It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Super Hornet guns down the F-22 Raptor

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Okay, for all of those who...thought...my post did not make sense. It's a slogan. It's not necessarily meant to make perfect sense in all forms, whether it be grammar, punctuation, spelling, etc. It's supposed to make you laugh, or it's supposed to make you think. My post absolutely does make sense, for those of you who can get the "humor" behind it.




posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:44 AM
link   
For some reason "I told you so" just doesn't quite do it for me. So I'll let Lt. Col. Shower do the talking while I go do my dance. . Click on the link to read the whole story, yes, that's only a partial quote. Enjoy.


The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly) where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time (I don't know if that's a setup the Navy flies or it might just have been a quick attempt to get a last engagement in if they were low on gas - I don't have that info). The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot (stabilized and enough bullets to cause a kill), it was about 2 or 3 frames (many more required to cause a kill…

LINK


Once again, this is from FenceChek, and "dozerf22" is Lt. Col. Michael Shower.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
WVR rules, I believe the Su-35 to be the deadliest of them all.


I more or less agree with this. It's almost a complete agreement. The only thing I could say is better would be the Su-37 (This is NOT the Berkut, that's the S-37/Su-47), the Su-35 Super Flanker's TVC brother. Russians named it a new aircraft because of a few little mods. That works for me. I would like to see the Russian Su-47 Berkut against a Rap though. BVR the Berkut would get a smacking-down, but WVR I think the Berkut's got the win.



But to the topic at hand, this really proves nothing. If you sent out 1 Raptor against 6 bugs, 1 is bound to pick up above the Raptor and over take him. We don't know the parameters of the excersize, so everything is pure speculation.


Also very true. Because we don't know the parameters of the excersize, all we can do is guess. What he said.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darkpr0
Also very true. Because we don't know the parameters of the excersize, all we can do is guess. What he said.


Uhh… were you for some reason oblivious to my above post? This wasn't an "exercise" it was total BS and it was unrealistic to the nth degree, and it was not even a kill. A Raptor has NEVER been killed in ANY exercise even when its been 1 V 6 or similar odds with simulated double digit SAM's, its exercise record so far is 500+ to 0. Like I said though, you don't have to take my word for it, just click on the link I posted.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:06 AM
link   


He added that the F-15s at Langley “do a real good job” as adversaries, “even though they have a mission to fulfill, and they need to train their pilots just as much as we need to train our pilots.”

Echols, who is also an instructor pilot, said sometimes the F-15s “win” against an F-22, but it is a rare event. When it does, it provides ample fodder for tactics evaluation.

Should the F-22 ever get into a close-in, turning dogfight, it still will have a considerable edge. Despite its large size, the F-22 can turn as tightly as an early model F-16 and can, in fact, sustain a turn at 9.5Gs—a half-G better than any previous fighter. Hecker said the F-22 pilots can stay conscious in such a situation because they also have a new kind of G-suit that covers more of the lower body.



Of course, anything is beatable, but it is very rare. The raptor pilots are getting better at dogfighting, so that same stradgey to get a lucky shot will decrease its chances of happening again when they review it.

That was a F-15 in a simulated Dogfight battle, not a BVR.

The F-22 had a kill ratio in exercise Northern Edge, if I remember around 108 - 0, that is when the F-22's were allowed to raise hell in BVR.

I race atvs, in the 450 class, which is the top class, containing the 450r, yfz and ltr with some hybrids. The 450 class is were the top riders race. Of course, there are some riders who bring a built 240 cc blaster in and beat some 450s on the track, it happens rarly, but that dosnt mean that the 450 is worse then the blaster and should cut production and make just blasters. The 450's dominates every quad on the track, powerwise, handling etc. Oh yah, my 450r's the fastest



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
The F-22 had a kill ratio in exercise Northern Edge, if I remember around 108 - 0, that is when the F-22's were allowed to raise hell in BVR.


Actually in Northern Edge the F-22 has a combined kill ratio of 144-0. And like you said most crews will refuse to exercise with them solely in BVR because it pointless and they get no training, they go up, few minutes later they all die, repeat.

Northern Edge



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Doesn't prove a lot, and could be out of context. I did notice that in the latest press release, an exercise showing [some number]-2 kill ratio in the last week or so. So there were two kills made on Raptors. I'm trying to find an "outside" link to these revised numbers, but haven't seen one yet. ;-)

www.dallasnews.com... -- found it.

However, in these exercises, they put a transponder on the F-22 that makes more "noise" so that the opponent has 1/2 a chance...

Someone earlier made the point about what actually constitutes a "gun" kill, and that's the first thing that popped in my mind as well. A gun "lock" is not a "kill"...not at all.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by Tha Troubleshoota]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Tha Troubleshoota]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:01 PM
link   
"Tha Toublashoota" can you post a link to the source that stated the 122-2 ratio? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
"Tha Toublashoota" can you post a link to the source that stated the 122-2 ratio? Thanks.
Sorry..total misquote. The kill ratio was taken from this article:

www.dallasnews.com...

Not the Alaska deal...

So if you read this one it shows two kills on the Raptor. Still, conditions and set up are a huge factor.

You can bet that was a training scenario where they made things "more interesting" for drill purposes.


[edit on 1-9-2006 by Tha Troubleshoota]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   


In recent exercises over Alaska, the F-22 has been put to the test. The results have been staggering. F-22s notched an impressive 108 to 0 "kill ratio" - often when outnumbered by as much as 8 to 1 by simulated Su-27/30 aircraft.


This is as of 8/7

As of 8/18 it moved to 144-0



I didnt read from any source, that the exercise lost 2 raptors in the simulated battles.


EDIT: ^^^^ sorry posted after u posted
, I was to late

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Laxpla]

[edit on 1-9-2006 by Laxpla]



posted on Sep, 1 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Wait so that source says 241-2, Jeez can't they get their numbers straight?
Anyway, thanks for the link, its funny how the two biggest enemies of the F-22 are the GAO and POGO and not enemy fighters.

Edit: I guess I'm going to have to revise my kill ratio to 500+ to 2 or thereabouts.

[edit on 1-9-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
surely the su-37 can shoot down f-22s but it also depends on the piolets ability not the plane not always here
Su-37 "Super Flanker" Technical Data.
Su-37 Album
DESCRIPTION:
Yet another derivative of the Su-27 family is the Su-37. The Su-37 design incorporates the canards and digital fly-by-wire control system of the Su-35 but also adds axisymmetric steerable nozzles to provide thrust vectoring capability.
The resulting design achieves a level of super-maneuverabilty unmatched by any contemporary fighter. A test pilot reported that the controls are so effective that the aircraft can recover from spins and stalls at almost any altitude. Although the Russian Air Force has shown great interest in the remarkable abilities of the Su-37, it is somewhat doubtful that any will be acquired due to the nation's financial difficulties.
The aircraft may see more success in the export market, which Sukhoi is actively pursuing.



HISTORY:
First Flight 2 April 1996
Service Entry

mid-2005s


CREW: 1 pilot


ESTIMATED COST:

unknown


AIRFOIL SECTIONS:
Wing Root unknown
Wing Tip

unknown


DIMENSIONS:
Length 72.83 ft (22.22 m)
Wingspan 48.17 ft (14.70 m)
Height 21.08 ft (6.43 m)
Wing Area 666 ft2 (62.0 m2)
Canard Area

unknown


WEIGHTS:
Empty 40,785 lb (18,500 kg)
Typical Load 56,590 lb (25,670 kg)
Max Takeoff 74,955 lb (34,000 kg)
Fuel Capacity 29,540 lb (13,400 kg)
Max Payload

17,640 lb (8,000 kg)


PROPULSION:
Powerplant two Saturn/ Lyul'ka AL-31FU afterburningturbofans
Thrust unknown


PERFORMANCE:
Max LevelSpeed at altitude: 1,490 mph (2,400 km/h)at 32,780 ft (10,000 m), Mach 2.3
at sea level:unknown
cruise speed: 870 mph (1,400 km/h) at 32,780 ft (10,000m)
Initial ClimbRate 45,235 ft (13,800 m) / min
ServiceCeiling 59,055 ft (18,000 m)
Range typical: 1,730 nm (3,200km)
ferry: 3,505 nm (6,500 km)
g-Limits +9


ARMAMENT:
Gun one 30-mm GSh-301 cannon (149 rds)
Stations twelve external hardpoints and two wingtiprails
Air-to-AirMissile R-27/AA-10 Alamo, R-73/AA-11 Archer,R-77/AA-12
Air-to-SurfaceMissile unknown
Bomb unknown
Other rocket pods, ECM pods


KNOWN VARIANTS:
Su-37 Prototypes have been built, butthe aircraft has not entered production
Two-seat model has been reportedbut designation unknown


KNOWN COMBATRECORD:

not in service


KNOWN OPERATORS:

not in service
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You have a U2U

Please read it

[edit on 3-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
this is all i got about the f-22 raptor
F-22 Raptor
The F-22 program is developing the next-generation air superiority fighter for the Air Force to counter emerging worldwide threats. It is designed to penetrate enemy airspace and achieve a first-look, first-kill capability against multiple targets. The F-22 is characterized by a low-observable, highly maneuverable airframe; advanced integrated avionics; and aerodynamic performance allowing supersonic cruise without afterburner.

Stealth: Greatly increases survivability and lethality by denying the enemy critical information required to successfully attack the F-22

Integrated Avionics: Allows F-22 pilots unprecedented awareness of enemy forces through the fusion of on- and off-board information

Supercruise: Enhances weapons effectiveness; allows rapid transit through the battlespace; reduces the enemy’s time to counter attack


The F-22's engine is expected to be the first to provide the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound for an extended period of time without the high fuel consumption characteristic of aircraft that use afterburners to achieve supersonic speeds. It is expected to provide high performance and high fuel efficiency at slower speeds as well.
For its primary air-to-air role, the F-22 will carry six AIM-120C and two AIM-9 missiles. For its air-to-ground role, the F-22 can internally carry two 1,000 pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), two AIM-120C, and two AIM-9 missiles. With the Global Positioning System-guided JDAM, the F-22 will have an adverse weather capability to supplement the F-117 (and later the Joint Strike Fighter) for air-to-ground missions after achieving air dominance.


The F-22's combat configuration is "clean", that is, with all armament carried internally and with no external stores. This is an important factor in the F-22's stealth characteristics, and it improves the fighter's aerodynamics by dramatically reducing drag, which, in turn, improves the F-22's range. The F-22 has four under wing hardpoints, each capable of carrying 5,000 pounds. A single pylon design, which features forward and aft sway braces, an aft pivot, electrical connections, and fuel and air connections, is used. Either a 600-gallon fuel tank or two LAU-128/A missile launchers can be attached to the bottom of the pylon, depending on the mission. There are two basic external configurations for the F-22:
Four 600 gallon fuel tanks, no external weapons: This configuration is used when the aircraft is being ferried and extra range is needed. A BRU-47/A rack is used on each pylon to hold the external tanks.
Two 600 gallon fuel tanks, four missiles: This configuration is used after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP). The external fuel tanks, held by a BRU-47/A rack are carried on the inboard stations, while a pylon fitted with two LAU-128/A rail launchers is fitted to each of the outboard stations.
An all-missile external loadout (two missiles on each of the stations) is possible and would not be difficult technically to integrate, but the Air Force has not stated a requirement for this configuration. Prior to its selection as winner of what was then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, the F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990. Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Ca



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   
didnt have any space and had to reply on different posts.hornetF/A-18 Hornet
The F/A-18 "Hornet" is a single- and two-seat, twin engine, multi-mission fighter/attack aircraft that can operate from either aircraft carriers or land bases. The F/A-18 fills a variety of roles: air superiority, fighter escort, suppression of enemy air defenses, reconnaissance, forward air control, close and deep air support, and day and night strike missions. The F/A-18 Hornet replaced the F-4 Phantom II fighter and A-7 Corsair II light attack jet, and also replaced the A-6 Intruder as these aircraft were retired during the 1990s.
The F/A-18 has a digital control-by-wire flight control system which provides excellent handling qualities, and allows pilots to learn to fly the airplane with relative ease. At the same time, this system provides exceptional maneuverability and allows the pilot to concentrate on operating the weapons system. A solid thrust-to-weight ratio and superior turn characteristics combined with energy sustainability, enable the F/A-18 to hold its own against any adversary. The power to maintain evasive action is what many pilots consider the Hornet's finest trait. In addition, the F/A-18 was also the Navy's first tactical jet aircraft to incorporate a digital, MUX bus architecture for the entire system's avionics suite. The benefit of this design feature is that the F/A-18 has been relatively easy to upgrade on a regular, affordable basis.

The F/A-18 has proven to be an ideal component of the carrier based tactical aviation equation over its 15 years of operational experience. The only F/A-18 characteristic found to be marginally adequate by battle group commanders, outside experts, and even the men who fly the Hornet, is its range when flown on certain strike mission profiles. However, the inadequacy is managed well with organic and joint tanking assets.

F/A-18A/B Hornet

While the general configuration of the YF-17 was retained, the F-18 became a completely new airplane. To meet the single-place fighter and attack mission capability, full use was made of new technology in digital computers. Coupled with cathode ray tubes for cockpit displays and appropriate controls based on thorough pilot evaluations in simulators, a single airplane and subsystems configuration for both missions was evolved

During development, two-place trainer versions were added, to be built in limited numbers as TF/A-18s, intermingled with the basic F/As. Minimum changes were made to incorporate the second cockpit, with the two-seat airplanes retaining the ability to perform combat missions.

Making the first flight in November 1978, the F/A-18 and its two-place derivative [subsequently redesignated the F/A-18B] underwent most of their development testing at the Naval Air Test Center under the new single-site testing concept. While much attention was focused on development problems, these were largely typical of those in any new program, with their resolution being part of the development process. For the most part, these occurred in the basic aircraft hardware rather than in the digital electronic systems.
The original F/A-18A (single seat) and F/A-18B (dual seat) became operational in 1983 replacing Navy and Marine Corps F-4s and A-7s. It quickly became the battle group commander's mainstay because of its capability, versatility and availability. Reliability and ease of maintenance were emphasized in its design, and F/A-18s have consistently flown three times more hours without failure than other Navy tactical aircraft, while requiring half the maintenance time.

The Hornet has been battle tested and has proved itself to be exactly what its designers intended: a highly reliable and versatile strike fighter. The F/A-18 played an important role in the 1986 strikes against Libya. Flying from USS CORAL SEA (CV 43), F/A-18s launched high-speed anti-radiation missiles (HARMs) against Libyan air defense radars and missile sites, effectiv



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
and tell me how to paste pictures here and ill give you more info

sorry about crop info



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
WestPoint23,

>>
For some reason "I told you so" just doesn't quite do it for me. So I'll let Lt. Col. Shower do the talking while I go do my dance. . Click on the link to read the whole story, yes, that's only a partial quote. Enjoy.
>>

The Hornet can wheelie in a really impressive way, at or below 15,000ft and .75 Mach. That's the real deal here in that you don't want to get a big airframe into a pig wallow with a smaller one, no matter how nominally 'agile' it is. Inertia effects on all that mass just kills you.

Indeed, Hornets have been beating Eagles _consistently_ since the early 80s (I first heard about it in exercises between Bitburg F-15A and Baden-Solengen CF-18s) simply by keeping the knot clock under 350 and 'commanding the nose lead' as they came through the anchor point. USAF jocks, used to a one/two circle fight just didn't 'get' the ability to command alpha entirely independent of vector as they saw the bottom of Bug noses tracking them from both sides for heat shots and then setting up for guns on the survivor.

The problem being that even the early, lighter, Hornet-As, before they derated the engines, could not play up. So when the fight went to 20-25K and beyond, alls they could do was try to work the Sparrow pole, knowing they were starting 2 shots down and unable to keep up with the Eagles energy.

The key thing to remember here is that, according to test pilot reports, the Super Horror has excellent ability to get the nose up, but very poor ability to bring it back down 'on command' and almost no ability to use loaded roll to reverse through and track out the other side. Bug-1 pilots, especially the later lot numbers with the GE-402 engine, found that they could easily outlast their successor using _energy_ tactics which played towards the high end of the speed range and either ran the Bug-2 out of knots or gas.

Now if a notoriously low energy loaded airframe can out smash it's followon, you know something is bleeped.

It should also be noted that while the Bug-2 has a bigger wing, it is generally accredited with even less high altitude/supersonic performance, as I recall from the article I read, its Ps reserve runs out completely out around Mach 1.15 whereas the Bug-1 still has about 300fps at Mach 1.2.

>>

The Hornet "snap" shot - good story. Happened here at Langley. It was a stock, combat configured F-22 flying a BFM (dogfighting) sortie against an airshow configured, i.e. squeeky clean, not combat configured or loaded, Super Hornet (not at all representative of how it performs with 8 pylons, an EA pod and 4-6 or missiles hanging off the rails and probably a fuel tank or two or their out of gas real quick...). It started from a 9000 foot line abreast 300 knot setup (which AF pilots never fly)
>>

Technically, this doesn't matter so much. You clean the airframe when you get into a 'serious' fight and given the capabilities of the Gen-4 crowd, that is going to be just about every time now. The USN has a tendency to hang onto their weapons and tanks a little longer than they should (see the double MiG-21 kill of ODS), IMO, but the real problem with the Hornet is that it's quite likely it won't have more than 1-2 AMRAAMs just on the basis of what will clear to the outboard pylons in combination with A2G crap and the AAS-46 or ASQ-228 on the opposed fuselage shoulder. If you come into a WVR fight from a disadvantaged BVR one (nose off and/or down, no speed and a lot of expendables already blown), you are in serious trouble.

Having said that, the USAF has not been into head on passes in quite awhile. Red Flag training from the late 80s in particular restricted collision course FQ 'lobotaya' passes for all but the A-10 to minthreshold ranges on the order of 6-10,000ft, depending on airspeed and initial angle off the nose or well above what the gun can be effectively used at.

OTOH, the USN pulls the 'Top Gun' detail rather more often than is reported whereby nobody is allowed to shoot first but it's understood that you WILL allow joinup for escort or things will get serious. Aggressive maneuvering for position from relatively close in and slow starting speeds is thus probably not as unusual for them as one might at first think.

Many would say that this is a relic of Vietnam fighting wherein the squids never went half as far beyond the beach as the USAF drivers did and so rarely saw a MiG-21 or 19 while making better use of heat shots simply because their BVR option seldom was working right.

Others will point out that fighting well from the tactical position you're given most often is the key to success.

To which the only real response possible is that when it comes to killing deep in the other guys sandbox, the USAF gets the nod everytime with their EID BVR intensive doctrine and larger numbers of OCA-only shooters.

>>
...where they turned into each other at the "fights on" call. It's not a scenario we fly because we never find ourselves in those parameters, we try to set up realistic parameters we expect to see in combat - otherwise the lessons learned aren't applicable and while it might be fun it's not a good use of scarce training time (I don't know if that's a setup the Navy flies or it might just have been a quick attempt to get a last engagement in if they were low on gas - I don't have that info).
>>

USAF 'neutral' starting geometry has the breakin as you pass each other's 3/9. This keeps both sides noses out of each others cockpit on a chicken-game basis of flight safety and makes both sides work harder for the tracking shot if that's truly what they are training for. It also rewards the sustained energy maneuver ship because while the Hornet can do a 'pirouhette' maneuver that esssentially swaps ends on jet, it has no smash left to control the nose/gunline with and is obvious as a no-speed, flat-plated, tell from early on. Play up and out or reverse back across (2-circle) on the fight plane and he can't keep the nose up enough to kill you.

Probably.

Conventional (horizontal) max nosehose efforts also runs one out of knots around a quarter to a third of the way around the circle (90-120`) and so again, the Bug loses because it can't add altitude at a constant G or windup on G to max rate-around the circle like the EM optimized USAF aircraft do.

>>
The Hornet pilot gave up everything he had to point at the Raptor and take a snap shot - it was NOT a tracking shot (stabilized and enough bullets to cause a kill), it was about 2 or 3 frames (many more required to cause a kill…
>>

Duuh. The question being what would have happened if he had had an AIM-9X and HMCS to trade off the just-shy-of-worthless gun for. HOBS makes the visual arena a real game of Russian Roulette. Assuming you both come into the fight 'equally surprised', -sometimes- you can beat the head mounted computer by doing something so crazy you are just not where he expects you to be as he lets off on the initial G pull for setup and can start looking around again.

But if (another advantage to starting from lower speeds) he keeps eyes-on with you and has a weapon that will follow the helmet with decent boresight overlay and latency suppression, _you're dead_.

This will never change so long as the airframe cannot outmanever the missile. Or dazzle it off the rail with a laser and EVERY pilot knows it. But because dogfighting is still perceived to be an important element of ACM and in particular an important (synthesis) 'artistic' differentiation between humans and machine logic, nobody will admit openly that, because they are in the airplane, they handicap it's abilities to win the WVR fight almost to the level of dice-toss outcomes.

Myself, the only way I would ever play the WVR game is if I could grab somebodies nose from a long ways out and drag him around for my wingman to shoot as he planforms himself. Preferably from below the other guys sill line.



posted on Sep, 3 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Uhh… were you for some reason oblivious to my above post?


Yes- The actual article was written about 20 minutes before, but I had to click the button and run. Blasted groceries. Unfortunately the button wasn't clicked "properly", and I had to post it when I came back which was substantially later.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Is it true that a super hornet can take down a 22. I figured that a 22 can take down the super hornet in a dog fight but know that I saw for my shelf, I think that it can be done. Of course, it isn't the jet that can do it it is the piloet that can make it happen. If I hade to put money on it I would have to say that it might be ever or 50/50. Please tell me if you agree with me on this. Thank you.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Hey...If you want more info on the 22 than go to www.fighter-planes.com, than click on 2000-2010.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 06:15 PM
link   
I have something. I looked at the pic and something looked wrong to me. Finally it hit me.

The picture shows the G meter at the lower left at 7.6G. Normal, no?

No.

The Super Hornet's flight computer limits it to 7.5G.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join