right since it was Fokker that FIRST proposed the D-24 Alliance
>in 1965 to meet a NATO VTOL requirement. Fokker sought out Republic as
>a partner but the Republic designation would have been either VAX or
>VTX.
>Although Fokker never built a mock-up, Republic did as the modified
>TFX entry without the VTOL and British engines of the D-24.
>I have a model of the D-24 and it is a shame the aircraft wasn't
>built.
>
>Rob


IIRC Republic design it's TFX entry, built the mock-up, lost to GD and
THEN was sought out by Fokker and the two of them Used the Republic
design for the starting point of the D-24. The whole story is in one
of the issues of Aerospace Projects Review.

[Jim Thomas]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message t>...
> "Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > Don't forget the F-4H (McDonnell) vs the F-8U-3 (Chance Vought). Or is
> > that "too far"?
> >
>
> That's F4H and F8U-3.


Damn, my punktuaton and speling never wuz vere gud.

[Mary Shafer]

On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:27:55 GMT, Alisha's Addict
> wrote:

> On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 16:09:03 -0700, Mary Shafer >
> wrote:
>
> >> and any pix?
> >
> >You can see the YF-17 and F-18, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-16XL in the
> >gallery at www.dfrc.nasa.gov
>
> Here's a pic of the F-16XL ...
>
> http://freejigsawpuzzles.com/beta/beta_test_square_F16XL1994.htm

It took me a little while to get around to looking at this and solving
the puzzle. If you'd gone to the site I gave, you'd have seen the
same photo there.

That's a Dryden photo of the F-16XL no.1, taken December, 1994. See
the tufts on it? White markers on the black body. They're there to
show the on-surface flow patterns. They're how I knew it was a Dryden
photo.

Here's the photo in the gallery at Dryden:
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/F-16XL1/Small/EC94-42885-1.jpg

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer