F-16 Dragchutes

[signals]

I've seen pictures of F-16 with 2 different types of dragchutes.

 

 

 

I'm wondering if they are inter-changable?

[Niels]

No, their not. 

The first pic shows a Turkish F-16D block 50+, while the second shows a Belgian F-16AM. Although both are F-16's, they're a generation apart. 

 

The first use of the drag chute was due to a requirement from the Norwegian AF to reduce landing distance on iced runways in Norway. Later, the RNLAF adopted the same solution, while the Belgian AF use the parachute housing for their locally developed ECM protection suite. 
Fast forward to the F-16C, and several users requested the same parachute solution, however adapted for the F-16C/D. As the F-16C/D has a wider tailbase than the F-16A/B, the dimensions and form is different even if the purpose is the same. 
So to your question, they are not interchangable unfortunately. 

 

As for modeling kits, this is the biggest "beef" with the newly released Kinetic F-16A/C/B/D kits. The tailbase is designed to be interchangable, however the F-16A/B has a narrower tailbase, compared to the square form of the F-16C/D. 

 

Hope this helps to clarify? 

[signals]

3 hours ago, Niels said:

No, their not. 

The first pic shows a Turkish F-16D block 50+, while the second shows a Belgian F-16AM. Although both are F-16's, they're a generation apart. 

 

The first use of the drag chute was due to a requirement from the Norwegian AF to reduce landing distance on iced runways in Norway. Later, the RNLAF adopted the same solution, while the Belgian AF use the parachute housing for their locally developed ECM protection suite. 
Fast forward to the F-16C, and several users requested the same parachute solution, however adapted for the F-16C/D. As the F-16C/D has a wider tailbase than the F-16A/B, the dimensions and form is different even if the purpose is the same. 
So to your question, they are not interchangable unfortunately. 

 

As for modeling kits, this is the biggest "beef" with the newly released Kinetic F-16A/C/B/D kits. The tailbase is designed to be interchangable, however the F-16A/B has a narrower tailbase, compared to the square form of the F-16C/D. 

 

Hope this helps to clarify? 

Thanks!

And as a follow on; could the 1/32 IAF Sufa spine be used for Blk 52 (HAF, Turkish, Pakistani etc) planes by modifying some of the lumps/bumps?

[habu2]

I'm confused - is the OP asking about the drag chute housing (the fairing at the base of the vertical stabilizer) ? or the actual drag chute (fabric and shroud lines) ?

[signals]

2 hours ago, habu2 said:

I'm confused - is the OP asking about the drag chute housing (the fairing at the base of the vertical stabilizer) ? or the actual drag chute (fabric and shroud lines) ?

Was originally asking about the shape of the drag chutes themselves; sorry for not being clear.

The follow on question was for the spine/housing.

Edited April 6, 2023 by signals

[Niels]

9 hours ago, signals said:

Thanks!

And as a follow on; could the 1/32 IAF Sufa spine be used for Blk 52 (HAF, Turkish, Pakistani etc) planes by modifying some of the lumps/bumps?

No problem, and sorry if I jumped the gun on your questions 😉

The F-16I has a short tailbase without parachute housing while the Greek F-16D has the parachute housing. Hence you will have to extend/scratch build the parachute housing if not included in the kit. The lumps and bumps will have to be modified accordingly. 

[signals]

2 hours ago, Niels said:

No problem, and sorry if I jumped the gun on your questions 😉

The F-16I has a short tailbase without parachute housing while the Greek F-16D has the parachute housing. Hence you will have to extend/scratch build the parachute housing if not included in the kit. The lumps and bumps will have to be modified accordingly. 

If I understand it correctly then:

1. the type of parachute used is NOT inter-changeable between the different F-16 variants

2. The basic shape of the F-16I spine is the same as on Blk 52+ etc but will need to be extended for PAF/HAF vipers?

 

[Niels]

If you have the option, you should start out with a F-16D+ with the parachute housing incorporated. The F-16I "tapers off" towards the tailbase hence you will need to rebuild most of the tailbase from mid-point and backwards. 

As for the parachute types, sorry can't answer this question. Check F-16.net for reference photos is my best suggestion. 

[WouldbeIceman]

I`m banking on that the second picture is a dutch F-16, not only from the colours on the chute, but also the RWR antennas on the parapack. Fun fact: in the beginning the failure rate for RNoAF chute ops were 50%. That improved later on. I guess most of us had a chute failure, which made your heart beat a bit faster.  It was very good for icy runways, but also reduced brake and tire wear, thus saving quite some money.

 

Check Six and build something!

[AV O]

1 hour ago, WouldbeIceman said:

I`m banking on that the second picture is a dutch F-16, not only from the colours on the chute, but also the RWR antennas on the parapack. Fun fact: in the beginning the failure rate for RNoAF chute ops were 50%. That improved later on. I guess most of us had a chute failure, which made your heart beat a bit faster.  It was very good for icy runways, but also reduced brake and tire wear, thus saving quite some money.

 

Check Six and build something!

Good guess :

 

Klu J-008 313sq 55years tail at Volkel AB, June 2009

 

https://www.ebay.fr/itm/164627698176

 

Edited April 6, 2023 by AV O

[Doc BVT_21]

On 4/5/2023 at 8:40 PM, Niels said:

(...) while the second shows a Belgian F-16AM. (...) 

As you later state correctly, the Belgian F-16's never had drag chutes. The second picture is a Dutch F-16 from 313 "Tiger" squadron at Volkel AB. But I can see how fast it can be confused with the Belgian AF 31 "Tiger" squadron at Kleine Brogel AB.

[KursadA]

I know for a fact that Turkish F-16 drag chutes are made in Turkey. There might have been a few "standard" drag chutes earlier, but I don't think there is such a thing as a worldwide standardized F-16 drag chute. There are multiple NATO stock numbers (NSN 1670-01-406-3309, NSN 1670-01-457-3562, etc.) for F-16 drag chutes, which leads me to believe that there are several designs that are manufactured by many different companies. 

Edited March 24 by KursadA

[Niels]

Being manufactured in Turkey doesn't mean that the base design is any different. It is common that same design manufactured at different locations receive different "part numbers" to distinguish where it is produced. After all, there is only so many differences you can make to an F-16C/D tail. Interestingly enough, even if the Turkish are manufactured locally, not all Turkish F-16 have these intstalled?  

[Thadeus]

Turkish F-16 parachute looks pretty similar in design to the Polish F-16 parachute. But it's not the exact same design. So this might explain the difference in

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fairfighters.com%2Fphoto%2F281785%2FL%2FPoland-Air-Force%2FGeneral-Dynamics-F-16D-Fighting-Falcon%2F4083%2F&psig=AOvVaw0YJgPP_Picmm3Z_-n821c4&ust=1712781785920000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBIQjRxqFwoTCNCg8Mj_tYUDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE

 

OTOH the ROCAF F-16 one looks similar to both of these, and not to the Belgian F-16. It might be one of these upgraded Vipers though, that look like F-16A's but are more similar to the F-16C block 50's:

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROCAF_F-16A_6640_Landing_Down_Opened_Drogue_parachute_20120602.jpg

 

So the difference might be that earlier Vipers got one design of the parachute, while the later ones got another design. After delivery countries just went with the serial number of the part (or its specification) that was assigned on delivery.

[Niels]

@Thadeus, you can't compare dragchute housing on the F-16C/D with the F-16A/B - they have totally different design due to different tailbases and thus little in common. 

Over on F-16.net there is lots of information to clarify, but in short, on the F-16A/B the RNoAF required parachutes to break landing on icy runways. The Belgians adopted this, but instead of drag chute used this for ECM. The RNLAF copied the Norwegian solution, so also did Indonesia on their F-16A/B fleet. Later, these got reinforcements around the rear with a "zig-zag" pattern. The RoCAF (Taiwan) and Venezuelan is modeled on the same - but the Norwegians did it first 🙂. Lastly there are some differences on where the RWR is placed on the tail of the A/B fleet depending on user, but this doesn't change the base design of the housing. 

The Greeks were the first to adopt the parachute housing on their F-16C/D Block 30 and later 50/52's, and at the rear it is quite similar to the Norwegian, while the "front" is fused into the more squarish tailbase of the F-16C/D. The F-16D block 52's also got the the "humpback" similar to the Polish ones, but otherwise similar to the C.
The broadened tailbase of the C/D was originally intended for ALQ-162(?) ECM gear, however the USAF/ANG/AFRC never adopted this as originally intended, but the broad tailbase became the standard for the C/D fleet. Most users outside the US have however adopted the parachute housing, mostly for parachutes while the Israeli use it for ECM gear instead. Türkiye has a mix of jets with and without, still used for parachute when fitted. Again, there are differences between users on placement of the RWR, but the base design is the same. 

Both Reid Air Publishing and Daco has good detail books on the F-16 highlighting what I have described above. 

Edited April 10 by Niels

[habu2]

Don't know for a fact but I would think the shape and size of the actual 'chute varies with the gross weight of the block/version - sort of like how the later C/D models got the beefed up landing gear for the heavier Block 40/50 etc. 

[Niels]

The attachment point of the chute is what will matter, not the housing itself. That is but a shell/enclosure. Not 100% sure, but believe the attachment point of the chute is in the tailbase structure, not the housing itself. 

[Thadeus]

4 hours ago, Niels said:

@Thadeus, you can't compare dragchute housing on the F-16C/D with the F-16A/B - they have totally different design due to different tailbases and thus little in common. 
 

 

Niels, I totally agree about the housing. It became quite apparent once I tried to fit the 1/72 Revell longer tail base to the Hasegawa F-16.

And frankly, all I'm saying is the parachute looks similar between both heavier F-16C/D of Turkish and Polish Air Forces, and the supposed lighter F-16A of the Tawian Air Force. The RNLAF Vipers have a different design than ROCAF F-16.

And the RNLAF as well as ROCAF Vipers both have the smaller dragchute housing. It might even be so the Tawianese parachute is only similar but smaller in diameter to fit in the housing that they have - if the ROCAF F-16's are lighter than say Polish AF Vipers.

And I won't dispute - Norwegians did it first. They even have the second nicest scheme for the Viper, second only to the Polish AF 😉 

 

Oh, and good catch on the Venezuelans - they have again similar design of the parachute to the ROCAF. I totally forgot about them.

https://airfighters.com/photo/31022/M/Venezuela-Air-Force/General-Dynamics-F-16A-Fighting-Falcon/0678/

 

and the Chilean F-16A's had similar design to the RNLAF.

https://www.alamy.com/chilean-air-force-f-16-deploying-its-drag-chute-image353339000.html

 

[Niels]

6 hours ago, Thadeus said:

 

They even have the second nicest scheme for the Viper, second only to the Polish AF 😉 

Agreed 😆

The Chilean Vipers are ex-RNLAF, so naturally they are similar as they came with the chute when delivered. 

The design of the RoCAF and RNLAF/RNOAF parachute housing are the same - there is no size difference. They both have the A/B tail, so hence the same. 
The chute inside might be different in design, but again - the housing is not for the A/B tailbases nor the C/D tailbases. 

[habu2]

14 minutes ago, Niels said:

The Chilean Vipers are ex-RNLAF, so naturally they are similar as they came with the chute when delivered. 

 

Chile also has several Block 50 C/D models with parabrake housings under Peace Puma program.