I have a bunch of ideas
I: Lightweight design stays lightweightNotes: The YF-16 was only like 20,500 pounds gross; the production model weighed 26,500
- Bomb load stays the same as the YF-16 (Less bomb-load means less aircraft weight to support it)
- Radar, RWR's added (uncertain as to weight increase)
- Wings are enlarged as necessary to maintain the necessary wing-loading
The idea would be to not add too much weight to the aircraft, the only additions being the radar and electronics as well as possibly some wing enlargements: I don't know if extra fuel would be needed to maintain an adequate fuel fraction interestingl; It would ultimately be a better fighter, while not a bomb-truck -- it could do plenty of bruising and killing as it was designed to.
II: Redesigned LERX by F-16A StageNotes: The YF-16 was prone to a deep-stall, as would it's later F-16 models. This occurred because despite noting a deep-stall tendency on the full-scale test-model; they ignored it in favor of a small scale test model. While it would have been preferable for the modification to have been made from the outset, it would be fine if it was made by the production stage (In fact it could be better because once you win the contract, you can do whatever you want)
- The chine would be shortened back to the position of either the canopy rim, the HUD, or the cockpit position
- The chine would be similar to the YF-16/F-16A where it forms out of the wing, but would be broader and rounded off similar to the YF-17 or F-18
- Unsure if the chine would need to be thinned or given conical camber any of the way down
- AoA meter modified to display exact degrees of alpha like the F-15
This would allow the plane to even pull a cobra maneuver; having an alpha limiter would be good for most maneuvers, but frankly, the ability to jack the alpha up to a cobra would be very useful in combat with the limiter able to be turned off.
Comments: Unsure what effect this would have on acceleration and sustained turning performance across the airspeed and mach-number range; preferably the plane would be kept light like the first concept I illustrated (i.e. the plane's mass kept as close to the LWF as possible with no extra bomb-loads)
III: Redesigned InletNotes: The F-16 was admittedly capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2, but by the accounts of F-104 pilots it was about 300 knots slower
(The F-104 could also fly supersonic without burner; technically the prototype could slip through without an afterburner using the J65); considering the fact that the aircraft had flaps that could deflect up producing inverse camber, was naturally unstable and did have substantial supersonic agility, supersonic cruise should be do-able provided a better inlet existed
- While some supersonic inlets can affect acceleration negatively, not all do
- The F-104 used a half-cone inlet which was purposefully oversized: The excess air was directed around the engine at all speeds to cool the engine and improve exhaust nozzle efficiency; more air was directed around as the speed went up
- The XF8U-3 used a fixed inlet with some air skimmed off the sides of the scoop; some skimmed off by a set of louvers at the top of it; some of that flow was dumped by bypass doors along the side of the plane; some airflow went around the engine
- A ramp similar to the F-16/79 could be incorporated, provided it was appropriately scaled for the airflow requirements of the F100 engine (with bypass vents on the sides, undersides if necessary to deal with airflow issues at higher mach)
Comments/Notes: The easiest approach would be an inlet shape similar to the F-16/79 scaled appropriately to the F100 with bypass vents if necessary on the undersides/sides/both if needed (Still a flattened half cone and/or a Ferri type would look pretty damned slick, though not necessarily as practical)
