Obviously, we have differing opinions on whose pilots are better, and that isn't going to change, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can't argue that the F-16 isn't superior to the F-18 though, that isn't even debatable...
Did you attend the Dayton Air Show this year?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: grampi
I'm still laughing about your "old F-16" comment...
The Thunderbirds used to fly old F-16s.
The block 60 is the newest version. The USAF has some block 50/52...but not the newest F-16s built. For the latest in F-16 hardware, look at the UAE Air Force.
But for flying in the demo, the T-birds used to beat up old block 15s. Built in the 80s. That's old. Back when the F-16 couldn't shoot anything but a 'winder. Cute airplane. Great for BFM. But they had to leave air superiority to the Eagle. In other words...Old.
If they're flying front line combat jets for a demo, when flying hours are cut for fighter squadrons because of shortages in airframe availability, then I gotta' question ACC judgment.
The guys preparing for combat deserve the newest hardware, not the demo team.
And if you would like to see footage of F-16s getting gunned by Hornets, check YouTube. I've beat an F-16 in both the Tomcat and the Hornet. The block 52 Viper is a great jet, but you'll have to take it from a guy who's flown fighters, high alpha handling, energy addition, weapon system and max G are all intertwined.
You oversimplify and show some real myopia when you say the F-16 is better than the F-18. You've not flown either. I've flown both.
I'm still laughing about your "old F-16" comment...
The Thunderbirds used to fly old F-16s.
The block 60 is the newest version. The USAF has some block 50/52...but not the newest F-16s built. For the latest in F-16 hardware, look at the UAE Air Force.
But for flying in the demo, the T-birds used to beat up old block 15s. Built in the 80s. That's old. Back when the F-16 couldn't shoot anything but a 'winder. Cute airplane. Great for BFM. But they had to leave air superiority to the Eagle. In other words...Old.
If they're flying front line combat jets for a demo, when flying hours are cut for fighter squadrons because of shortages in airframe availability, then I gotta' question ACC judgment.
The guys preparing for combat deserve the newest hardware, not the demo team.
And if you would like to see footage of F-16s getting gunned by Hornets, check YouTube. I've beat an F-16 in both the Tomcat and the Hornet. The block 52 Viper is a great jet, but you'll have to take it from a guy who's flown fighters, high alpha handling, energy addition, weapon system and max G are all intertwined.
You oversimplify and show some real myopia when you say the F-16 is better than the F-18. You've not flown either. I've flown both.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: grampi
I'm still laughing about your "old F-16" comment...
The Thunderbirds used to fly old F-16s.
The block 60 is the newest version. The USAF has some block 50/52...but not the newest F-16s built. For the latest in F-16 hardware, look at the UAE Air Force.
But for flying in the demo, the T-birds used to beat up old block 15s. Built in the 80s. That's old. Back when the F-16 couldn't shoot anything but a 'winder. Cute airplane. Great for BFM. But they had to leave air superiority to the Eagle. In other words...Old.
If they're flying front line combat jets for a demo, when flying hours are cut for fighter squadrons because of shortages in airframe availability, then I gotta' question ACC judgment.
The guys preparing for combat deserve the newest hardware, not the demo team.
And if you would like to see footage of F-16s getting gunned by Hornets, check YouTube. I've beat an F-16 in both the Tomcat and the Hornet. The block 52 Viper is a great jet, but you'll have to take it from a guy who's flown fighters, high alpha handling, energy addition, weapon system and max G are all intertwined.
You oversimplify and show some real myopia when you say the F-16 is better than the F-18. You've not flown either. I've flown both.
I guess I'm not up on all the different versions of the 16, but from all the data I've been able to gather from whatever versions they're referring to, the 16 tops the 18 in every performance category...speed, rate of climb, acceleration, maneuverability, etc...now as far as what they'll carry for combat, I don't have a clue, but for use in an aerobatic team, any version of the 16 is hard to beat...and thanks for your service BTW...
Originally Posted By: grampi
I'm still laughing about your "old F-16" comment...
The Thunderbirds used to fly old F-16s.
The block 60 is the newest version. The USAF has some block 50/52...but not the newest F-16s built. For the latest in F-16 hardware, look at the UAE Air Force.
But for flying in the demo, the T-birds used to beat up old block 15s. Built in the 80s. That's old. Back when the F-16 couldn't shoot anything but a 'winder. Cute airplane. Great for BFM. But they had to leave air superiority to the Eagle. In other words...Old.
If they're flying front line combat jets for a demo, when flying hours are cut for fighter squadrons because of shortages in airframe availability, then I gotta' question ACC judgment.
The guys preparing for combat deserve the newest hardware, not the demo team.
And if you would like to see footage of F-16s getting gunned by Hornets, check YouTube. I've beat an F-16 in both the Tomcat and the Hornet. The block 52 Viper is a great jet, but you'll have to take it from a guy who's flown fighters, high alpha handling, energy addition, weapon system and max G are all intertwined.
You oversimplify and show some real myopia when you say the F-16 is better than the F-18. You've not flown either. I've flown both.
I guess I'm not up on all the different versions of the 16, but from all the data I've been able to gather from whatever versions they're referring to, the 16 tops the 18 in every performance category...speed, rate of climb, acceleration, maneuverability, etc...now as far as what they'll carry for combat, I don't have a clue, but for use in an aerobatic team, any version of the 16 is hard to beat...and thanks for your service BTW...
Last edited:
Grampi - I just googled the T-birds. They're flying block 52s, which, when clean (I.e. Not real world) is a phenomenal airplane for thrust/weight.
I question the USAF allocation of your best airplanes to air shows, thus wearing those airframes out (fatigue life) when we face future threats around the globe, but that's a different thread.
The F/A-18 has superior handling, that's part of why the Blues fly so close, and why their show has some really cool maneuvering, like dirty rolls. They fly older lot F/A-18s, still good, but leave the Super Hornet to those training for combat. That decision makes sense to me.
In the real world, the F-16 lacks some of the multi spectral sensors and ground attack capability of the F/A-18. It certainly lacks the handling of the Hornet. Some blocks of the Viper have great SEAD capability, which the Hornet does not.
They're different, in both intent and mission, and there are a lot of different variants of each airplane. It's overly simplistic to say that the F-16 is better than the Hornet. It's akin to saying the 911 is better than the Ferrari...well...which 911? Which Ferrari?
I appreciate your service as well.
Cheers,
Astro
I question the USAF allocation of your best airplanes to air shows, thus wearing those airframes out (fatigue life) when we face future threats around the globe, but that's a different thread.
The F/A-18 has superior handling, that's part of why the Blues fly so close, and why their show has some really cool maneuvering, like dirty rolls. They fly older lot F/A-18s, still good, but leave the Super Hornet to those training for combat. That decision makes sense to me.
In the real world, the F-16 lacks some of the multi spectral sensors and ground attack capability of the F/A-18. It certainly lacks the handling of the Hornet. Some blocks of the Viper have great SEAD capability, which the Hornet does not.
They're different, in both intent and mission, and there are a lot of different variants of each airplane. It's overly simplistic to say that the F-16 is better than the Hornet. It's akin to saying the 911 is better than the Ferrari...well...which 911? Which Ferrari?
I appreciate your service as well.
Cheers,
Astro
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Grampi - I just googled the T-birds. They're flying block 52s, which, when clean (I.e. Not real world) is a phenomenal airplane for thrust/weight.
I question the USAF allocation of your best airplanes to air shows, thus wearing those airframes out (fatigue life) when we face future threats around the globe, but that's a different thread.
The F/A-18 has superior handling, that's part of why the Blues fly so close, and why their show has some really cool maneuvering, like dirty rolls. They fly older lot F/A-18s, still good, but leave the Super Hornet to those training for combat. That decision makes sense to me.
In the real world, the F-16 lacks some of the multi spectral sensors and ground attack capability of the F/A-18. It certainly lacks the handling of the Hornet. Some blocks of the Viper have great SEAD capability, which the Hornet does not.
They're different, in both intent and mission, and there are a lot of different variants of each airplane. It's overly simplistic to say that the F-16 is better than the Hornet. It's akin to saying the 911 is better than the Ferrari...well...which 911? Which Ferrari?
I appreciate your service as well.
Cheers,
Astro
Good to know. Thanks.
Grampi - I just googled the T-birds. They're flying block 52s, which, when clean (I.e. Not real world) is a phenomenal airplane for thrust/weight.
I question the USAF allocation of your best airplanes to air shows, thus wearing those airframes out (fatigue life) when we face future threats around the globe, but that's a different thread.
The F/A-18 has superior handling, that's part of why the Blues fly so close, and why their show has some really cool maneuvering, like dirty rolls. They fly older lot F/A-18s, still good, but leave the Super Hornet to those training for combat. That decision makes sense to me.
In the real world, the F-16 lacks some of the multi spectral sensors and ground attack capability of the F/A-18. It certainly lacks the handling of the Hornet. Some blocks of the Viper have great SEAD capability, which the Hornet does not.
They're different, in both intent and mission, and there are a lot of different variants of each airplane. It's overly simplistic to say that the F-16 is better than the Hornet. It's akin to saying the 911 is better than the Ferrari...well...which 911? Which Ferrari?
I appreciate your service as well.
Cheers,
Astro
Good to know. Thanks.
https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/
Interesting comparison of the two. Even though the F16 is clearly a better "race plane", that's not all there is to it, in terms of fighting capacity.
Interesting comparison of the two. Even though the F16 is clearly a better "race plane", that's not all there is to it, in terms of fighting capacity.
I would still like to see the B-2 do a fly over at an air show.
F-117 always performed a major air shows.
F-117 always performed a major air shows.
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Malo83
Surely you Jest!
AF pilots are just 9 to 5 fair weather flyers, Navy pilots are all weather pilots that fly a more strict regime, carrier ops is the most demanding of all flying, with three WestPacs under my belt and 22 yrs of Naval aircraft maintenance experience you haven't a clue Grampi.
You're the one with no clue...that, or you've been watching too much Top Gun...Oh yeah, I'm a 22 year AF vet myself...
And how many hours do you have flying the F-16?
Just wondering....
When I mow the lawn I pretend the lawn mower is an F16 ,it helps me get through cutting the lawn without crying. Does that count as loggable hours at the controls?
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Malo83
Surely you Jest!
AF pilots are just 9 to 5 fair weather flyers, Navy pilots are all weather pilots that fly a more strict regime, carrier ops is the most demanding of all flying, with three WestPacs under my belt and 22 yrs of Naval aircraft maintenance experience you haven't a clue Grampi.
You're the one with no clue...that, or you've been watching too much Top Gun...Oh yeah, I'm a 22 year AF vet myself...
And how many hours do you have flying the F-16?
Just wondering....
When I mow the lawn I pretend the lawn mower is an F16 ,it helps me get through cutting the lawn without crying. Does that count as loggable hours at the controls?
Originally Posted By: grampi
Obviously, we have differing opinions on whose pilots are better, and that isn't going to change, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can't argue that the F-16 isn't superior to the F-18 though, that isn't even debatable...
I am not getting in to the differences in the aircraft with my posts.
Obviously, we have differing opinions on whose pilots are better, and that isn't going to change, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You can't argue that the F-16 isn't superior to the F-18 though, that isn't even debatable...
I am not getting in to the differences in the aircraft with my posts.
Originally Posted By: CT8
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Malo83
Surely you Jest!
AF pilots are just 9 to 5 fair weather flyers, Navy pilots are all weather pilots that fly a more strict regime, carrier ops is the most demanding of all flying, with three WestPacs under my belt and 22 yrs of Naval aircraft maintenance experience you haven't a clue Grampi.
You're the one with no clue...that, or you've been watching too much Top Gun...Oh yeah, I'm a 22 year AF vet myself...
And how many hours do you have flying the F-16?
Just wondering....
When I mow the lawn I pretend the lawn mower is an F16 ,it helps me get through cutting the lawn without crying. Does that count as loggable hours at the controls?
Whatever floats your boat...
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Malo83
Surely you Jest!
AF pilots are just 9 to 5 fair weather flyers, Navy pilots are all weather pilots that fly a more strict regime, carrier ops is the most demanding of all flying, with three WestPacs under my belt and 22 yrs of Naval aircraft maintenance experience you haven't a clue Grampi.
You're the one with no clue...that, or you've been watching too much Top Gun...Oh yeah, I'm a 22 year AF vet myself...
And how many hours do you have flying the F-16?
Just wondering....
When I mow the lawn I pretend the lawn mower is an F16 ,it helps me get through cutting the lawn without crying. Does that count as loggable hours at the controls?
Whatever floats your boat...
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/
Interesting comparison of the two. Even though the F16 is clearly a better "race plane", that's not all there is to it, in terms of fighting capacity.
I like planes with bathrooms and a break area. I am at that age.
https://fightersweep.com/2378/hornet-vs-viper-part-four/
Interesting comparison of the two. Even though the F16 is clearly a better "race plane", that's not all there is to it, in terms of fighting capacity.
I like planes with bathrooms and a break area. I am at that age.
Just wondering.... [/quote]When I mow the lawn I pretend the lawn mower is an F16 ,it helps me get through cutting the lawn without crying. Does that count as loggable hours at the controls? [/quote]
Whatever floats your boat... [/quote]Actually ship.
Whatever floats your boat... [/quote]Actually ship.
- Status
Similar threads
