10-03-2006, 08:10 PM | #421 |
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. |
10-04-2006, 10:59 AM | #422 |
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 |
10-04-2006, 09:25 PM | #423 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
|
|
10-05-2006, 03:06 PM | #424 |
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, 05:35 PM | #425 |
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 |
10-06-2006, 10:19 AM | #426 | |
in the Hour of Scampering
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..." |
|
10-06-2006, 10:20 AM | #427 | |
in the Hour of Scampering
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
|
Quote:
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..." |
|
10-06-2006, 10:46 AM | #428 | |
Relaxed
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 676
|
Quote:
__________________
Don't Panic |
|
10-06-2006, 10:16 PM | #429 | |
Read? I only know how to write.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 11,933
|
Quote:
Meanwhile, look at the size of that F-15's tail. Another 'wing'. |
|
10-07-2006, 08:46 AM | #430 | |
in the Hour of Scampering
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jeffersonville PA (15 mi NW of Philadelphia)
Posts: 4,060
|
Quote:
Helicopters are "rotary-wing aircraft"; knock off the rotors and they drop like stones.
__________________
"Neither can his Mind be thought to be in Tune,whose words do jarre; nor his reason In frame, whose sentence is preposterous..." |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|