User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:10:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Thought the dude in Key west bent the airframe on an E a few years back at 9 Gs? Can't remember if it were 9 or 12 . Anyway after seeing enough 6g "break turns" at the start of a perch set I'm not sure how many would get to 9. Maybe you would need to recline the seat like a Viper. And after pulling 9gs, better make it count because it'll be a while before you get that energy back. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The US should buy some Eurofighter Typhoons.  I'd rather see SH with unlocked 414 motors, 9g limit, and non-canted pylons. Thought the dude in Key west bent the airframe on an E a few years back at 9 Gs? Can't remember if it were 9 or 12 . Anyway after seeing enough 6g "break turns" at the start of a perch set I'm not sure how many would get to 9. Maybe you would need to recline the seat like a Viper. And after pulling 9gs, better make it count because it'll be a while before you get that energy back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:11:03 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryF-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:11:43 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryI was gonna post something, but 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:13:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. While I agree the F-18 is better now, that pic isn't an A model.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:22:08 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The F-18 Super Hornet has been one of the few success stories in recent US military weapons acquisition. It may not be a master at any single mission, but it performs a variety of missions quite well. And it does so at a price point that is untouchable. Because it is so inexpensive compared to the alternatives, we could buy enough of them to blot out the sun if we wanted to do so. And though it doesn't equal the F-22 or F-35 in many regards, it is still better than anything else we have in the inventory when it comes to multi-role performance. It is certainly good enough and inexpensive enough that we can produce them in the kind of numbers to dominate any potential enemies out there. The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Please fill in for me when the F-16 became carrier operations capable, and explain to me which F16 is equivalent in that role to the F/A-18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:23:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While I agree the F-18 is better now, that pic isn't an A model.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. While I agree the F-18 is better now, that pic isn't an A model.... How bout a 14-D? 
Performance Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h) at high altitude Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km) Ferry range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,200 m) Rate of climb: >45,000 ft/min (229 m/s) Wing loading: 113.4 lb/ft² (553.9 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.92 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:25:27 PM EDT
[#7]
the interesting thing is that the F-16 and F/A-18 both came out of the same USAF program for a daylight only, close range dog-fighter
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:26:00 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How bout a 14-D? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xtfAXFLmXss/UUxl9YBUiMI/AAAAAAABkyM/un8xrRSua1c/s1600/F14D-24.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. While I agree the F-18 is better now, that pic isn't an A model.... How bout a 14-D? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xtfAXFLmXss/UUxl9YBUiMI/AAAAAAABkyM/un8xrRSua1c/s1600/F14D-24.jpg Warp 7, Mr Sulu. Engage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:27:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The F-18 Super Hornet has been one of the few success stories in recent US military weapons acquisition. It may not be a master at any single mission, but it performs a variety of missions quite well. And it does so at a price point that is untouchable. Because it is so inexpensive compared to the alternatives, we could buy enough of them to blot out the sun if we wanted to do so. And though it doesn't equal the F-22 or F-35 in many regards, it is still better than anything else we have in the inventory when it comes to multi-role performance. It is certainly good enough and inexpensive enough that we can produce them in the kind of numbers to dominate any potential enemies out there. The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. I shouldn't feed a troll but what in the everloving fucktardness Wow a single engine non carrier airframe is cheaper than a twin carrier airframe FUCKING STOP THE PRESSES |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:30:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't get it, the McTards gave it too much control at high alpha by accident. It's not needed or anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Describe the characteristics of the airplane you would design to do that job "better". Make absolutely certain you know those requirements. (You don't, and can't.) You don't get it, the McTards gave it too much control at high alpha by accident. It's not needed or anything. How about this then, a perfect question for a senior in an AE program, especially one that is a performance expert: The concept of cruising an airplane "on the step" has been around flying for decades. Is this a valid method of operating an airplane, or is it hooey? Show your work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:43:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:44:29 PM EDT
[#12]
I am glad I missed this thread.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:45:33 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am glad I missed this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:46:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You didn't, it's still going, have at him! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am glad I missed this thread. Not worth the effort |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:49:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did. He didn't respond. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Nah, you didn't respond to me, but whatever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:50:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't believe you're still trying to tell people WHO WERE THERE, and people who spend large parts of their lives in intimate contact with the aircraft in question, that you know better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Salmon, for the mach 1 under 10k bullshit your spewing....guess when I was in the gulf we didn't witness 2 hornets going Mach 1 doing a flyby my ship to boost our morale??? Go back to school and keep your mouth shut and learn something useful. ETA: We heard the sonic boom way after they flew past us. CAS loaded accelerating from 0 in the horizontal? No. Given the F/A-18's T/W and L/D that is impossible. Well, he's got that part of being an Engineer aced. Probably graduate early. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:51:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I did. He didn't respond. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Quote your post? I've seen no direct response from you to the pilots assertion that he performed the exact maneuver you say is impossible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:54:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How bout a 14-D? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xtfAXFLmXss/UUxl9YBUiMI/AAAAAAABkyM/un8xrRSua1c/s1600/F14D-24.jpg Performance Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h) at high altitude Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km) Ferry range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,200 m) Rate of climb: >45,000 ft/min (229 m/s) Wing loading: 113.4 lb/ft² (553.9 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.92 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. While I agree the F-18 is better now, that pic isn't an A model.... How bout a 14-D? http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xtfAXFLmXss/UUxl9YBUiMI/AAAAAAABkyM/un8xrRSua1c/s1600/F14D-24.jpg Performance Maximum speed: Mach 2.34 (1,544 mph, 2,485 km/h) at high altitude Combat radius: 500 nmi (575 mi, 926 km) Ferry range: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) Service ceiling: 50,000+ ft (15,200 m) Rate of climb: >45,000 ft/min (229 m/s) Wing loading: 113.4 lb/ft² (553.9 kg/m²) Thrust/weight: 0.92 Cool pic! That plane is probably perched on a pedestal somewhere.
Love them or hate them, they were designed for a certain role and filled that role. Times change and the F-18 can handle the mission for now. I'm sure once the F-18 is replaced, some people will look back on it and reminisce, and others will say how bad it was compared to the new planes, lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:54:22 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote your post? I've seen no direct response from you to the pilots assertion that he performed the exact maneuver you say is impossible. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Quote your post? I've seen no direct response from you to the pilots assertion that he performed the exact maneuver you say is impossible. Maybe he's trying to scam his way into a backseat ride so it can be "proven" to him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:56:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Forget about it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:57:11 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/21/2014 11:59:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Are all of the F/A-18 technical specifications and capabilities even publicly available to perform the equations he's demanding? Would they be needed for him to properly check his calculations?
ETA: nevermind. answered. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:01:13 AM EDT
[#23]
Forget about it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:01:35 AM EDT
[#24]
I suspect OP is cmjohnson's illegitimate spawn.
"I read some shit in a book, so now I will argue incessantly with people who do this for a living." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:02:42 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
F-14A TF30 engined pile of shit launching a Phoenix missile. Not even apples to oranges, more like apples to cow shit. Wrong dumb-ass, that is not the F14A with TF30 engines. Try GE F110 engines. Try educating yourself before you broadcast your stupidity again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:04:40 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect OP is cmjohnson's illegitimate spawn. "I read some shit in a book, so now I will argue incessantly with people who do this for a living." you know ........ it fits |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:06:28 AM EDT
[#27]
When did the F-16 stop being the Fighting Falcon and started being called the Viper?
Falcon was an awesome name that went well with the F-15 Eagle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:09:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why am I wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Boeing aerospace engineer here, also a ground combat vet who has seen F/A-18's in action. Do me a favor and just finish your degree and get some experience in the field before you spout your ignorance and give all of us a bad reputation. Why am I wrong? Genetics and poor life choices? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:13:40 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When did the F-16 stop being the Fighting Falcon and started being called the Viper? Falcon was an awesome name that went well with the F-15 Eagle. Never. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:14:55 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When did the F-16 stop being the Fighting Falcon and started being called the Viper? Falcon was an awesome name that went well with the F-15 Eagle. http://www.f-16.net/articles_article10.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:22:21 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Never. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
When did the F-16 stop being the Fighting Falcon and started being called the Viper? Falcon was an awesome name that went well with the F-15 Eagle. Never. Wrong. Straight from F-16.net: Viper: the unofficial nickname
The F-16 is often referred to as the "Viper", a nickname especially popular with people involved with the F-16. Before "Fighting Falcon" was selected as official name, pilots at Hill AFB, the first F-16 base, came up with a number of proposals, including "Viper". Lt. Col. Pat "Gums" McAdoo, USAF Ret., one of the first F-16 pilots at Hill AFB, recalls the origin of the name "F-16 Viper": At end of runway, the F-16 did resemble a cobra or something as it approached you. However, I think Northrop had already taken that name for the YF-17. We all voted, and Viper came in really high. Seems there was a series on TV that had 'colonial Vipers' flying off of Battlestar Galactica (a term later used for the Eagle). In any case, the Generals didn't want a plane 'named after some snake'! Falcon was a good name, and it fit in with the motif that the Eagle had created. Sort of a little brother, but still a 'Bird of Prey'. In fact, GD had a great promo out in late 70's called "Bird of Prey", and it used the Falcon as the real world model. Even when F-16 Fighting Falcon became the official name, Viper stuck around and became the unofficial nickname for the F-16. The name "Viper" is even officially used for the Joe Bill Dreyden "Semper Viper" award, which is awarded for excellent airmanship by F-16 pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:38:32 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. Straight from F-16.net: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When did the F-16 stop being the Fighting Falcon and started being called the Viper? Falcon was an awesome name that went well with the F-15 Eagle. Never. Wrong. Straight from F-16.net: Viper: the unofficial nickname
The F-16 is often referred to as the "Viper", a nickname especially popular with people involved with the F-16. Before "Fighting Falcon" was selected as official name, pilots at Hill AFB, the first F-16 base, came up with a number of proposals, including "Viper". Lt. Col. Pat "Gums" McAdoo, USAF Ret., one of the first F-16 pilots at Hill AFB, recalls the origin of the name "F-16 Viper": At end of runway, the F-16 did resemble a cobra or something as it approached you. However, I think Northrop had already taken that name for the YF-17. We all voted, and Viper came in really high. Seems there was a series on TV that had 'colonial Vipers' flying off of Battlestar Galactica (a term later used for the Eagle). In any case, the Generals didn't want a plane 'named after some snake'! Falcon was a good name, and it fit in with the motif that the Eagle had created. Sort of a little brother, but still a 'Bird of Prey'. In fact, GD had a great promo out in late 70's called "Bird of Prey", and it used the Falcon as the real world model. Even when F-16 Fighting Falcon became the official name, Viper stuck around and became the unofficial nickname for the F-16. The name "Viper" is even officially used for the Joe Bill Dreyden "Semper Viper" award, which is awarded for excellent airmanship by F-16 pilots. 
It is named the Fighting Falcon...Viper, Lawn Dart etc. are not offical names. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:42:38 AM EDT
[#33]
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_130/1668490_salmonid__I_have_quickly_tired_of_your_sophomoric_trolling.html
pit thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:45:52 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is named the Fighting Falcon...Viper, Lawn Dart etc. are not offical names. Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is named the Fighting Falcon...Viper, Lawn Dart etc. are not offical names. I forgot the other link 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-16in.htm F-16IN Super Viper
The F-16IN Super Viper.... Evolutionary integration of fifth generation technologies makes the F-16IN the most advanced fourth generation fighter in the world today. This ultimate fourth generation fighter is tailored exclusively to meet or exceed all of India’s Medium Multi Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) requirements. The F-16IN is the right choice for the Indian Air Force (IAF) and is ready for integration into India’s infrastructure and operations now. The ability of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics to incorporate the latest technologies into the F-16IN is the key to expanding mission roles and improving combat capability, therefore creating the most effective multi role fighter today. With a robust upgrade capacity and the continuous insertion of technology, the F-16IN can be readily equipped with emerging capabilities throughout its lifecycle. The Super Viper has the most advanced technologies and capabilities available today on the international market. It is truly the ultimate fourth generation fighter with all it brings to the battlefield. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:48:34 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_130/1668490_salmonid__I_have_quickly_tired_of_your_sophomoric_trolling.html pit thread The OP is aware of the Pit Thread, and seems to be declining the invitation. A real shame, too. It's the "trial by combat" option. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:52:33 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The OP is aware of the Pit Thread, and seems to be declining the invitation. A real shame, too. It's the "trial by combat" option. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_130/1668490_salmonid__I_have_quickly_tired_of_your_sophomoric_trolling.html pit thread The OP is aware of the Pit Thread, and seems to be declining the invitation. A real shame, too. It's the "trial by combat" option. OP appears to have left the room 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 12:59:49 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is named the Fighting Falcon...Viper, Lawn Dart etc. are not offical names. Quote HistoryQuoted: O It is named the Fighting Falcon...Viper, Lawn Dart etc. are not offical names. Officially. A lot of times, those unofficial nicknames stick better, at least in some circles, than the official ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:02:12 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the A-10 is not officially a Warthog. Officially. A lot of times, those unofficial nicknames stick better, at least in some circles, than the official ones. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
O
It is named the Fighting Falcon...Viper, Lawn Dart etc. are not offical names. Officially. A lot of times, those unofficial nicknames stick better, at least in some circles, than the official ones. Sure, BUFF, THUD, JUG, SLED etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:08:18 AM EDT
[#39]
When our F4s were replaced by F16s, they were called Fighting Falcons at the time. Ya, I was there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:12:15 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No twin-engined F-35s in the works. Not yet, at any rate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-18 Super Hornet has been one of the few success stories in recent US military weapons acquisition. It may not be a master at any single mission, but it performs a variety of missions quite well. And it does so at a price point that is untouchable. Because it is so inexpensive compared to the alternatives, we could buy enough of them to blot out the sun if we wanted to do so. And though it doesn't equal the F-22 or F-35 in many regards, it is still better than anything else we have in the inventory when it comes to multi-role performance. It is certainly good enough and inexpensive enough that we can produce them in the kind of numbers to dominate any potential enemies out there. The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Try landing an F-16 on a carrier at night in rough seas with an engine out. There's a reason why an F-18 costs more than an F-16. Two different aircraft with two different rolls. No twin-engined F-35s in the works. Not yet, at any rate. You might want to check the Harbor Freight catalog... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:14:37 AM EDT
[#41]
I'm way late to this thread, but one of the OPs entering arguments is way off.
The FA -18 didn't replace the F-14, it replaced the A-7. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:22:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why am I wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Boeing aerospace engineer here, also a ground combat vet who has seen F/A-18's in action. Do me a favor and just finish your degree and get some experience in the field before you spout your ignorance and give all of us a bad reputation. Why am I wrong? Nice try, but I'm not doing your homework for you. AeroE and I have real work to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:26:57 AM EDT
[#43]
I leave for 2 hrs and y'all add 3 pages?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:29:43 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about this then, a perfect question for a senior in an AE program, especially one that is a performance expert: The concept of cruising an airplane "on the step" has been around flying for decades. Is this a valid method of operating an airplane, or is it hooey? Show your work. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Describe the characteristics of the airplane you would design to do that job "better". Make absolutely certain you know those requirements. (You don't, and can't.) You don't get it, the McTards gave it too much control at high alpha by accident. It's not needed or anything. How about this then, a perfect question for a senior in an AE program, especially one that is a performance expert: The concept of cruising an airplane "on the step" has been around flying for decades. Is this a valid method of operating an airplane, or is it hooey? Show your work. A. You are not my professor. B. Cruising on the step is bullshit C. Wrong topic, I'm not going to justify myself to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:30:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote your post? I've seen no direct response from you to the pilots assertion that he performed the exact maneuver you say is impossible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Still waiting for OP to answer the actual fucking F/A-18 pilot in the room. ETA: Not me. The guy I quoted previously. I did. He didn't respond. Quote your post? I've seen no direct response from you to the pilots assertion that he performed the exact maneuver you say is impossible. I just got back. I have 9 pages to wade through, maybe I missed someone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:39:07 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I leave for 2 hrs and y'all add 3 pages? Which is odd because your last post is on this same page. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:40:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A. You are not my professor. First response: 
Second response: Seriously kid... how old are you? College junior, I'm betting? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:41:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's only redeeming factor is it's low speed maneuverability.....in a clean configuration.....under 10,000 feet. The F/A-18 is a glorified bomb truck that criminally replaced the greatest carrier based interceptor in history. Also, McDonnell Douglas can suck a dick for playing the generation game with Lockheed. Not one model or variant of the F/A-18 can break the sound barrier under 10,000' in level flight. Boeing crapped themselves when they designed the wing as well. It relies on way to much induced downwash, and drags like no other. Thoughts? Eta: low And your statements come from your base knowledge of: 1. Military Pilot 2. Military Aircraft Maintainer 3. Aircraft Designer 4. Aircraft Manufacturer This is what I was wondering although we know it's nothing listed there. I'm not sure how mcdonalds emoyee qualifies him to even make any comment concerning aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:43:56 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please fill in for me when the F-16 became carrier operations capable, and explain to me which F16 is equivalent in that role to the F/A-18. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The F-18 Super Hornet has been one of the few success stories in recent US military weapons acquisition. It may not be a master at any single mission, but it performs a variety of missions quite well. And it does so at a price point that is untouchable. Because it is so inexpensive compared to the alternatives, we could buy enough of them to blot out the sun if we wanted to do so. And though it doesn't equal the F-22 or F-35 in many regards, it is still better than anything else we have in the inventory when it comes to multi-role performance. It is certainly good enough and inexpensive enough that we can produce them in the kind of numbers to dominate any potential enemies out there. The F-16 is a quarter of the cost. Please fill in for me when the F-16 became carrier operations capable, and explain to me which F16 is equivalent in that role to the F/A-18. I meant that during initial conception the YF-16 and YF-17 where intended for the same purpose. The F-16 was cheaper, but the Navy insisted on the two engine requirement. <tangent> In the early 70s there was an attempt to modify the F-16 for carrier operations but that fell through mostly because the Navy was already funding the Cobra program.</tangent> Anyway, the F/A-18 was not the only contender in the LWF program and it certainly wasn't the cheapest. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/22/2014 1:45:51 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nice try, but I'm not doing your homework for you. AeroE and I have real work to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Boeing aerospace engineer here, also a ground combat vet who has seen F/A-18's in action. Do me a favor and just finish your degree and get some experience in the field before you spout your ignorance and give all of us a bad reputation. Why am I wrong? Nice try, but I'm not doing your homework for you. AeroE and I have real work to do. Then why should I listen to you? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
