Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

High-Flying Troubles - United States Air Force safety record (F-16)

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by The Winged Wombat
 



iskander,

Thanks for ascribing other peoples quotes to me in your reply, you're really on the ball, sunshine.


Yeah, no problem, feel free to re-read this post of mine;


It looks like since The Winged Wombat edited hid post I’ve mixed up the replies. Oh well.


The ATS window is too small for my eyes, so I type in a word processors, and since I was distracted for some time, when I began typing my reply to your original post, you changed it so much that I could not make heads of tails of it.

If you want to insist that it’s my problem, I don’t care, do what ever you want.


Don't twist the facts about what you don't know. When the F-16 was new (just like F-22 right now) the US did not want to export it to all and sundry.


You got a source for that? Because I do;


When Janet's (Laura Dern) pilot husband, Ted (Vincent Spano), is killed in a military plane crash, the Air Force rules that the tragedy was caused by pilot error. Knowing Ted's skills as an aviator, Janet doesn't buy the story and sets out to uncover the truth. Although she's met with resistance at every turn, Janet is determined to get to the bottom of the mystery and make those who are accountable pay.


www.netflix.com...

WATCH IT, and find out for your self why initially F-16A could not be exported. They had such massive software/engine/FBW problems that they could not even put together a completed maintenance program.


They offered a number of alternatives to many foreign nations instead. Those alternatives included F-20 (and made it single engined to more closely match F-16 capabilities inferring, wouldn't you think that the twin engined F-5 was already inferior to F-16) as well as J79 and F101 engined F-16s (both built and flight tested as FMS alternatives).


Try to think why the “F101 engined F-16s” were considered as viable export versions.


The FACT is that customer nations flatly refused to buy any of those options collectively and individually and eventually got the F-16 (including nations such as Pakistan - subsequently embargoed, but recently delivered).


As an issue of unified logistics and supply with a predictable operational costs. Why it is these days’ people don’t even have a concept of how to ask WHY?


A situation where F-16 was the only thing on offer simply DID NOT EXIST - it was quite the opposite! The FACT that every customer nation rejected F-20 in favor of F-16 tells everyone (except possibly you) that the F-16 was superior!


F-20 had NO SUPPORT! It had to be built/organized from scratch, which in turn will inflate the bottom operational cost over F-16s operational cost.

When will people finally grasp Napoleons conclusion: “An army marches on its stomach”.


The matter of the AFTI program is well documented and the reasons for not incorporating those capabilities into newer aircraft are well known (apparently by everyone else but you). Yet you off-handedly dismiss the results of the tests as if you were there and actually flew the aircraft.


90 percent success rate is good enough for me. As for how the collected hardware/software data was used to improve the F-35 remains to be seen.



(Show me your logbook and I'll show you mine!) Your other comments tell me otherwise, I'm afraid.


Gezz, played “doctor” much in pre-school. Are you twin engine certified?


So by all means continue bending all the facts that you want to fit your deluded argument - but you can do it without my further input, that's for sure.

Cheers Wankel Man.


Well that’s just, to put it nicely, less then mature. I wish you the best, keep at it.




posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 



You really believe an F-16 is more demanding than a MiG-21 to fly? Wow.


By “touchy” I meant “white glove” maintenance requirements and software bugs.


The F-16 is one of the best multi-role fighters ever. And has been so for many years now.


On our side of the pond, sorry, F/A-18 is.


And they also look great...in the centre of a HUD with the gun cue on top of them...


Gun on top of whom?


"Walk of shame" is for those who exploit emotional situations such as a family's loss to forward their agenda...


That’s just low Willard856. People died, it’s a fact, and you attempting to make it look like it’s my agenda when I simply state a fact, is simply unbecoming a gentlemen.

The “walk of shame” I was referring it is the required clearing of the strip from debris so they wont be sucked into delicate engines, and so people don’t have to die when they are trying to take off and fly a mission to serve their country.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

By “touchy” I meant “white glove” maintenance requirements and software bugs.


Well that's not how it read. Seems to be a common theme here of people not understanding what it is you mean.


On our side of the pond, sorry, F/A-18 is.


I said one of the best. Considering my background, I think we can safely assume that the F/A-18 is my personal favourite in the multi-role stakes, but I can appreciate other types such as the F-16 and Su-30MKI as the fantastic jets they are.


Gun on top of whom?


As in some great weapon system video I've got of an F-16 falling victim to a gun snap.


That’s just low Willard856. People died, it’s a fact, and you attempting to make it look like it’s my agenda when I simply state a fact, is simply unbecoming a gentlemen.

The “walk of shame” I was referring it is the required clearing of the strip from debris so they wont be sucked into delicate engines, and so people don’t have to die when they are trying to take off and fly a mission to serve their country.


Oh please, since you've been on ATS you've been nothing but rude and obnoxious, especially to those with relevant service experience who disagree with your point of view. Your agenda is clear, your use of the Afterburner film and the loss of aircrew is a play on emotions because it suits you this time. If you were sticking to the "facts", there would be no need to play that angle. You'll find the members of the aircraft forum a little more discerning in their expectations of what people present on here. Threads that present known, well documented facts, with little or no discussion value, and where the poster isn't prepared to justify their position but instead belittles and attacks members, will get the kind of responses that this thread has.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by thebozeian
 



And as you are obviously not an aircraft engineer and therefore familiar with much of the terminology this may help understand the concept.


Wow you are full of assumptions. Assumption is a naturall enemy of a question, because after questions learning is soon to follow.

No, I’m not an aircraft engineer, but one of my good old friend is, and have been since I was 15 years old.

Back in 97 he took me to the Boeing plant to show fun stuff around, and I’m betting I’ve been closer to aircraft engineering then you have.

Did I hear something about 777 crashing? Back in 97 I seem to remember that they were so behind schedule that I’ve seen the entire rig being tested with out grounding, a big FAA no no.


But bare in mind that relaxed static stability has nothing to do with the F-16 specifically but is a general term as the idea can be applied to any aircraft design, even a civilian airliner if the need was there.


Thanks for the lesson, I’ll keep it in mind, how do I find wikipedia again?

Relaxed Static Stability - that’s way over my head, I’ll just stick to Sopwith Triplane, Fokker DR1 and Polikarpov I-16, thanks though.



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 



Not the fins themselves, the results of the trials (and similar ones on the other planes I mentioned) and the data gained were incorporated into the designs of the next generation fighters, they don't have to look the same to make use of the knowledge gained, there's more than one way to skin a cat.


Well, as far as I remember data was supposed to be integrated into F-35 project. How then went I just don’t know.


No, you said one of the biggest faults with the F-16 was that it is a FBW controlled unstable fighter with ony one fin and engine, I can see the logic in preferring two engines to one because of failure rates, but what does being an unstable FBW aircraft have to do with it? If FBW is going to make you crash you can have as many engines as you like, it wont save you.


Unreliable engine, FBW software bugs and wire chafing is what going to get pilots killed.


But if someone is discussing single engined Jets and they refer to a 'Corsair', the aircraft in question is obvious, only someone being deliberately obtuse would play the 'if you don't say 'Corsair II' I don't know what you mean" card, and yet when you say something that is actually far removed from what you meant (rotary) we are all supposed to know instantly what you meant to say, double standards?


What do you want from me? I already explained my self TWICE on a NON ISSUE. Are you obsessive compulsive and just can’ move on? I know a guy that won’t speak to you if your shoe laces are tied unevenly, and he’s a physics professor. Get over it. Watch a Monk episode.


If someone is talking about modern jet fighters and they mention the Typhoon, you wouldn't assume they meant the 1941-45 Hawker Typhoon unless you were being deliberately awkward or unusually thick, would you?


I’m beginning to feel like I’m cornered in a library and starring at a double barrel shot gun while being told about the very reason behind the existence of dewey decimal system.

Or similarly, just replace the librarian with a disgruntled postal worker who’s explaining the virtues of mail sorting through a bullhorn held in one hand, and making sure his point is getting across by holding an AK in another.

Can we please be done with this?


And since the discussion is all about *jets* , why wouldn't you realise which one was being referred to? Surely your faculties would allow you to figure it out rather quickly, given the actual subject under discussion.


Do you consider water boarding to be torture? Because at this point I’m willing to try it on my self. Are you a dentist? Confess!!



posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 



Well that's not how it read. Seems to be a common theme here of people not understanding what it is you mean.


You generalize often? People? How a bout a coalition? Got a name list? A line in the sand?

Fllacyfiles.org


I said one of the best. Considering my background, I think we can safely assume that the F/A-18 is my personal favourite in the multi-role stakes, but I can appreciate other types such as the F-16 and Su-30MKI as the fantastic jets they are


With the slight distinction that twin engine F/A-18 and twin engine Flanker tend to stay in the air and not crash.


As in some great weapon system video I've got of an F-16 falling victim to a gun snap.


I’d like to see it.


Oh please, since you've been on ATS you've been nothing but rude and obnoxious, especially to those with relevant service experience who disagree with your point of view.


How have I been rude and obnoxious? I would appreciate a quote, because other then occasional sarcastic remark, I keep my manners with me at all times.


Your agenda is clear, your use of the Afterburner film and the loss of aircrew is a play on emotions because it suits you this time.


My “agenda”? “Play on emotions”? It’s not a play, it HAPPENED, it’s a FACT, and talking about it is not an agenda, it’s what ATS is - DENYING IGNORANCE!

Suits me at this time? That is simply insulting. If you care to imply that mentioning the struggle of those families to clear the names of the pilots is something that “suits me”, then I say you are taking a side of the corrupt corporation that was busy covering its but by destroying evidence and claming pilot error.


If you were sticking to the "facts", there would be no need to play that angle


You are good. “Angle?” What is my “angle”? What is the prize of me bringing up the FACTS presented in that film? I didn’t make the film! I only brought up its existence!


You'll find the members of the aircraft forum a little more discerning in their expectations of what people present on here.


Another club? May I have the name list of the exclusive members? Because naturally it represents recognition of authority, right?


Threads that present known, well documented facts, with little or no discussion value, and where the poster isn't prepared to justify their position but instead belittles and attacks members, will get the kind of responses that this thread has.


Mr. Willard856, I appreciate the show, but I’ve seen it long before. Your post is a gold mine for FallayFiles.org examination.

What attack and belittlement are you speaking of?

I do have to say that you put up a well constructed facade, and while it does fool an average infotainment “consumer”, I used to spin it for a living, so please feel free to shift a gear, down from personal, and back to the topic.

Like this;


Saab Gripen

unstable - FBW , 1 engine and 1 fin - don`t see them falling out of the sky


I do agree, the Sweeds have done it right, how many Saabs crashed from catastrophic engine/FBW failures? And why?



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 02:58 AM
link   
iskander,

While I have no further wish to make any comment on the subject of this thread, I would like to raise a couple of general points.

Firstly, early in this thread you stated that ATS was all about conspiracy. While certain sections of ATS certainly are based on conspiracy, there are other sections where people gather to discuss technology, theology and other matters. I might suggest that a person who sees conspiracy in everything, might, at the very least be a little paranoid.

Secondly, of all the aviation threads in which you have participated, how often have you found support for your view, rather than collective condemnation? Where in this thread is there one word of support for your theory? Considering that many of the participants on the aviation thread have spent 20, 30 and even 40 years in that industry, one simply must ask you if you think that everyone else in the aviation/defense industries of all the world (including those who participate in these threads) is, in comparison with yourself, an abject idiot?

Wow, how did we poor sad simpletons ever progress beyond the Wright Flyer?

Alternatively, do you think that we are part of a conspiracy ourselves? When you realize that contributors here are from the US, Canada, Australia, Britain, India and China among other places then it must sure be one hell of a conspiracy, my friend. You would be inferring that the whole world is conspiring against - who - the whole world? Or is it just you that the whole world is conspiring against?

The Winged Wombat



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 
There was absolutely no need for that sarcasm. However thankyou for taking part in a little experiment I was conducting, unfortunately on one hand you failed and on the other you also unfortunately passed.

You see I was being polite and attempting to explain the issue of relaxed static stability which you saw as a contradictory term, when if you were actually an aircraft engineer or pilot or even bothered to do a quick bit of research there would be no need to question this, hence my reply when you said this

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 destabilize.
THIS was both an olive branch if you had accepted it and said something mature like "Ok I didn't know that I'll read up on it..". AND a rather long piece of rope with which to very publicly hang yourself. As I was sadly expecting, you once again chose the later. So no I didn't actually ASSUME as you put it because it was a sure fire bet ....

Mod Edit: Play nice please


Back in 97 he took me to the Boeing plant to show fun stuff around, and I’m betting I’ve been closer to aircraft engineering then you have.
*Mod Edit*
I AM an aircraft engineer so thanks for insulting my intelligence with that stupid what is that word now? Oh yeah... assumption.
And I fail to see how doing a tour of the (presumably) main assembly hall over ten years ago with a friend gives you the expertise or right to slag off at people who actually work in the industry.


Thanks for the lesson, I’ll keep it in mind, how do I find wikipedia again?
I dont know why I am bothering but to make the point that R.S.S. is not that unusual. It can be said that a 747 is unstable and has a form of R.S.S. as for example, without the yaw damper system and roll control spoilers a 747 would in the former quickly become uncontrolable from "dutch roll" even in level flight, and in the later almost impossible to safely and effectively turn and bank. In other words it is actually naturally unstable without these compensating systems much like the F-16.


Relaxed Static Stability - that’s way over my head, I’ll just stick to Sopwith Triplane, Fokker DR1 and Polikarpov I-16, thanks though.
Then why question its validity as a concept in the first place? And why start up with the sarcasm in the quote imediately above this one when a simple answer was provided?

And here is a reply to two things you said in other people's posts.

How have I been rude and obnoxious? I would appreciate a quote, because other then occasional sarcastic remark, I keep my manners with me at all times.
Certainly, here is an example of what you said to me in one of your own threads the other day.

You know, usually I’m very polite about such things, but please feel free to shove that crap right up the place where your ignorance resides, and I don’t care if a mod deletes this.

I you are looking for piss!ng contest, go and play with the diaper wearing crowd, because it’s not going to happen here.
Link Seems pretty damn rude and obnoxious to most people.
I'm glad a mod didn't delete it as it shows you at your (nearly) ugliest. Not that it matters, as there are loads more you have posted.

And finally from this very thread in reply to a request from Wombat who can no longer be bothered talking with you.


(Show me your logbook and I'll show you mine!) Your other comments tell me otherwise, I'm afraid.





Gezz, played “doctor” much in pre-school. Are you twin engine certified?
Yes, he most definitely has been military twin certified as oppposed to being a PC armchair warrior pilot. And your credentials are what now??

And quite frankly like everyone eventually will, I can no longer be bothered dealing with you either. All your'e interested in is arguing and scoring petty points no reasonable and sane person would bother with, nor it seems understand. Anyone else disagree?

LEE.

[edit on 23-1-2008 by thebozeian]

[edit on 1/23/08 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Ahem

please stay ON topic and cease the eprsonal attacks (This means everybody)

Note this means the safety record fo the F-16 NOT wankel powered cars, WWII Carrier aircraft etc.

Thanks
FredT



posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Its sorta sad how messy these topics can become but I do think that many good points have been brought up about the 16 and its issues that are both good and bad. Can we try and summarize key points? If there is a need to back them up after words or later on thats fine but a list of bullet pointed issues is needed for people to understand what you are saying is the issues. Such as:

FBW.... (what is the problem? inherent instability/lack of control or is this all about the wiring?)
Single engine....(what is different then other AC or is it just in general)



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 12:03 AM
link   
So here we are boys. Why don’t you just cut the crap, and get some embroider jackets, so when you bully around, the folks will know you by the name of your gang.

I’ve been dealing with this all my life, and got the scars dating back to middle school to keep my memory fresh on the fact that a bully is just a victim of an abusive family or lack there of.

I sure got the crap knocked out of me on regular bases, but I also put in some good ones in a while, but not for my sake, for the sake of the kids that the bullies picked on because of their own inferiority complex.

The Winged Wombat, thebozeian, FredT, keep your club going, keep ganging up on people that disagree with you bullish behavior, but I gotta tell you, the one lesson I did not learned to this day, is to mind my own business even when I’m outnumbered and outgunned, and that’s because I’m just not accustomed to backing down when a few characters with inferiority complex decide to get together so they can push other people around.

You guys obviously want to make it personal, to bring up credentials, etc, so if you want to go that route, I’ll set some conditions.

The price is permanent and voluntary abolishment from ATS.

Remember Howard Hues? He said that he’ll leave the country and never come back because his good name was being dragged though the mud as a target of a coordinated smear campaign.

If you care to go that way, I’m all for it, because I know that your goals is for me just to go away so you can continue keeping up the façade that everything is just fine and dandy.

Your move, becasue I'm Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:40 AM
link   
If you wish to file a complaint about any actions that you feel were unwarranted, please feel free to use the Complain/Suggestion Box

*Mod Edit - Removed off topic post.*

[edit on 1/24/08 by niteboy82]



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander

Your move, becasue I'm Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.


No, you're a paranoid pseudo-intellectual who posted a crappy thread. You certainly belong on ATS, because rather than considering the possibility that (shudder) you might be the one with the problem, you come out making yourself into a martyr, with the big bad world up against you. I actually find your post sad in many ways, you obviously have lots of issues to deal with. I've had many arguments with the people that you seem to think of as a gang, but our disagreements, while occasionally heated, are always conducted with a level of respect.

If by gang you mean passionate, well rounded participants in the aircraft forum, then yep, we're a gang. The difference is, instead of engaging in polite, well informed debate, you come in swinging, treat those who disagree with you with contempt, and when things don't go your way you start crying foul and bemoaning bullying tactics (your run-in with Bios is another classic example of this). Maybe it is time for you to take a step back, look at yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself if the problem really is with the membership here, or with yourself, your writing style, and the way you talk to people. I've been here a few years now, and I've never seen unified condemnation about a poster's attitude and writing as I've seen in this thread.

And I don't care if your clean the toilets at Lockheed Martin, if you have a valid point of view and discussion topic, and treat others with a modicum of respect, I'm all ears. Credentials mean little to me as I know quite a few well credentialed people who's opinion I wouldn't bet on if they were running solo in the Melbourne Cup. So if you're willing to inject some maturity, respect and quality analysis into your posts, I'm more than willing to discuss them. I actually think you have a good knowledge on a number of issues, and are reasonably well informed. But all of that counts for little if all I get in response to a counter point is sneering, belittling and cries of having "to do homework", "deny ignorance" or "address you as Sir" because I disagree with you. And if you can't do that, don't be surprised if people don't want to post in your threads.

On topic (for something different):

I had a look at the Gripen figures today. From what I can tell, they have lost three aircraft so far, out of about 200 odd produced. The Falcon has of course greater numbers of losses. F-16net has a rundown of losses and accidents for USAF Vipers, but these aren't seperated into mechanical error or pilot error, so would require going through the 400 odd accidents, and then compare the mechanical failures to the total number in USAF service over the life of type (about 2500 total). Then I guess a comparison could be done. Even if we assume at least 50% mechanical losses, the loss rate was something like 8% to the Gripens 1.5% (based on very hasty calculations, so don't take these as read!). Still a substantial difference. The next question is what is the accident rate based on total flight hours for type (ie if the USAF do substantially more flying, then you would expect the accident rate to be higher). Other contributors could be the fact the F-16 was cutting edge tech at the time, while the Gripen benefited from lessons learned the hard way. This is, of course, speculation on my behalf, but a few thoughts for (hopefully good) discussion.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 



Maybe it is time for you to take a step back, look at yourself in the mirror, and ask yourself if the problem really is with the membership here, or with yourself, your writing style, and the way you talk to people. I've been here a few years now, and I've never seen unified condemnation about a poster's attitude and writing as I've seen in this thread.


Willard856, one of the people I consider as one of my good friends is an attorney that specifically works on capital punishment cases. That’s after 3 decades of working as a prosecutor and a DA.

When you tell me to take a step back and look in the mirror, you do so with out knowing a damn thing about me, and therefore I’ll answer you this way.

I don’t have to look in the mirror because when I see my eyes the memories come flooding in. The days of pimple popping and vanity are long gone for me, I lived long enough to have regrets, and with full understanding of the mistakes I’ve made which took a heavy toll on the lives of many. I’ve shed blood, I’ve seen people get violently killed, and at this point death is almost a companion. Just three weeks ago it made a yet another visit and took another loved one.


I've been here a few years now, and I've never seen unified condemnation about a poster's attitude and writing as I've seen in this thread.


We’ll I’ve been around for a few years my self, and I’ve seen my share of people brave enough to take a stand and say it how it is at the cost of incredibly sacrifice all while the crowd condemns them and makes a mockery of everything they can.

Have you seen the movie called “The Insider”? How about Watergate and “deepthroat”? Those words were not so “popular” as well, yet some feel that they were worth saying and fighting for.

Since you have been a part of this community for so long, please advise, how would I go about the concerns which I described in my post above?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   
On the offending post you can hit the alert button, which then gives you an opportunity to state your case in a thread that is available to mods only. The topic will be discussed, an outcome reached, and action taken if deemed necessary. That said, I've used the feature before and not got a response, so if you feel that strongly about it, you can always u2u a mod, or if really pissed, the owners of the site. Mark has always responded to any u2us I've sent him. But really, if it was me, I'd u2u Fred and discuss it in private first.

As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say. You think you're Robinson Crusoe in the killing stakes? Not by a long shot these days. Our little sojourn into the Middle-East has given plenty of Australian servicemen and women the opportunity to experience the joys of post-traumatic stress disorder. How this relates to you doing some critical self-analysis is beyond me. And you're right, I don't know much about you - other than how you present yourself on here. And based on that you give me no choice but to form the opinion that I have (and that others apparently have). Prove me wrong.

And as for the whole insider and watergate thing, you still don't get that in this thread you have posted nothing new, nothing that everybody didn't already know, or is on the public record (in fact a telemovie no less). Hell, I had to stimulate the discussion for you. Not exactly watergate material, is it? You really do seem to have a persecution complex. And you know what? I actually tried in my last post to get this thread back on topic, which as the OP I would have thought was in your interest. But you just glossed that by. If you're not interested in your own thread, why should we be?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 03:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Willard856
 


re Gripen - 5 have been lost in total - 3 in swedish service , 1 prototype and 1 production aircraft ; delivered but not in service

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by iskander
 


iskander I think that I have made some head way with you in being able to talk about some of your opinions on the threads in the past month but then when this thread came out I wasn't so sure about why you where posting the info? I suggested how this could move back to your OP but instead you attack FredT who is doing his job and saying what needs to be said when things turn into attacks on other posters and jabs are made repeatedly at their intelligence. THAT IS NOT WHAT ATS IS FOR.

Your right you do know about the subject your talking about and guess what not everyone is going to agree with you! I don't always agree but I have tried to see where your coming from and then posted to further the thread.

If you want to you can talk to some mods but I think your going to find that the tone and why in which you have dealt with people on these forums disrupts and just pushes people away from discussion and into just leaving which isn't what ATS is for. ATS as I understand it is a place to post information and have intelligent talks about opinions on said information all the while respecting others if they disagree and continuing a polite dialogue.

Its hardest to do this and remain polite when one person feels attacked and if all of this and the way you reply to people is due to your introduction to this forum and one person personally attacking you and you thinking thats ok to do. Then I'm personally sorry as I have for the past 3 years viewed this place (though not perfect) as a great place to people who enjoyed my same fav subject AVIATION. Its what in the end I have in common with some of my most disliked posters and its what I have to understand in order to remain pleasant with other posters and to not become disliked due to lashing out at others.

feel free to U2U me and I'll do my best to help create understanding between you and mods like Fred, but I think you understand me when I say the words and interaction that you have had with others is what they will focus on.



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


So the list of reasons for the Gripen crashes is as follows :

-pilot-induced oscillation (PIO)
-aircraft stalled after a slow speed manoeuver during a display
-G-suit may have interfered with the ejector seat handle
-plane ended up in an inverted (upside-down) superstall
-passed through the other plane's wake vortex



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
reply to post by Harlequin
 


So the list of reasons for the Gripen crashes is as follows :

-pilot-induced oscillation (PIO)
-aircraft stalled after a slow speed manoeuver during a display
-passed through the other plane's wake vortex
-plane ended up in an inverted (upside-down) superstall
-G-suit may have interfered with the ejector seat handle



-pilot-induced oscillation (PIO) - software glitch was the cause of the over compensation on the prototype - see the 1992 crash of the F22 raptor - same thing

www.youtube.com...

video of the event


aircraft stalled after a slow speed manoeuver during a display

www.youtube.com...

^^ video as well


looks like attempting cobra but too slow IMO - pilot error on that one.

passed through the other plane's wake vortex

looks like an ACM accident - steep down angle which was thrown out by passing through the other aircrafts vortex which prompted the computer for an ejection warning - looks like teh computer has been updated

plane ended up in an inverted (upside-down) superstall

hmmm entering a loop too slowly even after applying afterburner - engines take time to `spool up` stalled inverted at the top of the loop and a part trained pilot couldn`t recover - IMO pilot error big time.

G-suit may have interfered with the ejector seat handle

hmmm apparantly the legs of the suit caught on teh ejection handle - so did the pilot tighten it up properly?



posted on Jan, 24 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Iskander, sorry if being asked the same question bores you, the only reason for it is that you never really answered it satisfactorily, however, as Fred pointed out, that is not the subject of the thread so I will let it pass and get back onto the main subject.

The main problem with your claim over the F-16 is that your case contains certain untruths that prove nothing on their own, but do undermine the validity of the rest of it, for instance, when writing of the origin of the F-16;




Prime contender was the excellent, no-nonsense, reliable, easily maintained twin engine F-5, which was specifically aimed to replace the troublesome single engine F-104,


This is completely untrue. The F-5 was never a rival with the F-16, nor was either the F-5 or the F-16 anything to do with replacing the F-104.

you also later wrote;


how about the irony that Iran purchased over a 100 F-5s during the 70s, a TWIN engine fighter which before F-16 ever made its first flight, was more reliable, maneuverable, easily maintained, and all around better aircraft.

If equipped with modern gear the Iranian "Saegheh" by design outperforms the F-16.


still later in the thread you claim that the F-5 is aerodynamically superior to the F-16.

What is the justification for these claims, where is the evidence? I even asked you this question straight out but you just ignored it

The F-5 (as the N-156F) originated in the mid 1950's as a cheap export fighter and Northrop had long since moved beyond it by the time the YF-16 was created, Northrops own alternative was the YF-17 which had no commonality with the earlier design and which became the F-18 eventually. The F-104 had long since disappeared from the USAF inventory and when the European operators of the F-5 and F-104 were looking to replace their aircraft they CHOSE the F-16, why would they do this if the F-5 (in service with Holland and Norway) was superior?

I understand what you are saying about the deaths of pilots due to errors that were known about , but the gist of it reads just like a pro Northrop/anti F-16 propaganda piece with bold statements made with nothing to back them up.

Yes accidents happened, yes claims were made and won. But this happens all over the world with all types of planes. If you are making the point that the F-16 is a special case can you do any better than offer up a TVM, which is like offering up JFK as proof of the Kennedy assassination plot, or of stating that a generation older and obsolete type should have been bought instead?

Like I proposed earlier, shouldn't the case be not that the F-16 is faulty, but that GD or Lockheed and the USAF didn't react properly to the issue?





new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join