reply to post by The Winged Wombat
OK, you hate everything about F-16, so I'll just engage only a couple of points.
Hate? It kills its own pilots, I don’t have it, I cal it for what it is, an “unsafe: appliance. When a curling iron short circuits and
electrocutes a teenage girl, and that happens over 300 timers, a factory recall is issued and company is sued.
It’s not about “hate”, it’s about REALITY.
Firstly, do you imagine that those responsible for military aircraft acquisitions are absolute idiots (including the very professional
Israelis) ? If the F-16 as flawed as you say, then, pray tell, is it still such a salable item on the international market?
I don’t have to image, I just have to pop a DVD in and have another laugh (AND CRY) at how the Pentagon really works.
Neflix “Pentagon Wars” and see for your self. Yes, inferior, unsafe, and down right dangerous equipment is and has been forced upon various NATO
Israelis would not buy the Bradley the way it was configure for US Army, so they DEMANDED changes to be made or they simply could not afford to put
their troops inside the damn thing, so when California plant was manufacturing Bradley it had two assembly lines, one with standard “death traps”,
and the other for export with the life saving changes forced by the Israelis.
The F-5G / F-20 was NEVER intended to be purchased by American forces, but was developed, using Federal funding for FMS when other nations
totally rejected downgraded F-16s (specifically older engines). The F-20 was also rejected by foreign customers on two grounds, firstly that it was
not to be in US domestic service (a situation that means there is little likelihood of ongoing upgrades), and secondly that it was inferior to the
F-16. They held out for F-16 and got them!
Not really. The fact that F-5 was dumped by USAF under lobbyist pressure which in turn sealed its fate and future upgrades/logistical support is
true, but how do you figure that F-16A was superior to F-20?
F-16 was the ONLY choice, that about it.
Why not? You made the connection between a FBW unstable fighter with only a single fin and engine, not me.
I didn’t make the connection, engineers that built it did.
The exercise you describe was an example of Relaxed Static Stability, allowing the plane to sideslip in a controlled manner. As I said, this
was a move to deliberately destabilise the aircraft (in the lateral axis in this case)
Does anybody else see a contradiction in that statement?
Relaxed Static Stability in order to “deliberately destabilize”?
In that case, ALL control surfaces on the aircraft are there to “destabilize”, kind of like a steering wheel in the car, it’s there to
I see that since I came back to the topic you have edited your post significantly, so I’ll try to keep with it as mch as I can, while keeping what I
already wrote in response.
but were control experiments aimed at the next generation of fighters then in the planning stages and the results of these trials are used
today on the F-22 and Typhoon amongst others.
How are they used? I’m not aware of any fighter that uses front mounted vertical fins.
Lets go back, in this discussion on single engined *jets*, Jezza mentioned the Corsair. You, for some reason interpreted this as being the F4U
Because Corsair II is usually referred to as A-7, just as the Intruder is an A-6. Corsair is the original F4U, as jezza later clarified.
No but you dismissed it as an irrelevance, if something you say leads to a misunderstanding then it is fair enough to correct it,
No, I did not make a spelling error in reference to the rotary/radial engine as you have implied.
'the pipper on the target' was an abject failure when it came to practical usefulness.
That I’m having real hard time believing in, since I’ve seen the side by side gun videos, all of which showed a three fold increase in accuracy
and target acquisition/engagement capability increase.
The rest of your post has been completely changed, so I’ll just stick to the point;
I might be a little thick, but since YOU started the thread concerning (in part) single v twin engined JETS, how do you explain confusing the
radial engined WWII Corsair with the turbofan powered Corsair (with or without the 'II') as a preoccupation with a Wankel engined car. Or am I
confusing that with a Wanker powered car? But I do sometimes get 'Wanker and Wankel' mixed!
If that’s the extent of you attempt for creative humor, keep working on it, it’s not a complete disaster.
As I clearly pointed out before, the Corsair is a “radial” piston powered carrier operated fighter/bomber, while Corsair II (2), which is knows as
A-7, is in fact a turbofan powered jet.
Yet again, jezza cleared that one up a few posts before, get with it.
If you enjoy nitpicking at insignificant and non relevant issues, why are you here?