Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/23/2006 1:58:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 2:45:49 AM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:12:51 AM EDT
Not.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:13:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 2:14:01 AM EDT by 2A373]
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.

Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:15:36 AM EDT
Besides, the Fighter Mafia would never allow it.

Ground support isn't (sniff) "sexy" enough for knights of the sky.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:19:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GTLandser:
Besides, the Fighter Mafia would never allow it.

Ground support isn't (sniff) "sexy" enough for knights of the sky.



Hate to tell ya this, but the F-16's main mission currently is air-to-ground work.

36 more daays until I'm done working lawn darts and go back to working a real aircraft.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:21:20 AM EDT
Its hard to hide in bushes 10,000 feet up in the air.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:23:15 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:36:53 AM EDT
I have never seen such a waste of paint before.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 2:41:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sixgun357:
I have never seen such a waste of paint before.




It's a photoshop.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 3:02:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 3:13:16 AM EDT by No_Expert]
not. Is this photo-chopped?

No Expert

ETA: Damn, I really gotta read all the posts sometimes....
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:02:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.




We got 2 of our jets (F-16CGs) back from depot (for the CSEP upgrade). I told some pilots who were looking at then, that "Any way you look at it, it's still a lawn dart". That has to be my favorite F-16 quote EVER.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:09:43 AM EDT
When are we gonna see civilian trucks painted in digital camo? I have a truck in primer I thought about trying it on but my better judgement kept me from persuing the idea.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 4:21:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.



And, no matter how you look at it, the F-16 is a classic design that has been proven several times over. The F-16 is the P-51 of our time
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:36:13 AM EDT
I always did like the Charcoal Lizards.



Problem was that they figured out that after a few hundered meters, nobody could tell the difference between the two paint jobs, so why bother?

Now, the US Army, on the other hand, tried it out back in the pre MERDC days.


Problem there was that it was considered too much bloody trouble, so only 2nd ACR did it.

NTM
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:39:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:41:51 AM EDT
Why are people calling F-16Cs lawn darts? The old days of harnesses ripping are long gone even before Desert Storm. F16 can have its way with the best of them.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:51:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:

Originally Posted By 2A373:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.



And, no matter how you look at it, the F-16 is a classic design that has been proven several times over. The F-16 is the P-51 of our time



More like a P-39, and ill conceived poorly performing POS that we just couldn't seem to stop buying. The "great fighter" lineage is easy to follow, and it doesn't include that one engine wonder. P-51>F-86>F-4>F-15>F-22

The AF safety center screwed their site up so I have no idea where the stats are anymore, but I'd be happy to compare class A mishaps, losses per total flying hours, etc. from any single engine lawn dart POS to any dual engine main line fighter. The F-16 has a class A mishap rate almost twice what the F-15s is btw.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:57:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 10:03:44 AM EDT by TROJANII]
You're comparing mishap rates on a single engine fighter to a dual engine fighter? And the F-16 has "almost" twice the mishap rate? Wouldn't you expect a higher mishap rate with a fighter that has half the engines? If you consider that it has only half the engines, wouldn't it have a worse mishap rate considering the F-15 has a "backup" engine?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 9:59:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 10:02:39 AM EDT by pcsutton]

Originally Posted By UH_SALT_RIFLE:
When are we gonna see civilian trucks painted in digital camo? I have a truck in primer I thought about trying it on but my better judgement kept me from persuing the idea.



I have no better judgement!

b
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:01:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TROJANII:
You're comparing mishap rates on a single engine fighter to a dual engine fighter? And the F-16 has "almost" twice the mishap rate? Wouldn't you expect a higher mishap rate with a fighter that has half the engines? If you consider that it has only half the engines, wouldn't it have a better mishap rate?



Of course it will be higher, but when the $30M airplane turns into a smoking hole in the ground 300 times (yes, thats how many POS lawn darts have crashed) it starts to get really expensive. In fact it makes buying a $10-15M more expensive airplane that is much more capable seem like a good idea, huh? We'll have the same problem with the F-35 when it gets into production, watch the Navy wish they had stuck with their promise to never buy another single engine fighter.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:02:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:

Originally Posted By 2A373:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.



And, no matter how you look at it, the F-16 is a classic design that has been proven several times over. The F-16 is the P-51 of our time



More like a P-39, and ill conceived poorly performing POS that we just couldn't seem to stop buying. The "great fighter" lineage is easy to follow, and it doesn't include that one engine wonder. P-51>F-86>F-4>F-15>F-22

The AF safety center screwed their site up so I have no idea where the stats are anymore, but I'd be happy to compare class A mishaps, losses per total flying hours, etc. from any single engine lawn dart POS to any dual engine main line fighter. The F-16 has a class A mishap rate almost twice what the F-15s is btw.


But keep in mind there are almost double the number of -16's in service as compared to -15's. And of all those class A mishaps, a majority are pilot error and poor maintenance. Take that into account, and suddenly the -16 doen't have such a bad record, and isn't such a bad airframe.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:04:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 10:05:22 AM EDT by Chairborne]

Originally Posted By thirsty:
[But keep in mind there are almost double the number of -16's in service as compared to -15's. And of all those class A mishaps, a majority are pilot error and poor maintenance. Take that into account, and suddenly the -16 doen't have such a bad record, and isn't such a bad airframe.



Class A mishaps are calculated by flying hour (rate per 100,000 hours) so it doesn't matter what the fleet size is.

ETA: very very few (abour 2%) of aviation accidents are the result of poor maintenance, operator error, of course is usually a factor
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:05:21 AM EDT
Never heard any complaints about the aircraft from a Lt Col that got me some seat time in a C simulator 8 or 9 years ago.


F16 turning radius is one of the best in the sky when it was made. F16 was light years ahead of the Mig 27s that it was built to kill. Id rather fly a F16 than a F/A-18 any day of the week.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:07:14 AM EDT
Either way, it's my new wallpaper
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:11:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
We'll have the same problem with the F-35 when it gets into production, watch the Navy wish they had stuck with their promise to never buy another single engine fighter.


Why does it matter whether the plane has a single or double engine? Is there something inherently wrong with single engine planes?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:13:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thirsty:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By ChiefPilot:

Originally Posted By 2A373:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.



And, no matter how you look at it, the F-16 is a classic design that has been proven several times over. The F-16 is the P-51 of our time



More like a P-39, and ill conceived poorly performing POS that we just couldn't seem to stop buying. The "great fighter" lineage is easy to follow, and it doesn't include that one engine wonder. P-51>F-86>F-4>F-15>F-22

The AF safety center screwed their site up so I have no idea where the stats are anymore, but I'd be happy to compare class A mishaps, losses per total flying hours, etc. from any single engine lawn dart POS to any dual engine main line fighter. The F-16 has a class A mishap rate almost twice what the F-15s is btw.


But keep in mind there are almost double the number of -16's in service as compared to -15's. And of all those class A mishaps, a majority are pilot error and poor maintenance. Take that into account, and suddenly the -16 doen't have such a bad record, and isn't such a bad airframe.



That all may be true. But my jet has a latrine on it.

I seriously feel sorry for the little guys on our wing while crossing the pond.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:15:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:

Originally Posted By Chairborne:
We'll have the same problem with the F-35 when it gets into production, watch the Navy wish they had stuck with their promise to never buy another single engine fighter.


Why does it matter whether the plane has a single or double engine? Is there something inherently wrong with single engine planes?



Two engines: Lose an engine, declare an IFE, fly home.
One engine: Lose an engine, declare an IFE, pull yellow and black handles, watch new hole be made in ground.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:15:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By thirsty:
[But keep in mind there are almost double the number of -16's in service as compared to -15's. And of all those class A mishaps, a majority are pilot error and poor maintenance. Take that into account, and suddenly the -16 doen't have such a bad record, and isn't such a bad airframe.



Class A mishaps are calculated by flying hour (rate per 100,000 hours) so it doesn't matter what the fleet size is.

ETA: very very few (abour 2%) of aviation accidents are the result of poor maintenance, operator error, of course is usually a factor



If you're flying an F-15 and an engine goes out due to poor maintenance and you don't follow the proper procedures to limit the problem and crash the aircraft, then it is pilot error, even though the initial problem was poor maintenance.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:15:22 AM EDT
Not.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:15:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Is there something inherently wrong with single engine planes?



Yes, lack of redundancy. When a simple $25 seal fails, and then the turbine, or compressor, or fuel control fails, the engine stops, and you have a $60M piece of terminal debris. If you have another engine, you fly it home and repair it.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:16:14 AM EDT
The IDF has no issues with the 8 F16s they sent to bomb the hell out of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in '81. That is probably one of the single most important air raids of since WW2.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:17:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
The IDF has no issues with the 8 F16s they sent to bomb the hell out of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in '81. That is probably one of the single most important air raids of since WW2.



Then why do they still fly F-4s, and fly the hell out of F-15s?
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:17:28 AM EDT
A double engine gives you a "backup" engine (if you lose one engine, you can still probably fly on the second).
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:23:29 AM EDT
Shit happens no matter what. The IDF sent 16s and not 15s to gettr done.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:25:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:
No matter how you paint it, it's still a fucking lawn dart.



Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:28:56 AM EDT
Don't like F16's? Y'all are commies.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:30:09 AM EDT
I wonder how many of the chair force boys on here are actually Officers and Pilots? 10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:32:55 AM EDT
If you've flown it til the paint is faded, decalre engine failure, eject and get a new one.

Who cares, why worry atleast we get to fly our aircraft, most contries let em rust out on the ground due to lack of funding.

Lawn Dart or Not, Ill Take one.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 10:41:36 AM EDT
PFC would be Army, not Air Force.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:18:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
The IDF has no issues with the 8 F16s they sent to bomb the hell out of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in '81. That is probably one of the single most important air raids of since WW2.



Then why do they still fly F-4s, and fly the hell out of F-15s?



Cause they can't afford enough F-16's and F-15's. And noone's saying the -15 isn't a hell of a fighter.

Actually, the IDF stopped buying F-15E's in favor of F-16I's.

Where is our resident F-16 driver, anyway? I know we've got one...
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:19:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
The IDF has no issues with the 8 F16s they sent to bomb the hell out of the nuclear reactor in Iraq in '81. That is probably one of the single most important air raids of since WW2.



Then why do they still fly F-4s, and fly the hell out of F-15s?



They won't be flying those F-4s much longer... they are being replaced with F-16Is'!

102 of them to be exact.

The Israeli Air Force chose to acquire the F-16I over additional purchases of the F-15I.



Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:21:47 AM EDT
I'm trying to get into the Air Guard flying those "lawn darts," F-16C Block 25's, and having spent a lot of time with the guys who fly them and the men and women who mainain them, I know they hold the airplane in very high regards. I'll take their word over anyone's here, especially over you ROTC know-it-alls who've never seen one of these airplanes in anything other than an airshow, let alone sat in one. Frankly, I can't imagine a better office to work in.

By the way, their unit has one of the best readiness records of any in the country, including regular and guard -15 units, they served with distinction in Desert Storm and Afghanistan, and when the Pentagon was cutting budgets and bases, theirs was given more funding, and further units were tacked on including Predators. There has only been one incident at this unit since they've had -16's, which was a result of the winter weather. No accidents or lost airplanes.

If you guys want to base the effectiveness and ability of the F-16 solely on it's accident record over the past 30 years, go ahead. Find the non-combat loss statistics of the P-51 vs the P-38 during WWII, and you can make the same asinine assertions about one engine vs. two you're attempting to do here. Two engines will always be safer, but combat record is what really counts. Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.

By the way... while Israel flies the hell out of F-4's and F-15's, they're still taking new deliveries of F-16's, and not because they're replacing losses.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:27:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thirsty:
I'm trying to get into the Air Guard flying those "lawn darts," F-16C Block 25's, and having spent a lot of time with the guys who fly them and the men and women who mainain them, I know they hold the airplane in very high regards. I'll take their word over anyone's here, especially over you ROTC know-it-alls who've never seen one of these airplanes in anything other than an airshow, let alone sat in one. Frankly, I can't imagine a better office to work in.

By the way, their unit has one of the best readiness records of any in the country, including regular and guard -15 units, they served with distinction in Desert Storm and Afghanistan, and when the Pentagon was cutting budgets and bases, theirs was given more funding, and further units were tacked on including Predators. There has only been one incident at this unit since they've had -16's, which was a result of the winter weather. No accidents or lost airplanes.

If you guys want to base the effectiveness and ability of the F-16 solely on it's accident record over the past 30 years, go ahead. Find the non-combat loss statistics of the P-51 vs the P-38 during WWII, and you can make the same asinine assertions about one engine vs. two you're attempting to do here. Two engines will always be safer, but combat record is what really counts. Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.

By the way... while Israel flies the hell out of F-4's and F-15's, they're still taking new deliveries of F-16's, and not because they're replacing losses.




Great post. lets also remember that the F16 was the first plane to have HOSAT and reclined the seat to the point to make high G turns easier for the pilot. Plus it pure sex in looks compared to a F15. And yes I have sat in a Block 25 series.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:29:03 AM EDT

...Can you refute the F-16's combat record? I doubt it.



F-16: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.
F-15: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.

KC-10: Zero losses to enemy aircraft.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:33:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/23/2006 11:34:53 AM EDT by arfreak74]

Originally Posted By Chairborne:

Originally Posted By Boom_Stick:
Is there something inherently wrong with single engine planes?



Yes, lack of redundancy. When a simple $25 seal fails, and then the turbine, or compressor, or fuel control fails, the engine stops, and you have a $60M piece of terminal debris. If you have another engine, you fly it home and repair it.




now I know you are full of crap. nothing in the engine is only $25!! more like $.50 seal that the .gov pays $125 for.


btw I was a Flightline Avionics specialist on Block 50 F-16's. got a backseat ride while TDY in Jordan, and lawn dart or not, that was one million dollar ride!

our wing lost several while I was there, from 93-96. I think every one was due to catastrophic engine failure. hell, the whole wing was grounded at one point because of it. That was with the GE129 engines.



Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:36:40 AM EDT
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f-16.htm


Larn dart or not, the F16 is one hell of a single engine fighter.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 11:55:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By arfreak74:


now I know you are full of crap. nothing in the engine is only $25!! more like $.50 seal that the .gov pays $125 for.


btw I was a Flightline Avionics specialist on Block 50 F-16's. got a backseat ride while TDY in Jordan, and lawn dart or not, that was one million dollar ride!

our wing lost several while I was there, from 93-96. I think every one was due to catastrophic engine failure. hell, the whole wing was grounded at one point because of it. That was with the GE129 engines.






A, B, or C shop? 2A3X2 right? I'm a B shop guy myself, I had to go pick up some lawn dart chunks on the Nellis range a couple of times, I think they planted about three of them the first year I was there (93). No doubt getting a ride in a -16 is a good time, so was my F-4 ride. They aren't bad airplanes, really, just second best to the F-15, and always will be. If they retained their original role (defensive air to air only) they would be fine, but after they strapped all the garbage on them they need to do the air to mud mission they don't maneuver worth shit. I love all the uneducated maroons that love them cause they are "so sexy" when they have no clue what the hell capability, redundancy, the "high-low" fighter mix, or anything else are.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:04:02 PM EDT
I highly doubt that a F-15Es are nimble when fully burdened in combat as well.

Of course the 15 is a better overall fighter, but the 16 has the ability to go toe to toe with anything that the ComBloc dared to throw at it.


In an actual theater operation, 16s would be escorted by at least 4 F-15s while on route to the ground target, after that the 16s would have a better chance on self defense on the way home. F-15 has always been better for air supority due to its more advanced radar, and higher speed, and ceiling. But in actual dog fighting a 16 damn lethal. Im sure a few of the Nellis Red Flag boys have pwnd some cocky F15 pilots that thought F5s were nothing to be scared of.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:06:51 PM EDT
E models are mudhens, not to be confused with their air superiority brethren.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:07:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.



The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.
Link Posted: 2/23/2006 12:13:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 2A373:

Originally Posted By Blackmagic94:
10 bucks says a PFC dishwasher is the one making these lawn dart comments.



The address to send the $10 can be found in this thread.

2A373, TSgt (E-6), USAF
Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Craftsman (a.k.a. a Crew Chief) with experience on F-15, F-16, and F-22s.




Either way you are not a Pilot like i claimed.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top