For you F-16 fans

[hitman]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f45_1225627881

[leafer]

Hitman, I don't have anything against lil' kids but I'm afraid most F-16 fans find it hard to type while sucking on their thumbs. :D

[mvsgas]

I guess it happens all the time, man that is cool

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac1_1215110868

[Cosmonaut]

Nice :thumbup:.. But that's not a low pass :no: a Falcon only has one engine so he's just getting up to speed so he can climb to his initial altitude :D .

 

F16 + 2 = F18: Ah that's better :yes:

[Mugatu]

Looking forward to seeing the JSF do that one day, at 2xdB of an F-15C!

[Pilotasso]

Your mistakened: the Db scale is logaritmic, not linear. ;) :D

[mvsgas]

Nice :thumbup:.. But that's not a low pass :no: a Falcon only has one engine so he's just getting up to speed so he can climb to his initial altitude :D .

 

F16 + 2 = F18: Ah that's better :yes:

Obviously you have never work or seen up close a F-18 engine. They look like I could put them in my kids toys when compared to a F-110-GE-100. Without a catapult, the F-18 takes off like a C-5... Slowly. Sorry F-16 fan boys here, I could not resist.:thumbup:

[Pilotasso]

Yep the F-16 accelerates faster. the main advantage of the F-18 is its radar and pit layout. Everything else is on the falcons side.

[RedTiger]

Obviously you have never work or seen up close a F-18 engine. They look like I could put them in my kids toys when compared to a F-110-GE-100. Without a catapult, the F-18 takes off like a C-5... Slowly. Sorry F-16 fan boys here, I could not resist.:thumbup:

 

I can remember reading an interview with Pete Bonanni where he recalled his thoughts the first time he saw the F-16A. He thought "Wow, they finally got the right number of engines for a Fighter!". :D

[Cosmonaut]

I can remember reading an interview with Pete Bonanni where he recalled his thoughts the first time he saw the F-16A. He thought "Wow, they finally got the right number of engines for a Fighter!". :D

 

Only bean counters and those that thought the F4 wouldn't need a gun would celebrate a single engine on a strike fighter :P .

 

I'm just messing with you guys .. and I'm trying to take over Hitmans thread by stealth :D .

Edited November 3, 2008 by Cosmonaut

[Pilotasso]

One of the few reasons why twin engine fighters continue to exist is because they cant manufacture a single piece that produces enough thrust. The safety factor is more and more a thing of the past, not only because engines became more reliable but because damage to one engine might just well imply damage to the other engine and/or other systems. In the middle of combat thats the same as loosing the plane.

 

The F-35 has only 1 engine and it will be embarked on carriers. All other fighters are twin engined for the same ammount of thrust. ;)

 

The only exception I see for this is the A-10 where both engines are effectively seperated and armoured, the whole thing is. None of the others were made to take AAA on its hull. ;)

[Vekkinho]

Might be true but I like second (spare) engine!

[Cosmonaut]

Tell the pilots from twin engine airframes from Nam to GW2 that made it home on one engine, or far enough away for a safe ejection, that one engine is just as effective as two ;) . I know I give the Falcon a hard time and I'm not knocking it's capabilities but a fighter built to save money is just uninspiring to me. :noexpression:

 

And don't get me started on the F35.. :D I'm trying to like it but operations under 10 thousand feet are going to be a hair raising experience. Anyone firing an AK in right direction and its by, by internet jet. :pilotfly:. But lets hope there's no wars and combat pilots can get paid to just play :P .

[RedTiger]

Only bean counters and those that thought the F4 wouldn't need a gun would celebrate a single engine on a strike fighter :P .

 

I'm just messing with you guys .. and I'm trying to take over Hitmans thread by stealth :D .

 

I believe Mr. Bonnani was speaking more to its abilities as a Fighter not a hobbled over-weighted moving target. Although, it does play that role just fine too. ;)

 

Yes, I know you're just messing around. I can respect a bit of friendly thread hijacking. :)

 

Tell the pilots from twin engine airframes from Nam to GW2 that made it home on one engine, or far enough away for a safe ejection, that one engine is just as effective as two ;) . I know I give the Falcon a hard time and I'm not knocking it's capabilities but a fighter built to save money is just uninspiring to me. :noexpression:

 

And don't get me started on the F35.. :D I'm trying to like it but operations under 10 thousand feet are going to be a hair raising experience. Anyone firing an AK in right direction and its by, by internet jet. :pilotfly:. But lets hope there's no wars and combat pilots can get paid to just play :P .

 

At the time of the light-weight fighter competition, the whole question of 1 vs. 2 engines was based on political and export preconceptions. It was thought that potential buyers would be frightened away from a single-engine design so that is one of the factors behind accepting the YF-17 into the running. So the desire for 2 engines was just as money-oriented and politicized as any reason to have one engine! In light of this, do you really wanna go down that road about being "uninspired"? :puke:

 

BTW, there was no doubt which design the Fighter pilots preferred and which design won the competion. ;)

 

I also recall that John Boyd and his ilk had done some sort of analysis of 1 engine vs. 2 and had basically come to the conclusion that 2 engines was statistically no better than 1. I'm over simplifying it here, but I think the general idea was 2 engines had its own set of problems with regards to maintenance and break-downs (in other words, TWICE as likely). My recollection is of this is hazy, so take this with a grain of salt. There may be more to it along the lines of what Pilotasso mentioned.

Edited November 3, 2008 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

Tell it to the F-22 :D

At 39000lbs per engine, this sucker has 0.95TWR at MAX TO gross weight, and 1.22TWR at nominal TO weight. That means by the time it gets into a fight, it has a TWR of 1.4 (think streak eagle) ... scary no?

 

The F-35 has a single engine rated at 48000lbs, exceeding the thrust produced by the F-15C by a slight margin. Also scary.

[Cosmonaut]

At the time of the light-weight fighter competition, the whole question of 1 vs. 2 engines was based on political and export preconceptions. It was thought that potential buyers would be frightened away from a single-engine design so that is one of the factors behind accepting the YF-17 into the running. So the desire for 2 engines was just as money-oriented and politicized as any reason to have one engine! In light of this, do you really wanna go down that road about being "uninspired"? :puke:

 

Why not lol

 

The Yf17 was never chosen becasue it most likely didn't fulfill the criteria of the selection brief, which was cheap running cost etc etc. Then the Navy pulled out becasue the F16 was pretty much useless to them so they went on to develop the F18. I have cut out a ton of stuff here :) . Anyway for me the F16 represents the Ford Focus of the fighter world lol oohh I know that's cruel but hey anything built for economy is just a little underwhelming.. IMO of course.

 

I also recall that John Boyd and his ilk had done some sort of analysis of 1 engine vs. 2 and had basically come to the conclusion that 2 engines was statistically no better than 1. I'm over simplifying it here, but I think the general idea was 2 engines had its own set of problems with regards to maintenance and break-downs (in other words, TWICE as likely). My recollection is of this is hazy, so take this with a grain of salt. There may be more to it along the lines of what Pilotasso mentioned.

 

Bean counters :P I have no doubt that two engines are no more reliable than one in terms of engineering but in terms of being shot at then I'll take two ;) and isn't the maintenance per flight hour for the F18E lower than the F16?

 

^^^^

 

Tell it to the F-22 :D

 

I would If I could see it :P ,

Edited November 3, 2008 by Cosmonaut

[RedTiger]

^^^^

 

Tell it to the F-22 :D

At 39000lbs per engine, this sucker has 0.95TWR at MAX TO gross weight, and 1.22TWR at nominal TO weight. That means by the time it gets into a fight, it has a TWR of 1.4 (think streak eagle) ... scary no?

 

 

 

The F-35 has a single engine rated at 48000lbs, exceeding the thrust produced by the F-15C by a slight margin. Also scary.

 

Not fair! Not fair! :mad: :D

 

Here's a thought: barring a move to UAVs which will certainly be smaller, why do designers continue to design such large aircraft like the F-22? Do you really need an aircraft that is 60 or 70 feet long to house the hardware that a true air superiority fighter needs? Is all that extra room needed for fuel for staying power? More room for missiles? Does making it large just make it easier to design? It would seem that of all the present-day dedicated air to air planes -- of which there are like what, four in-service designs? (F-15, F-14, F-22, Su-27) -- there's a similar size which everyone agrees upon, and in all honesty, it is huge.

[Vekkinho]

Todays aircraft jet engines are not the big problem anymore. Things are pretty much reliable today, maintenance is preformed regulary so actual chances of a dead stick due to engine failure are minor, almost impossible!

 

Guys like MVSGAS who spend more time working on those birds than pilots flying them can say more on this subject but I have a single engined car that will probably decay with age but the engine will run flawlesly each time I need it to. Same thing with jets!

[hitman]

Jets are much more intensive with the care they need. Your talking about a huge device that rotates at idle of around 10,000 rpm spooling up that generates about 60,000 horse power (civilian).

[GGTharos]

All of the above, so to speak.

 

The F-22 carries more fuel than an F-15, and the same payload but internally. The airframe alone weighs in at a 'fighting F-15' weight, just to support all this stuff. Naturally, the more stuff you stick into the fighter, the tougher you need to make the support, etc, and they get heavier.

 

More powerful engines: Heavy.

Better wing loading: Bigger wings (heavy)

More fuel: More weight, bigger fuel TANKS, requiring bigger SUPPORT structures (heavy)

 

And so on and so forth. Aircraft size is directly related to a tradeoff between TWR and wing loading - naturally having an internal bay doesn't help there (the fuselage becomes bigger) and AESA radars as well as supercomputer systems with room to expand require interesting cooling solutions which are also ... heavy.

 

Yet despite this, they also get more agile ;)

 

Not fair! Not fair! :mad: :D

 

Here's a thought: barring a move to UAVs which will certainly be smaller, why do designers continue to design such large aircraft like the F-22? Do you really need an aircraft that is 60 or 70 feet long to house the hardware that a true air superiority fighter needs? Is all that extra room needed for fuel for staying power? More room for missiles? Does making it large just make it easier to design? It would seem that of all the present-day dedicated air to air planes -- of which there are like what, four in-service designs? (F-15, F-14, F-22, Su-27) -- there's a similar size which everyone agrees upon, and in all honesty, it is huge.

[RedTiger]

Why not lol

 

The Yf17 was never chosen becasue it most likely didn't fulfill the criteria of the selection brief, which was cheap running cost etc etc. Then the Navy pulled out becasue the F16 was pretty much useless to them so they went on to develop the F18. I have cut out a ton of stuff here :) . Anyway for me the F16 represents the Ford Focus of the fighter world lol oohh I know that's cruel but hey anything built for economy is just a little underwhelming.. IMO of course.

 

 

Funny how it was built for economy but ended up being anything but. Its still inexpensive and relatively cheap to maintain but I hesitate to call it "economy". Its a "jack of all trades" that just happens to be able to do a couple of those trades about as good as any other platform.

 

 

 

Bean counters :P I have no doubt that two engines are no more reliable than one in terms of engineering but in terms of being shot at then I'll take two ;) and isn't the maintenance per flight hour for the F18E lower than the F16?

 

Bean counters? If by counting beans you mean making people more accountable, then so be it. I don't totally agree with them, but if only a quarter of the crap I've heard about how equipment was procured back then is true, it was nothing but one big General Officer and Defense industry circle jerk.

 

I can't speak for the actual reliability. I don't have any idea. But why compare the F-18E? Comparing the A or C would be more meaningful.

 

To be honest, I am not without bias when it comes to carrier-launched aircraft. I've never really liked them. My view of the USN fighter and attack aircraft situation has always reminded me of the USMC situation; personnel who are just as, if not more, skilled than their Army and Airforce counterparts but are forced to make due with second-round equipment and designs the other guys said "no thanks" to.

 

The respect for the people is there, but the fondness for their "toys" is not, in the case of the USN that is. While I think its awesome that you have Marines still using actual assault rifles (as opposed to carbines) and riding around in these things which don't even have AT missiles:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle

 

While the army gets these:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley

 

I don't find carrier-based aviation appealing. Beyond the coolness and "wow" factor of landing a plane on a rolling tennis court, at sea, at night, it just doesn't do it for me. I've always found all the nice things that go along with having an airbase, long-range AWACS, GCI support, more interesting than carrier-based aviation. Its just a preference I guess. :P

Edited November 4, 2008 by RedTiger

[GGTharos]

Realize that the F-18E is one of the most advanced aircraft out there. It does both air to air and air to ground VERY well :)

 

Similarily, keep in mind that the Bradley was meant to fight in situations where it would be holding the line against enemy tanks, and the AAV is all about busting up infantry and protecting its own when coming ashore.

 

Different vehicles for different reasons.

[hitman]

While I think its awesome that you have Marines still using actual assault rifles (as opposed to carbines) and riding around in these things which don't even have AT missiles:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Assault_Vehicle

 

While the army gets these:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M3_Bradley

 

The Marine Corps uses those AAV's for amphibious assaults. They are just designed to advance on the beach head. To top that off, the USMC isnt a force that was designed to hold land...that was what the Army is for. Thats why the Army gets the Bradleys. Come to think of it, the Bradley isnt a good vehicle to be fighting tanks in either. Its best role is to weed out fighters hiding in buildings, and the occasional Air Defence excersizes.

Edited November 4, 2008 by hitman

[hitman]

And for you monster fans...actual live HUD tape with little green critters.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a21_1225738459

[RedTiger]

Realize that the F-18E is one of the most advanced aircraft out there. It does both air to air and air to ground VERY well :)

 

Point taken. They didn't take a hand-me-down in that case.

 

Similarily, keep in mind that the Bradley was meant to fight in situations where it would be holding the line against enemy tanks, and the AAV is all about busting up infantry and protecting its own when coming ashore.

 

Different vehicles for different reasons.

 

The Marine Corps uses those AAV's for amphibious assaults. They are just designed to advance on the beach head. To top that off, the USMC isnt a force that was designed to hold land...that was what the Army is for. Thats why the Army gets the Bradleys.

 

All that is fine and good, but what if you have to deal a counter attack? I know for certain that there are missions and contingencies that the USMC was and still is prepared for that would pit an expeditionary force of AAVs and Abrams vs. a much more heavily armed and numerous opponent. In that scenario, its nice to have AT weapons on your personnel carriers. As it is, they'd be a speed bump relying on TOWs, mortors, and LAWs to get the job done. The AAV was intended to carry Marines farther inland than just a beach head.

 

Plus, didn't AAVs do a lot of "holding ground" in GW2?

 

Come to think of it, the Bradley isnt a good vehicle to be fighting tanks in either. Its best role is to weed out fighters hiding in buildings, and the occasional Air Defence excersizes.

 

Russian tanks like the T-80 were designed to fire AT missiles to counter the threat of things like M2s armed with AT missiles. The fear wasn't that IFVs would go around hunting tanks, it was just the fear that a good AT missile could out-range a tank's main gun and have a better PK at range.

Edited November 4, 2008 by RedTiger