Hezbollah night-vision gear manufactured in Britain - Page 29

tw · 10-03-2006, 09:10 PM

[quote=Ibram]F-16s are a lot tougher than youre giving them credit for, methinks... they can actually fly with a whole damn wing knocked off. [quote] F-16s use super-critical wings. Lose electronics - computers must constantly correct the wings - and an F-16 cannot fly. F-16s are not tough enough for ground support. Why were A-10s so damn successful in ground support and F-16s not? F-16s tend to stay about the bullets because gunfire does so much more damage to an F-16 - or F-15, or F-22.

Lose part of an F-16 wing - computers can no longer maintain the wing. Lose half a wing on an A-10 and pilot can even fly without hydraulics. F-16 without computer control or without hydraulics is abandoned like a flying garbage dump.

What is by far the most dangerous mission for any pilot? Ground attack. What is the primary purpose of an air force? Ground attack in support of those boots on the ground. Why did Swartzkopf have so much praise for the Marines in Kuwait? They did it without the F-18 air support. Carrier based planes back then were that inferior in a Navy who forgot what the Marines need from that carrier. Toughest planes are those that must survive the most difficult and essential task. Glory planes such as F-16s and F-18s stay high up because they are so easily shot down by simple guns.

headsplice · 10-04-2006, 11:59 AM

I can't believe you people are arguing so vehemently about fixed-wing aircraft.
R0t0rz 4 eva! F1zzed-w4ng iz 4 lu53rs!!! LOLOL0L!!1one2!

tw · 10-04-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice

I can't believe you people are arguing so vehemently about fixed-wing aircraft.

No debate about aircraft. This is a major and essential detail about the purpose of an air force and what an air force can and cannot accomplish.

headsplice · 10-05-2006, 04:06 PM

Not sure about F-16's, but F-15's can fly with one wing, and here's some proof.

Ibby · 10-05-2006, 06:35 PM

Damn, maybe it was the F-15, now that I think about it.

Okay, I take that back, F-16's suck

MaggieL · 10-06-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

Damn, maybe it was the F-15, now that I think about it.

Okay, I take that back, F-16's suck

And the pilot said he didn't think any other aircraft could have done it.

Also note two things: the wing proper is indeed *mostly* gone, but not *completely* gone, further, Tomcats get a significant amount of lift from the engine nacelles, which are shaped as lifting bodies.

MaggieL · 10-06-2006, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by headsplice

I can't believe you people are arguing so vehemently about fixed-wing aircraft.
R0t0rz 4 eva! F1zzed-w4ng iz 4 lu53rs!!! LOLOL0L!!1one2!

Just keep laughing when you pay the bill...helos are fiendishly expensive.

headsplice · 10-06-2006, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Just keep laughing when you pay the bill...helos are fiendishly expensive.

They're all expensive, when the only thing they do is kill people (albeit really, really well).

tw · 10-06-2006, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaggieL

And the pilot said he didn't think any other aircraft could have done it.

Helicopters and space craft do it every day without any wings.

Meanwhile, look at the size of that F-15's tail. Another 'wing'.

MaggieL · 10-07-2006, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tw

Helicopters and space craft do it every day without any wings.

Spacecraft operate ballistically...although a returning Shuttle is aerodynamic, and needs its wings, as Columbia demonstrated on STS-107.

Helicopters are "rotary-wing aircraft"; knock off the rotors and they drop like stones.

10-04-2006, 11:59 AM	#422
headsplice Relaxed Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 676	I can't believe you people are arguing so vehemently about fixed-wing aircraft. R0t0rz 4 eva! F1zzed-w4ng iz 4 lu53rs!!! LOLOL0L!!1one2! __________________ Don't Panic

10-05-2006, 04:06 PM	#424
headsplice Relaxed Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 676	Not sure about F-16's, but F-15's can fly with one wing, and here's some proof. __________________ Don't Panic

10-05-2006, 06:35 PM	#425
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Damn, maybe it was the F-15, now that I think about it. Okay, I take that back, F-16's suck __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

10-03-2006, 09:10 PM	#421
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	[quote=Ibram]F-16s are a lot tougher than youre giving them credit for, methinks... they can actually fly with a whole damn wing knocked off. [quote] F-16s use super-critical wings. Lose electronics - computers must constantly correct the wings - and an F-16 cannot fly. F-16s are not tough enough for ground support. Why were A-10s so damn successful in ground support and F-16s not? F-16s tend to stay about the bullets because gunfire does so much more damage to an F-16 - or F-15, or F-22. Lose part of an F-16 wing - computers can no longer maintain the wing. Lose half a wing on an A-10 and pilot can even fly without hydraulics. F-16 without computer control or without hydraulics is abandoned like a flying garbage dump. What is by far the most dangerous mission for any pilot? Ground attack. What is the primary purpose of an air force? Ground attack in support of those boots on the ground. Why did Swartzkopf have so much praise for the Marines in Kuwait? They did it without the F-18 air support. Carrier based planes back then were that inferior in a Navy who forgot what the Marines need from that carrier. Toughest planes are those that must survive the most difficult and essential task. Glory planes such as F-16s and F-18s stay high up because they are so easily shot down by simple guns.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)