Talk:General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

Ventral fins

These are mentioned, but I have no idea what purpose they actually serve. Stability would be my first guess, but I don't know if these fins are fixed or movable. Hellbus (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Americans simply copied these from the Chengdu J-10, but this article has some details on a new twist (pun intended) to put on these fins.

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSDM09_2047/PV2009_2538.pdf

Hcobb (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to tell me that Lockheed-Martin has a time machine? :P The F-16 first flew in 1974, and the J-10 in 1998. Hellbus (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Striked~! I am striking off this nonsensical discussion, go to an external forum if you must discuss such nonsensical topic that does not improve the actual article in any way possible. Please note that Wikipedia is not a social networking website like Blogspot, Facebook or Twitter. Thank you for you cooperation. --Dave1185 ^talk 01:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck! Sorry, but an asking for an explanation of the reason or the fins is a legitimate topic for the article. You and I sometimes stray off-topic with sacrastic comments too, Dave, even on article talk pages. Anyway, the US industrial espionage community is extremely smart: They stole something from China 30 years before China had the technology to implement the design. This way, they throw off suspicion. Thats why the Russians always get accused of stealing from the West - they should have developed the Su-24 in the 1940s, the Tu-144 in the 1950s, and the Buran in the early 1960s. :) - BilCat (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

So should we ref that paper (link above) or is wiggly fins too obscure? Hcobb (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if it's notable enough to include here. I vaguely remember hearing something about ventral fins on an aircraft allowing it greater maneuverability, but I can't remember whether it was the F-16 or some other aircraft with similar fins. This is a case of my mind being like a steel trap - rusty, and illegal in most of the US. Hellbus (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are thinking of the F-16 AFTI? 219.89.117.150 (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

They are fixed. The purpose is to try to regain some horizontal (and a little vertical) stability in a straight line - the f16 is about as aerodynamically unstable as you can make a non-computer-assisted control plane, so the pilots need every bit of help they can cram on. The rudder and tailfin is almost useless at speed too, due to its small depth. It's part of the price they paid for having the tightest turning circle of any jet until vector thrust or computer assisted flight was invented.00:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)~

More Observations

In the section about movies that the F-16 has appeared in, I believe the aircraft that the article is referring to is the FA-22 Raptor. I do not recall seeing the F-16 in the movie. If someone else could confirm my belief I would appreciate it so that we can make the change. Kwilkins3 (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Which film is that? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

LWF Redundancy

As Bzuk noted in a recent edit, there is significant redundant information between this article and the LWF article. Any thoughts for how this should be handled? 70.250.198.35 (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The LWF article covers all the details on the program itself including the history, the program itself and the outcomes. This F-16 article only needs relevant details of how the YF-16 winning the ACF competition lead to the F-16. All the other LWF-related info can easily be reached at the LWF page. And if there is a substantial need for information collated on the YF-16, then a YF-16 page would be appropriate just as there is a YF-17 page. I re-wrote the Development/Origins section here as a proposal. Chalky (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The text is this article is a summary of what is in the LWF article. The text here is about 1/2 as long or less. And some text should be cut down more. There should be enough information here to understand the LWF basics without having to refer to LWF article. I believe this idea is covered in WP:Summary style. -fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Common name rule

Is "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" really the common name for this aircraft? It seems a bit wordy. I would guess that "F-16 Fighting Falcon" is probably more common. Remember, the common name rule applies to article titles. The common name rule states, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's 'official' name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." The common name rule is a Wikipedia policy, not a guideline.

If the common name is "F-16 Fighting Falcon", rather than "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon", then the article should be renamed to comply with Wikipedia article naming policy. --JHP (talk) 04:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Aircraft names are quite complicated, and there is generally no single common name for them. This article follows the WP:AIR/NC naming conventions, which attempt to have a comnon standard for aircraft article titles, rather than a haphazard nnaming format based on wihc form receives the most G-hits. Incidently, the form chosen by the project, Manufactuer-designation-name (or 2 of the 3 if all 3 don't exist), is the one found in most aviation reference books, which are the bulk of the "English-language reliable sources" for aircraft. - BilCat (talk) 04:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Btw, This article is titled according to WP:AIR/NC naming conventions. Rather than adding the same post to thousands of aircraft article talk pages, it would probably be easier on all involved if you post to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) instead. - BilCat (talk) 04:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The goal of the article title is to have it match what most people are likely to search for, while still being a unique article name. News articles are also reliable sources and probably better represent the name most common in the minds of the public. Very few people actually read aviation reference books.

WP:COMMONNAME states, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, and a search engine may help to collect this data. When using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word 'Wikipedia'."

Although not part of WP:COMMONNAME, editors of this article could ask themselves whether they really go around using the term "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" most of the time, or whether they more often use an abbreviation such as "F-16 Fighting Falcon" or simply "F-16". If even die-hard aviation aficionados use abbreviated names, it is unlikely that "General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon" is really the common name.

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article title for this subject is simply "F-16".[1] --JHP (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been suggested on a number of talk pages you really need to raise this at either Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (aircraft) or WP:AIRCRAFT. MilborneOne (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

What is a "block"?

The article does not explain. Is it general terminology or just for Boeing?192.38.5.154 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

General. See 1962 United States Tri-Service aircraft designation system#Block_number for more. This link has been added to the article now. Read more of the article to catch its manufacturers.. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Dumping

The United States has been accused of dumping unwanted American aircraft on countries outside the borders of the United States in order to subdue competition from larger regions such as Europe. The article does not mention accusations of predatory pricing by the United States government in order to decimate the aircraft industry of Canada, Belgium and the rest of Europe. Are there figures available to back this claim? For example Indonesia gets F-16 fighter planes for free (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/02/16/indonesia-get-f16-fighter-planes-us.html)

In the recent visit of US President Barack "Krupuk" Obama on November 9–10, 2010 in Jakarta, Force was offered 24 ex-USAF F-16 Fighting Falcon Block 32 for free. (http://www.bipnewsroom.info/index.php?_language=Indonesia&_mainNo=11&_cmsType=HALAMAN%20UTAMA&_contentShow=Ascending&_contentType=Content%20Type&_pageBreak=0&_loginID=&_password=&&newsid=68454&_link=loadnews.php) Now, they still reconsiders to accept the offer. Krupuk also progressing in reactivation of the entire 10 units of F-16 Fighting Falcon Block 15 OCU, which resulted in the reactivation of bakso recently. In a recent interview with Air Chief of Staff Assistant of Planning Barry Biatmoko, he stated on plans on purchase until 2014.

Dumping is a problem for producers in greater Europe. Countries on the front line of the war on terror against Europe such as Belgium have been forced into buying the F-16 despite the security concerns posed by buying aircraft from their enemies. From Indonesia to Africa to Turkey to Belgium, the USA F-16 has Europe surrounded. "I love Avro. I was raised right." Said one politician, "Somebody has to go to Washington and knock the hell out of the place."

A section on F-16 dumping should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.22.199 (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Uh, not without specific reliable sources that actually say what you're claiming. I don't think you'll find any legitimate sources that claim the US is an "enemy" of Belgium! - BilCat (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Negative stability flight

I made some minor changes to include:

1. Indicating that positive stability will induce a plane to return to straight and level flight. For almost all aircraft this is more correct than to say it will return the aircraft to the attitude it was in before its controls were disturbed. For example, a plane that is spin rated will not redevelop a spin once you've recovered from the spin if you let go of the controls. It will tend to return to straight and level flight.

1. I don't believe it is true in all cases that an aircraft designed with negative stability will become more stable after transitioning to supersonic flight. It's entirely possible that negatively stable designs could be developed that would get even less stable at supersonic speeds. There are certainly a lot of holes in the ground around Edwards AFB from pilots who experienced negative supersonic stability. I think it's better to limit this claim to the F16 in particular.

--Solidpoint (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Entirely fair changes, it is in need of rewriting, and I approve of your edits so far. You're welcome to proceed if my say is anything. Kyteto (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

HAVE GLASS half empty?

Should we include upgrades like HAVE GLASS II?

http://defense-update.com/20110921_taiwan-air-force-modernization.html

http://www.dsca.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2011/TECRO_11-39.pdf

Etc. Hcobb (talk) 03:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ted Harduvel incident

Very surprised this is not listed, this crash led to a massive court case and a film. Adding. --0pen$0urce (talk) 15:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Accidents

Just had a clear out of the accident sections as clearly most of those listed are just not notable for a mention. Military aircraft crash and hit things and each other in mostly non-notable accidents, really need to kill somebody important or hit something important to get a mention, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Fighters are more prone to accidents for various reasons compared to airliners. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)