Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Tu-22M3 - crash landing with novice pilot. :joystick:

I was shocked when I saw this video for the first time!

He touched the runway at 390 km/h! :noexpression:

Also note that he has a missile under the left wing ;)

 

Edited by gigz-on
  • Like 3
Posted
Tu-22M3 - crash landing with novice pilot. :joystick:

I was shocked when I saw this video for the first time!

He touched the runway at 390 km/h! :noexpression:

 

No flaps? :huh:

Asus Prime Z-370-A

Intel core I7-8700K 3.70Ghz

Ram g.skill f4-3200c16d 32gb

Evga rtx 2070

Ssd samgung 960 evo m.2 500gb

 

Syria, Nevada, Persian Gulf, Normandy 1944

Combined Arms

A-10C, Mirage-2000C, F-16C, FC3

Spitfire LF Mk. IX

UH-1H, Gazelle

Posted
F-16 was like almost all fighters of its era designed for russian bombers interception

Not even close, not to mention that block 52 (F-16C) is so different to the original designed F-16A. Different engine, avionics, mission, weight class, capabilities, weapons loads, etc. Electric lightning, F-4 Phantom, Mirage III, century aircraft, those where designed to intercept bombers.

2cents.gif

 

 

Groove,

Do you happen to have a block 50 chart? I bet GE is better than that PW.

070329-F-1142C-066.jpg

 

060929-F-0254R-007.jpg

389th AMU

 

Senior Airman Matt James (left) and Staff Sgt. Jeremy Sherwood (right), both from the 366th Component Maintenance Squadron fuels shop, align the left wing to the fuselage of an F-16 “Fighting Falcon” while performing a double wing change. (Photo by Airman 1st Class Robert Richardson)

 

060929-F-0254R-012.jpg

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Posted
Tu-22M3 - crash landing with novice pilot. :joystick:

I was shocked when I saw this video for the first time!

He touched the runway at 390 km/h! :noexpression:

Also note that he has a missile under the left wing ;)

 

Looks like one of my Su-25 landings :music_whistling:

Intel 5820k | Asus X-99A | Crucial 16GB | Powercolor Devil RX580 8GB | Win 10 x64 | Oculus Rift | https://gallery.ksotov.co.uk

Patiently waiting for: DCS: Panavia Tornado, DCS: SA-2 Guideline, DCS: SA-3 Goa, DCS: S-300 Grumble

Posted

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Posted

F-16 is 10t lighter than the F-14 and 3t lighter than the F-18 , i'm not surprised that it has outstanding acceleration capabilities . don't know if it wasn't designed for bombers interception but it could have done the job wonderfully . maybe bombers interception wasn't its first role , but in the 70s i believe the plane makers took that aspect into consideration

Posted (edited)

f16+destruction.jpg

An F-16 Fighting Falcon explodes, sending debris and shrapnel into the air Aug. 19 on the Eglin Air Force Base range. The explosion was a static test of the flight termination system to be used in the QF-16. The purpose was to demonstrate that the FTS design will be sufficient to immediately terminate the flight of a QF-16, as well as determine a range safety debris footprint. (U.S. Air Force photo/Samuel King Jr.)

100820-f-7814k-009.jpg

What a waist of a beautiful aircraft :(

http://www.eglin.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123219116

Edited by mvsgas

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Posted
F-16 is 10t lighter than the F-14 and 3t lighter than the F-18 , i'm not surprised that it has outstanding acceleration capabilities . don't know if it wasn't designed for bombers interception but it could have done the job wonderfully . maybe bombers interception wasn't its first role , but in the 70s i believe the plane makers took that aspect into consideration

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f16/f-16-specifications.html

 

http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=103

 

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

 

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1100&ct=1

 

On another note

 

Groove,

Do you know what version of the block 52 did they use for that chart? ( USAF, 52+, etc)

What version of the MIG-29?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Posted

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Posted

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...