User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:22:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Every carrier landing is a controlled crash. The landing gear on naval aircraft are extremely robust. The USAF can use more fragile gear that would not withstand a carrier landing. Are the F-15 (always a favorite) and F-14 comparable in what they can carry? Both are still in use? F-14s were retired a few years ago. :( Beautiful aircraft. They don't carry anything any more. I believe the Strike Eagle can carry a great deal more than prior versions. look it up. Remember that the F-16 is primarily a bomb truck and the F-15 is air superiority as far as intended mission profiles go. Was the F-4 the biggest leap in jet technology? Difficult question to answer. I would say the Horten 229 or the Me 262 were the big jumps, personally. Especially the Horten. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:32:28 PM EDT
[#2]
With inverted flight tanks, can you really not do a negative G pushover?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:41:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Please describe what it's like being the pilot breaking the sound barrier.
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:44:28 PM EDT
[#4]
What's the minimum speed needed to take off? Can they glide at all?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:45:02 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please describe what it's like being the pilot breaking the sound barrier. What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? There's a story somewhere about pilots flying the F-86, which would go Mach in a dive, diving on a live radio broadcast station so they could hear their sonic booms on their cockpit radio which was tuned to the station. Higher ups eventually put an end to that antic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:48:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:51:26 PM EDT
[#7]
The F-4 was evolutionary, not revolutionary. See F-101 and F3H Demon.
The AIR-2A Genie was the most bad-ass fighter weapon ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:53:27 PM EDT
[#8]
When reaching mach, there is no noticeable event that takes place aside from your airspeed indicator changing its numbers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:54:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every carrier landing is a controlled crash. The landing gear on naval aircraft are extremely robust. The USAF can use more fragile gear that would not withstand a carrier landing. F-14s were retired a few years ago. :( Beautiful aircraft. They don't carry anything any more. I believe the Strike Eagle can carry a great deal more than prior versions. look it up. Remember that the F-16 is primarily a bomb truck and the F-15 is air superiority as far as intended mission profiles go. Difficult question to answer. I would say the Horten 229 or the Me 262 were the big jumps, personally. Especially the Horten. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Every carrier landing is a controlled crash. The landing gear on naval aircraft are extremely robust. The USAF can use more fragile gear that would not withstand a carrier landing. Are the F-15 (always a favorite) and F-14 comparable in what they can carry? Both are still in use? F-14s were retired a few years ago. :( Beautiful aircraft. They don't carry anything any more. I believe the Strike Eagle can carry a great deal more than prior versions. look it up. Remember that the F-16 is primarily a bomb truck and the F-15 is air superiority as far as intended mission profiles go. Was the F-4 the biggest leap in jet technology? Difficult question to answer. I would say the Horten 229 or the Me 262 were the big jumps, personally. Especially the Horten. When F-15s got grounded in the 90's it was the vipers that went up to do air-to-air work. The F-16 is not a bomb truck. The strike eagle fits that profile more than the F-16 does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:54:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the minimum speed needed to take off? Can they glide at all? Depends on the aircraft.....  Also, all aircraft have SOME sort of glide ratio, some much better than others.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:54:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's the minimum speed needed to take off? Can they glide at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:55:23 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg I would've said this: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:56:42 PM EDT
[#13]
I personally would have gone with the ASM-135...but I guess thats just me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 12:58:09 PM EDT
[#14]
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission.
Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:00:32 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When F-15s got grounded in the 90's it was the vipers that went up to do air-to-air work. The F-16 is not a bomb truck. The strike eagle fits that profile more than the F-16 does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Every carrier landing is a controlled crash. The landing gear on naval aircraft are extremely robust. The USAF can use more fragile gear that would not withstand a carrier landing. Are the F-15 (always a favorite) and F-14 comparable in what they can carry? Both are still in use? F-14s were retired a few years ago. :( Beautiful aircraft. They don't carry anything any more. I believe the Strike Eagle can carry a great deal more than prior versions. look it up. Remember that the F-16 is primarily a bomb truck and the F-15 is air superiority as far as intended mission profiles go. Was the F-4 the biggest leap in jet technology? Difficult question to answer. I would say the Horten 229 or the Me 262 were the big jumps, personally. Especially the Horten. When F-15s got grounded in the 90's it was the vipers that went up to do air-to-air work. The F-16 is not a bomb truck. The strike eagle fits that profile more than the F-16 does. Yep, the A,C and D models (15s) were/are air to air, with the Es being tasked to ground and pound. We had Block 32 F-16s and they did well as A/A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:02:43 PM EDT
[#16]
You cannot call them the F series...you might be referring to the 100 series F100, F101, F102, F104, F105, F106.
The F100 was the first supersonic fighter in the Air Force. It was a leap in technology. The F4 was proof you can make a brick fly if you put big ass jets on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:03:59 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? As noted above, the landing gear won't take the beating. As an example, the reason that the Navy has its own series of Joint Strike Fighter is for the brutal environment of carrier ops. Are the F-15 (always a favorite) and F-14 comparable in what they can carry? Both are still in use? The Strike Eagle can carry an amazing amount of ordinance. To a large degree, the F-14 was a delivery platform for the Phoenix missile. Was the F-4 the biggest leap in jet technology? While I'm a big Phantom Phan, I'd say no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:06:37 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You cannot call them the F series...you might be referring to the 100 series F100, F101, F102, F104, F105, F106. The F100 was the first supersonic fighter in the Air Force. It was a leap in technology. The F4 was proof you can make a brick fly if you put big ass jets on it. aka, the Century series. Beautiful jets, all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:07:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. Type-Model-Series |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:09:23 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the minimum speed needed to take off? Can they glide at all? Depends if it's on a treadmill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:10:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryAhhhhhh, canned sunshine! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:11:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's the minimum speed needed to take off? Can they glide at all? Stall on Naval aircraft is lower than ground based. Nobody posts stall data for good reason. Rocks glide They have a definate arc, but they glide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:12:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please describe what it's like being the pilot breaking the sound barrier. What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? A B-61 thermonuclear weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:14:41 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please describe what it's like being the pilot breaking the sound barrier. What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? I broke the sound barrier in a 1957 C182 in a decent on a busy day flying at a drop zone. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:30:31 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Are the F-15 (always a favorite) and F-14 comparable in what they can carry? Both are still in use? Was the F-4 the biggest leap in jet technology? Aside from the very first jets that were introduced being a major leap in overall aircraft technology, I have to say the biggest leap in jet aircraft technology is undoubtedly the SR-71. The SR-71 design concept is now a 50+ year old design that has not yet been exceeded in many aspects of its performance. Realize that contemporaries of the SR-71 entering service were planes like the F-106 and F-4. Planes that were far outperformed by the Blackbird in it's intended role; high altitude, high speed flight. The marriage of the engines and airframe of the Blackbird produced a truly revolutionary aircraft compared to all that came before it. It is only rumor that aircraft that can outperform the Blackbird in high altitude, high speed even exist today. The YF-23 was rumored to be able to fly as fast as the published figures for the SR. And the Aurora hypersonic aircraft is still only an unproven rumor over two decades after it started being talked about. An aircraft that establishes that sort of record only twenty years after the beginning of the Jet Age is nothing less than revolutionary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:33:19 PM EDT
[#26]
B57
Interesting little program they have when you get fingered to be on a load team. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:35:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Of fighters with the 'F' designation, I'd say the F86 was the greatest leap of tech.
Jet engine, swept wing, later marks had radar and guided missiles. Capable of going supersonic in a dive. The F86H saw combat against later designs and showed well for itself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 1:49:19 PM EDT
[#28]
Remember the F106?
In 1959 one of them set the single engine speed record for a jet aircraft - which stands to this day. The good part was they took two planes (primary and a back up) and spend a lot of time setting the primary up to fly for the record. Morning of the attempt the primary developed problems and the pilot used the back up (which had not had the time/effort put into it the primary had) and set the record anyway. Think about that. Since 1959 no single engine jet aircraft has flown faster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:15:49 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember the F106? In 1959 one of them set the single engine speed record for a jet aircraft - which stands to this day. The good part was they took two planes (primary and a back up) and spend a lot of time setting the primary up to fly for the record. Morning of the attempt the primary developed problems and the pilot used the back up (which had not had the time/effort put into it the primary had) and set the record anyway. Think about that. Since 1959 no single engine jet aircraft has flown faster. The 106 was a hot jet. I remember watching the Atlantic City NJANG boys flying them at McGuire when they were getting a new runway at home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:17:53 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Type-Model-Series Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. Type-Model-Series DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:24:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember the F106? In 1959 one of them set the single engine speed record for a jet aircraft - which stands to this day. The good part was they took two planes (primary and a back up) and spend a lot of time setting the primary up to fly for the record. Morning of the attempt the primary developed problems and the pilot used the back up (which had not had the time/effort put into it the primary had) and set the record anyway. Think about that. Since 1959 no single engine jet aircraft has flown faster. IIRC, that plane was an early version of the plane with an earlier wing design that was not as fast as later versions of the "A" model. The two-seat "B" model was even faster than the "A" due to its extra length enhancing the plane's "area ruling". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:25:09 AM EDT
[#32]
Yet another EPIC gd thread. I am beginning to love this website.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 2:46:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The "F" isn't series, it's Mission. Mission, Design, Series. Example: F-4D Mission: F (Fighter) Design: 4 Series: D (fourth iteration resulting from changes to the design) Just trying to help. Type-Model-Series DoD/USAF uses MDS designations. USAF uses MDS DoN uses TMS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 3:20:25 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would've said this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg I would've said this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg Both wrong. The B-53 in the back right corner of the original pic for the win. 9MT |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 3:22:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Why were the F-111 and F-117 given "F" designations and not "As?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 3:28:08 AM EDT
[#36]
IN
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 3:33:18 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both wrong. The B-53 in the back right corner of the original pic for the win. 9MT Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? That is a simple answer http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6062/6135797999_4f99b9479c_z.jpg I would've said this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/B-83_nuclear_weapon.jpg Both wrong. The B-53 in the back right corner of the original pic for the win. 9MT What F-mission/type was certified to carry the B-53? ETA: Ah, I see Timco relaxed his qualification to just "a jet" not fighter. 9MT good! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 3:49:21 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I broke the sound barrier in a 1957 C182 in a decent on a busy day flying at a drop zone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Please describe what it's like being the pilot breaking the sound barrier. What's the single, most badass weapon a jet can carry? I broke the sound barrier in a 1957 C182 in a decent on a busy day flying at a drop zone. Gotta love that big Continental O470. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:26:38 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were the F-111 and F-117 given "F" designations and not "As?" Because the powers that be think the "F" designation is sexier. The F-117 was our 1st Gen stealth, but has no air-to-air capability that I'm aware of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:28:32 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC, that plane was an early version of the plane with an earlier wing design that was not as fast as later versions of the "A" model. The two-seat "B" model was even faster than the "A" due to its extra length enhancing the plane's "area ruling". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Remember the F106? In 1959 one of them set the single engine speed record for a jet aircraft - which stands to this day. The good part was they took two planes (primary and a back up) and spend a lot of time setting the primary up to fly for the record. Morning of the attempt the primary developed problems and the pilot used the back up (which had not had the time/effort put into it the primary had) and set the record anyway. Think about that. Since 1959 no single engine jet aircraft has flown faster. IIRC, that plane was an early version of the plane with an earlier wing design that was not as fast as later versions of the "A" model. The two-seat "B" model was even faster than the "A" due to its extra length enhancing the plane's "area ruling". The F-102 has a similar appearance, but was nowhere near the 106 in performance. It was considered a dog by many. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:28:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:30:18 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the powers that be think the "F" designation is sexier. The F-117 was our 1st Gen stealth, but has no air-to-air capability that I'm aware of. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why were the F-111 and F-117 given "F" designations and not "As?" Because the powers that be think the "F" designation is sexier. The F-117 was our 1st Gen stealth, but has no air-to-air capability that I'm aware of. I was under the impression F-117's were capable of carrying the AIM-9. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:35:00 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was under the impression F-117's were capable of carrying the AIM-9. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why were the F-111 and F-117 given "F" designations and not "As?" Because the powers that be think the "F" designation is sexier. The F-117 was our 1st Gen stealth, but has no air-to-air capability that I'm aware of. I was under the impression F-117's were capable of carrying the AIM-9. Not an expert here. I thought the 117's weapon storage was all internal. As I understand, a Sidewinder would need the seeker exposed to get a lock before launching. I'm going to stay tuned to learn if someone who knows provides some info - I don't know everything (yet ).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 7:43:39 AM EDT
[#44]
I have no direct experience with the F-117 like I do with some other aircraft...but I was under the impression that it had NO air-to-air capability. It's only defense was it's LO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:02:18 AM EDT
[#45]
I think the F-104 was what set the standard.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:04:18 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is it just me, or have I never seen F-16's on a carrier? Why? Because the F-16 is an Air Force bird, not a USN bird. Not entirely true. The USN operates them out of NAS Fallon as aggressors. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:08:36 AM EDT
[#47]
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap.
Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:11:13 AM EDT
[#48]
Why were we building f15s f16s and f18s at the same time?
Why not one or two of them? Navy isn't sufficient for f18 as there are many land based ones too |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:16:43 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why were we building f15s f16s and f18s at the same time? Why not one or two of them? Navy isn't sufficient for f18 as there are many land based ones too Long story short. F-15 was the winner of the USAF F-X program. Many thought it was to big for a dogfighter and to expensive to procure a shit ton of them That led to the lightweight fighter program. The YF-16 and YF-17 were designed for that program. In the end, the USAF picked the YF-16 as the winner. The USN didn't really want a single engine jet. So they chose the YF-17. It got modified and is now the F-18 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2013 8:19:48 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The real reason is that their cute little landing gear would get pushed up into the engine after a moderately rough trap. Does the F-16 have an arresting hook like the F-15 or does it rely on nets for field arresting? They both have arresting hooks. That's how we keep them strapped down during ground maintenance augmentation (afterburner) runs. Not built to withstand the constant pounding of a carrier landing, but they have them. The F-16's tailhook looks like one long leafspring however. Doing RH augmentor ignition check for an aumentor fault. Those things fire at like 15-30 sparks per second. Tailhook is clearly visible. 
|
|
|
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.
