YF-16 #2 Walk-around - 1 Apr 2020

[@Just-an-ordinary-average-guy]

Just found this video. Glad to see this jet is being saved. I work for Lockheed Martin in Florida. I actually build the canopy for the F-16.

[@FtwAviationMuseum]

Hi Shawn, glad you found us. We have several videos on here regarding the YF restoration. Interesting you mention the canopy. We are trying to figure out how to replace the one we have. It is in poor condiition.

[@Just-an-ordinary-average-guy]

@@FtwAviationMuseum hopefully there is a way to save the one you have. To bad the prototype canopy is completely different from the production units. I saw the other videos. You are making alot of progress. I'll be following along and cant wait to see the end results of this restoration.

[@ยาโพศรี]

ขอบคุณมากที่คุณให้ผม

[@mpbc7071]

There in 1986s when I first saw color pics of the #567, which is much more beautiful than the F-16A. Convair-General Dynamics-Lockheed Martin for sure they owe a lot to the YF-16 with its amazing innovations... Hope to see soon details pics of Its canopies, MLG / NLG bays and opened Speed Brakes show ing how different they are from the production Orestes

[@flyguyeddy]

Its nice to hear the fighter mafia mentioned in an f16 video.

[@the_rakan]

No one is going to talk about the Cadi now? Beauty

[@dasgtr]

Restoring the YF-16 to flight status with the original livery would be amazing. The YF is by far my favorite F-16, and should have always been the initial production "F-16A". A simple avionics and armament suite would have made this an excellent day fighter, and a platform for all fighter pilots before they move on to other types. Its lightweight, extreme agility, and phenomenal thrust-to-weight performance would have also made a fearsome aggressor force jet.

[@nabilbudiman271]

crazy to think that this exact airframe was from the rome, I heard it was used for IA, crazy to think it still in one piece only few panels and control surface were missing. thanks for the video, would love to see the restoration video

[@Turboy65]

I hope to see this aircraft restored to such a condition that it could be flown again if you just got the work inspected and certified airworthy.

[@FtwAviationMuseum]

Would be nice except we have no engine and the Air Force Museum would never allow flight. They own it. It is on loan to us. That said, our crews are working to put it back in the closest restoration to the day it was to go to Paris as possible. Amazing work going on.

[@Turboy65]

@@FtwAviationMuseum Oh, I know quite well that you can't fly it no matter what. (A policy I don't necessarily agree with.) I suspect that you could obtain an F-100-PW-100 without much difficulty as they're obsolete and to my knowledge, nobody flies them anymore. The USAF might give you one. Or loan it. Maybe P&W has one in the storeroom they'd donate.

[@AvengerII]

@@Turboy65 The F-16 flew first with F100-PW-200 engines; it was upgraded with the -220 version of the F100 first (mid-1980s), later the F110 starting with Block 30 of the F-16C production (circa 1986) and later the F100-PW-229 starting with the Block 52 F-16. The -200 has additional hardware specific to the F-16 to reduce the chances of stalls in a single-engine configuration. The -100 engine in the F-15 did not have these newer features. The later -220 reliability upgrade was made interchangeable between the F-16 and F-15 A-D. Some Block 42 F-16Cs, all ANG planes (142 I read), were upgraded with -229 turbofans to deal with the weight increase caused by strike-specific hardware and standardize them closer to the Block 52 planes (which were the first F-16s equipped with -229 engines) flying with the ANG. The -220 engines from these upgraded F-16s were passed on to F-15s still in service (probably C-models) which did NOT receive the -220 reliability upgrade. They had kits to upgrade the -100 to -220 standard but they didn't buy enough to upgrade all the F-15s. All the operational F-15A/B models and quite a few F-15Cs kept on flying with F100-PW-100 into the 21st century. The F-15A has been retired since 2007. The F-16 never used the -100 version of the F100 turbofan in operational service; the -100 was F-15 only. As soon as they could, priority was given to modding all the existing -200 engines to the more -220 configuration for the F-16 because it was single engine and needed the most reliable engine they could fit to it! That YF-16#2 will never fly again. It's been outside for too long. I doubt it would pass safety inspections without a significant rebuild of some sections -- it's sat outside and corroded significantly in some critical areas I'd presume. It's had moisture sit in many areas for extended periods and I'm sure birds even built nests in it! The USAF will not spend the money on this and the museum wasn't planning on flying the plane ever again. That's not in the cards.

[@Turboy65]

I'm always a bit annoyed to learn that prototype aircraft are quite often not treated with the dignity they deserve. There were actually some aircraft made of which not a single example remains in existence. The Northrop XB-49 Flying Wing is such an example, and a fair number were made...and all were scrapped, saving none. The only remaining Lockheed XF-90 (one of two prototypes) was put out in the desert and nuclear bombs were set off near it, to learn about bomb damage effects. What little remains of it is on display at the National Museum of the Air Force at Wright-Patterson.

[@FtwAviationMuseum]

We know all too well what you mean. During the process of us attempting to acquire this aircraft, the Air Force wanted to take it to Eglin and see what would happen to it if they set off a 500# bomb next to it. Obviously, that didn't happen, thanks to some significant support and now it will remain in Fort Worth, its hometown.

[@Turboy65]

@@FtwAviationMuseum Incidentally I'm looking for a cockpit section off an F-16 to convert to a high fidelity flight simulator. Know where I might be able to get one?

[@FtwAviationMuseum]

@@Turboy65 Sorry, no. I know people have fabbed such things but don't know of any cockpits available.

[@AvengerII]

I thought a lot of Air Force planes were displayed without engine hardware to the point they don't even have the exhaust nozzles installed! One of the 2 surviving B-1A prototypes is displayed this way at the Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum in Colorado. The nacelles are still there under the wings but the end where the engine nozzle would be sticking out is covered by a red FOD cloth. Unfortunately, the surviving F-20 prototype is displayed with an awful sheet aluminum nozzle like the YF-16 was outfitted with. I don't know what it is with the engine policy. Some airframes have exhaust nozzles installed, others don't. This seems to happen with Air Force airframes. The retired Navy planes (including the YF-17s) generally are fitted with exhaust nozzles.

[@FtwAviationMuseum]

The engine issue is that some of the engines have depleted uranium parts and are considered a hazard and not suitable for display. Our F-18 came without engines. Most of the nozzles are integral to the engine and have no place to attach to the airframe. Our 18 came with some fabricated feathers that attached to the airframe. We built some for our F-111 and are working on something for the YF.

[@AvengerII]

@@FtwAviationMuseum Ah! Gotcha you on the depleted uranium. That makes sense. I kind wondered if the nozzles were integral to the engine assembly or not. I thought maybe they WOULD have to be attached to the nacelles/engine bays in a different place without a mock-up engine in place. NASA has mock-up engines on most of the shuttles. (There's one set of flight-used engines on a shuttle but I don't know which of the flight vehicles it is; it's definitely not the Enterprise.) They kept the useable shuttle main engines in storage for further R&D as well as possible use in future rockets.

[@ยาโพศรี]

ผมเก็บรักษาไว้ให้คุณเถอะมีคนต้องการที่จะใช้มันผมจะทำราคาให้มันซื้อได้ง่ายเพื่อพันธมิตร