The plane must be on the ground to install or remove them, whether F-16 (above the wings) or F-15E (below the wings). Here's a pic of one being installed on an F-15E. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_fuel_tank
AFRES 465th F.S. Tinker AFB. OKIES Weathered station wagon. With the wife out walking in L.V., to the premium outlet. Image Unavailable, Please Login
With conformal tanks, could the F-16 still reach supersonic speeds? Without conformal tanks, I believe it reached about Mach 1.8, limited mainly due to the fixed inlet design, versus 2.5 for the F-15 that has 2 engines (but bigger) and adjustable ramps to optimize the inlet area/geometry. With conformal tanks, that greatly increases the cross section around at the wing/fuselage which would negate the Area Rule of Aerodynamics. If the F-16 conformal tank version makes it to supersonic speeds, its top speed must be less than Mach 1.8 due to the increase drag (skin friction drag, induced drag and maybe wave drag) unless a much higher thrust engine overcame that. The drag equation is CdqS where Cd is the drag coefficient, q is dynamic pressure which is 1/2Density * Velocity squared and S is wing area. Cd increases in the transonic range but the velocity squared really increases drag, and the engine Thrust has to overcome all that.
Incredible display of the Viper's maneuverability. Never seen a non thrust vector jet move like this. https://theaviationgeekclub.com/meet-the-dream-viper-the-new-special-painted-f-16am-belonging-to-the-belgian-air-force-f-16-solo-display-team/ Image Unavailable, Please Login
Must read, I would imagine, for any fan of the F-16. Coram's biography of John Boyd portrays the Viper as the product of Boyd and his acolytes relentless guerrilla maneuvering to build a 'lightweight fighter' in opposition to AF orthodoxy still rooted in faith in strategic bombers and multipurpose fighter-bomber configurations. He was an astonishing character. For extra credit, he and his team were responsible for the A10, designed as a skunkworks project that got funding when the AF caught wind of an Army based program to grab Pentagon dollars associated with Close Air Support missions with a rotorcraft gunship. Boyd's invention of the E-M theory revolutionized fighter aircraft design. The insight was what matters most is the speed with which and airframe can shed or acquire energy is all that matters in outmaneuvering an adversary. The equation is Ps=[T-D/W]V Where Ps is "specific energy rate" T & D are thrust and drag, W is weight, V is velocity. As good as the F15 turned out, Boyd was ultimately disgusted when the AF refused to increase wing area to the level Boyd designed (330sf vs 300). He suspected the AF was trying to insure the F16 wouldn't outperform the F15. Anyhow; a sensational read. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I was a Crew Chief on block 25 F-16Cs and Ds when I was younger, so this plane definitely has a special place in my heart. My "personal" jet, 83-1161 is now a QF-16 drone and was recently delivered to Tyndall AFB. I hope to see her again before she meets her doom...
USAF turned the LWF into an F-4 replacement at a much higher gross weight than originally envisioned. GD's engineers said if they had known what we would do with the F-16, the design would have been quite different,
